scottythepinetree

I reckon he ran out of petrol halfway through the cut and couldn't afford to refill. Price of fuel these days.

Petzl Zigzag Recall and self-inspection notice.

There's a related article in the most recent (I think) copy of Arb Journal. There's more solid data supporting the idea that natural braces cause included bark. This Powerpoint is a little weak though. It seems to be an opinion survey, with a suggestion that the opinions of those who disagree with the narrative (should a study even have a narrative?) are doing so because of their level of experience. "Respondents’ level of experience was related to different answers to questions 5 and 12". I'd be interested to see some long-term studies on this.

Very unlikely. Most of our new guys come out of their training on two ropes, see the lads a bit further on than them blitzing out work on one rope and pretty quickly ditch the second line. As far as I can see, it hasn't been adopted at all, nor will it.

That's not the video. It was called "Biting off more than I can chew" or something along those lines.

You think climbing on a nicked line is acceptable? Which do you think is more dangerous, a slap of a branch or a climbing line failing? What if he shock loads the line (which lets face it, the guy seems really likely to do) through either a fall or getting tangled up and dropping a branch onto it? Also, I get that you feel attacked and are therefore verbally retaliating like a petulant child, but calling people pussies isn't going to get the response you seem to be looking for (from me at least). I've been around the block mate. Over 20 years in the business. Long enough to remember that video of yours knocking out the top of a large broadleaf and watching it go completely arseways. Whatever happened to that video? Seems to have vanished. Know the one I'm talking about? Tied off too low on a crane and tipped over after it was cut (the head, not the crane). Would you say that was more stupid or less stupid that this video?

I think the guy berating Nate might be a lot more careless than we see in this video. Clearly damaged climbing line. So he either doesn't check his gear before he climbs, or worse, he checked it and didn't see this as a problem. Darwin Award in his future, I think.

Any chance you could find that source? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Provided it isn't an out-of-print edition of a 30-year-old book that costs multiple hundreds of £/€ of course.

I live in the West of Ireland. We're absolutely covered in the stuff. It's everywhere and has been for as long as I can remember. If you have a tree that you're particularly fond of or want to look nice, sever the ivy every few years. No dramas at all. Same as it has always been. If you were really stuck for a research topic, I bet you could get some mileage out of this. Canvassing a group of tree surgeons on a forum probably won't add much to it though.

Surely this thread is pointless. It is literally asking for anecdotal evidence to support an unsubstantiated hypothesis. You shouldn't be looking for opinion if you believe that there is a problem. You should be looking for evidence. For what it's worth. I'm working with trees since 2002 in a number of capacities (climber, utility, team lead, safety manager). I haven't noticed any difference in the last 20 years. This means absolutely nothing however. You really need to begin measuring and collecting some form of concrete data. This will probably take a number of years before any sort of pattern emerges, but then this is one of the challenges of studying trees. The data is often multi-generational. Trees live a lot longer than us. In 3-5 years or more, if you measure a percentage increase in Ivy covered trees or trees failing due to Ivy, then maybe you have thread, but for now, you really don't. What is the result that you are hoping for? Reach a consensus on an unsubstantiated claim? Have a number of experienced Arbs propagate that claim amongst their colleagues and clients? Because without data, that is the only thing that can possibly come of this thread. Or the alternative, which is to ignore a problem that hasn't been proven to exist. Which seems like the better option?

Amazed and appalled in equal measure. It would be a lot cooler if I wasn't 100% certain that eventually his luck will run out.

Looks pretty close on Google. Thanks for the reply.

This any help?

Found at the base of a Poplar. Anyone know what these wee fellas are?

Safety in general isn't built upon any single aspect. It requires a multi-faceted risk based approach which includes engineering controls (like safety features, better roads, clearer sign posting), administrative controls (like lower limits for alcohol, more police presence, speed cameras), behavioral aspects (which includes the public views and attitude that you mentioned) and not least of all competence (knowledge, training and experience). The trailer license is not that hard to get if the bureaucratic side of things is run correctly. It really is a no-brainer that vetting drivers before letting them on the road pulling heavy loads is a good idea. Think of the worst case scenario under the new rules. Do you think someone who has just passed their test and only ever driven a 1L Micra, should now be allowed to jump in a jeep and tow a couple of tonnes of a woodchipper on a public road, with no supervision, training or instruction? This change wasn't brought in because it is a better idea or as some have said on here "some common sense, finally". It was brought in because the people running the testing/training couldn't manage it properly and let too big of a backlog build up. It is a quick sticking plaster response to a failure, which you should be annoyed about.