National Trust sued

[felixthelogchopper]

Thanks for the cricket link;

 

here's details of the case

 

Miller v Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Lord Dennings lyrical opening is very interesting.

 

Glad to see common sense prevailed, even if it did take the court of appeal to see it.

 

Although perhaps this was the more specific case you were thinking of;

 

Bolton v Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Nope, Miller v Jackson is the case. Classic LD ramble

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

why is it easier to place blame than defend the environment?

[Andy Collins]

Because for every action, there must be a reaction.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Im oing to have my last will amendments, that if my death is as a result of a falling tree or part there of no man nor comapny shall be sued and that my money should go to a green and charitable trust.

[PhilBeech]

To suggest that trees are as dangerous as lumps of steel weighing up to 44 tons doing 30mph upwards, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

 

I would have to agree with that, I am sick to death of trees being unnecessarily felled in the interests of safety.

 

Shame it doesn't work the other way and the thousands of people responsible for mechanical damage to trees aren't shot

[b101uk]

thats the biggest pile of BS ive heard, 2220 deaths would oocur if we banned the car? I dont bloody think so! maybe the 220 on the end if that. i dont check the trees i walk under despite having had a few near misses (only because I seek out neglected ancient woodland areas riddle with fungi!)

 

I am unafraid of trees, because i know how rare an event it is for one to fail. it is usualy VERY obvious which ones are TRULY a threat, and we undervalue our inherant "instinct" to risk.

 

the trouble with these cases is they generate a reaction that goes so far the other way as to be obscene and it is the environment that suffers in these cases.

 

1 in 10,000,000 chance, so low in fact the HSE are really not that involved nor concerned, so what does THAT say.

 

try reading it agene!

 

there are ~2220 deaths on the UK roads each year which works out at ~6.08 deaths per day (this include people killed by bits of tree falling on there vehicles wile driving), if you want to compare statistics then its pointless to compare statistics that are widely disproportioned due to actual exposure to risk.

 

How many people undertake journeys by road each day given there are ~62m people in the UK, you can likely say its more than >20 million people per day, if you took them out of there vehicles and put them in woodland etc for the same duration as there average daily road journey time do you think your BS 10000000:1 would hold true or do you think it would increase the odds of death by tree just because of the massive amount of extra people in woodland etc, even your extremely conservative 10000000:1 yields 2 deaths per day, that 10000000:1 you quote is mostly based on trees in gardens, by roads and in public parks and other space with high tree maintenance and people spending a relatively short period of time under trees.

 

If you band vehicles an made people do there daily commute on foot and let people to traverse the countryside freely as they currently traverse the road network then I can guarantee you the rate of death for a commute would be much higher than ~6.08 deaths per day of road use.

 

You should try and understand the statistics you peddle.

[b101uk]

To suggest that trees are as dangerous as lumps of steel weighing up to 44 tons doing 30mph upwards, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

 

No the “most ridiculous things I have ever heard” is your comment going for the very large and obvious wile seeming to forget it only takes e.g. a SMALL 1kg of wood falling from tree height to smash someone scull killing them, or if we take a “2t branch” falling from high up a big tree that its weight and velocity thus kinetic energy far exceed the force imparted by e.g. a modern 1.5t car travailing at 40mph.

[skyhuck]

No the “most ridiculous things I have ever heard” is your comment going for the very large and obvious wile seeming to forget it only takes e.g. a SMALL 1kg of wood falling from tree height to smash someone scull killing them, or if we take a “2t branch” falling from high up a big tree that its weight and velocity thus kinetic energy far exceed the force imparted by e.g. a modern 1.5t car travailing at 40mph.

 

The chances of a small piece of timber falling from a tree and killing some one are tiny and trees tend to only shed when the weather is very bad and people are indoors. Cars are huge and often kill or maim people.

 

I am normally impressed by your posts, but on this subject I think your talking utter nonsense.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

try reading it agene!

 

there are ~2220 deaths on the UK roads each year which works out at ~6.08 deaths per day (this include people killed by bits of tree falling on there vehicles wile driving), if you want to compare statistics then its pointless to compare statistics that are widely disproportioned due to actual exposure to risk.

 

How many people undertake journeys by road each day given there are ~62m people in the UK, you can likely say its more than >20 million people per day, if you took them out of there vehicles and put them in woodland etc for the same duration as there average daily road journey time do you think your BS 10000000:1 would hold true or do you think it would increase the odds of death by tree just because of the massive amount of extra people in woodland etc, even your extremely conservative 10000000:1 yields 2 deaths per day, that 10000000:1 you quote is mostly based on trees in gardens, by roads and in public parks and other space with high tree maintenance and people spending a relatively short period of time under trees.

 

If you band vehicles an made people do there daily commute on foot and let people to traverse the countryside freely as they currently traverse the road network then I can guarantee you the rate of death for a commute would be much higher than ~6.08 deaths per day of road use.

 

You should try and understand the statistics you peddle.

 

do you have any idea what the foot fall stats are for the national parks annualy? NO, you havent a clue what your talking about.

 

david, whats the stats for the heath, say kenwood gate?

 

No the “most ridiculous things I have ever heard” is your comment going for the very large and obvious wile seeming to forget it only takes e.g. a SMALL 1kg of wood falling from tree height to smash someone scull killing them, or if we take a “2t branch” falling from high up a big tree that its weight and velocity thus kinetic energy far exceed the force imparted by e.g. a modern 1.5t car travailing at 40mph.

 

The HSE are all over high risk subjects like the roads, they aint bothered by trees, so your not really on point. trees are not a danger as a rule.

 

The chances of a small piece of timber falling from a tree and killing some one are tiny and trees tend to only shed when the weather is very bad and people are indoors. Cars are huge and often kill or maim people.

 

I am normally impressed by your posts, but on this subject I think your talking utter nonsense.

 

Im with you, im thinking this guy is some consultant who makes a cool buck from scare mongering and talking bo....ks:lol:

Edited June 24, 2011 by skyhuck

[David Humphries]

david, whats the stats for the heath, say kenwood gate?

:

 

The total annual footfall for the whole of Hampstead heath (800acres) is in the region of 7 million visits.

 

Though it has to be said that it's a site with a significant number of eyes trained at BTI & PTI level keeping a looksee.

 

I can probably get the figures for all the significant tree/branch failures (I collate & hold these in the office) over the last year, across the whole site to compare & give some context as to of how often the we actualy have any reported near misses.

 

 

 

.