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.

This may not be directly related to trailers, but on the whole, changes to driving laws and enforcement has had an undeniably positive affect on road traffic accidents since 1997 (and before). Injuries and deaths on the road have been dropping steadily since 1979, despite the number of vehicles on the road increasing. I wonder if the nearsightedness will remain if accidents increase and insurance premiums go up across the board as a result?: An independent test isn't about whether or not you are capable of towing a trailer, it's about proving your competence (and everyone else's) before being allowed to be responsible for towing a trailer on public roads. It's not some insurmountable obstacle in the way of all the young kids whose dream it is to tow trailers over 750kg. It's an inconvenience far outweighed by the benefits. If there are hold ups and bureaucracy causing unnecessary delays, then that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Every job has barriers to entry. The barriers should reflect the potential earnings, in an ideal world. Where this isn't the case, that too is an area that needs to be looked at. I can't help but think that this is a populist decision that will ultimately lead to more accidents/fatalities on the roads.

To be fair, when dealing with the public, you can't reiterate your instructions too many times. Like lemmings, the walk past signage, over or through barriers and often ignore direct warnings. It's almost as though they think large timber would make a nice hat.

Did you get a receipt when you passed your assessment? City & Guilds won't deal with anyone other than the individual or the training center. I've tried chasing up certs in the past for employees and been told they can only discuss results with the candidate. We've also had assessors forget to send in confirmation that candidates have passed, so no harm chasing it up regardless of Covid/Christmas.

Nice. Concept 2 isn't cheap, but there aren't really many other options for someone your size. You'd outgrow a cheaper one in a week or two. Be careful though. You'd be surprised how many people develop back problems from rowing with bad form. Very similar movement pattern to deadlifts/rows, but high reps/low weight and encourages pushing through fatigue. Some people get sloppy when they get tired and let their back round. Over time, this can cause problems if you're not careful. I like Pendlays. I find them hard not to cheat rep when the weight gets heavy (for me that's about 100-110kg), which makes it hard to judge progression. There's not supposed to be any eccentric with them. Explosive concentric and then drop. I do 8 rep sets. I often find myself doing the first 4 or 5 with perfect form, explode, touch the chest, drop with no movement in the legs or torso. Then when I get to rep 6 or so, I get stuck a couple of inches from the chest. Before I know I've done it, I have given it a little bump with leg drive. I'm a stickler for form, so it becomes a judgement call as to whether to count the rep or not. Some of the biggest guys in my gym allow themselves lots of this and still count the reps. I try to compensate with low rows, weighted pull-ups and lat pulls though. They're easier to be controlled with. The explosive stuff is hard not to cheat a little.

20 rep sets (how many sets?) could be what did your knees in. I get that you want to stay away from one rep maxes, but have you considered meeting in the middle? 8 rep sets or similar? If you're really set on volume, you could try rest/pause with a rep goal. For example, pick a weight that you can do 8 reps with fairly handily. (Don't worry if it's too light this session). Then do 3 sets trying to hit 25 reps over the 3 sets. Do as many reps as you can for each set with perfect form, stopping at technical failure (i.e. you can't do any more without breaking form). Take 5 deep slow breaths between each set (30-60 seconds) and go again. If at the end of this, you have hit 25+ reps, add 5kg to the bar in your next session. For squats, twice a week should be enough. Especially if you're experiencing adverse effects. It's easy for the first couple of sessions, but then it gets brutal. You can't really adapt because both the volume and intensity is auto-regulated. It is possible to plateau. If this happens, pick your poison (try to grind through or drop the weight a few %) and take a run at it again. I find either one hit and miss. If one doesn't work, the other usually does. Not sure about your back issues (every injury is different of course), but for me, RDLs/SLDLs got me back to full strength pretty quickly. Their much safer than lifting off the floor, with a lot of the same benefits. I find with deadlifts, you get 100% of the weight instantly, right when you're in the most vulnerable position. With RDLs/SLDLs you increase the forces on your lower back gradually, starting in a position where it's least vulnerable. It's not a perfect substitute for the strength gains made pulling and grunting from the floor, but weighing up risk/reward I think the smart money is on RDLs for me.

I'm rarely in that area. I'll make a point of stopping by that tree if I am nearby in the near future though. Good to know that it's not forgotten. It was a useful little resource.

Looks close. Stems aren't as thick on my ones though. That's a cool website either way. If you were any way mycologically inclines, showing the spores under a microscope is pretty cool. Whatever happened to the Arbtalk Fungi Directory?

Cheers Paul

Any ideas? The host tree was almost completely dead and more ivy than tree, so hard to tell what species. It was most likely either and Ash or an Oak judging by its neighbours. There was a Castanea nearby also, but that appears to be an odd one out.

Today I learned that "Notho" translates as False generally. But the literal translation is "illegitimate or bastard". So basically, what we have here is a Bastard Beech.?