scottythepinetree

Looks like a good guess to me. Definitely very close. Thanks Will

Any idea what this tree is?

Trigger's Brush

I haven't looked into this much at all. I am interested in how it's calculated. It's just something that stands out as the only part of it that I don't understand. I'd love to see them publish an actual paper on this. It's an area where any research that gives you more confidence in the decision making process can only be a good thing.

I had a look at Tree Calc, which looks like an impressive piece of software. But my point is that it would be difficult to make an assessment on the validity of their method without knowing how they determine that safety factor. Is it some arbitrary variable they decided on, or does it correspond to the conditions a tree would be expected to be subjected to. It's most likely sound. It looks like a lot of time/thought went into it. But I wouldn't be comfortable basing a decision on (what could be) a random number generator.

Thanks for the reply. That would make sense (I think). It would be difficult to pull anything useful out of the presentation without knowing exactly how it is calculated beyond vague assumptions. Most studies would generally describe in detail the process so that results can be verified by others as repeatable. I wonder do they intend to publish this as a study at some point?

Could someone explain how a tree safety factor is calculated? How do they get 1.5 or 15?

Yikes. Pretty harsh mate. The fact is that Arb will never, ever be as big as construction. The AA are simply a voice or focal point for the industry. Sure, there may be some of the same protocols and similarities to larger bodies, but a lot of that is because there is likely a lot of admin involved and following an existing model is better than reinventing the wheel. They're getting a lot of flak lately (mostly due to the 2 rope rubbish the HSE are pushing) but for the most part this is out of their hands. I'm not totally convinced that they are representing the industry the right way on this issue but I think that they are at least trying. I'll reserve judgement until the ICOP is finalised. On the whole though, it would be better that the Arb industry has it's own body to distinguish the cowboys from legit operators, rather than a free for all or Arb getting shoe-horned under the umbrella of a representative body from another industry.

Lynch v Nurdin: 1841 - swarb.co.uk SWARB.CO.UK The defendant's servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was... British Railways Board v Herrington: HL 16 Feb 1972 - swarb.co.uk SWARB.CO.UK The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser... Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland: HL 1909 - swarb.co.uk SWARB.CO.UK Lord Atkinson said: 'The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of... You are somewhat less liable if an adult gets injured, but regarding children, there is case law (precedents) which gave rise to the "Attractive Nuisances Doctrine". Basically, because your log pile might look like a fun place to play for kids, you would be required to take steps to ensure that they can't access it. Signs won't cut it. You would need to be happy that there is no risk to stupid kids coming on to your land. Bear in mind that your level of confidence should be gauged not by reading or posting on an internet forum, but rather think of what you might say to a judge should the worst happen.

Do you get many trespassers? If so, you may need to take more precautions. In the eyes of the law you have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent injury of everyone entering your land, including trespassers. The problem is that what is considered reasonable can change dramatically in hindsight after an accident. It's a judgement call on your end. If you think it likely that someone will ignore the signs and get injured climbing on your stacks, you may need to take more robust measures. For example, if your site is in an area frequently trespassed by kids and one managed to seriously hurt themselves on your stacks, would you feel confident that you could stand in front of a judge and tell them that you took every reasonable precaution? On the other hand, if you live in the middle of nowhere and have never had an issue with people trespassing, then the sign would probably be sufficient.

Poorly drafted ITTs are the bane of my existence. Some of them can be overly burdensome and don't really provide the client with anything useful. There is a trend happening here (Ireland) at the moment where client procurement are realising that they're basically being rude asking for some of the stuff that they look for at tender stage and a lot of our tenders now consist of just a pricing documents and a set of declarations that you will provide the necessary information if your bid is successful. There are still a few (normally govt bodies) who award on a weighted scoring system (Usually 80% price and 20% safety, but I wonder how accurate this is really). I do all of the safety section of the tenders for my employer. If you are really struggling with them, it would be a good idea to get someone in to help you with one. Spend the time with them while they do it, and you will see what they do. Having well organised records of previous experience, training records, machinery certs, sample method statement/Traffic Management Plans, and of course the usual Safety Statements and Risk Assessments up to date (all in electronic format) can really speed up the process, as then it's just a case of putting the right file in the right place. If you don't have your stuff organised or know how to do it, a tender specialist will do it for you when completing the tender. Then it's just a case of making sure you know where it all is on your system and keeping it all up to date. You will still get the occasional tender that goes completely OTT asking for ridiculous stuff, but you will be some of the way towards dealing with them too.

The real question here is what is a "reasonably practicable" use of a single rope in a tree. I'm well aware of the "reasonably practicable doctrine". That being: "Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and implies that a computation must be made… in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in time, trouble or money) is placed in the other and that, if it be shown that there is a great disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the person upon whom the obligation is imposed discharges the onus which is upon him." Ultimately, what is reasonably practicable is normally determined by a judge, after an accident. In normal circumstances an industry body would give better guidance in what would be justifiable uses of a single rope. In this way, should a judge question a contractors decision, they could point at the guidance and cite this as their reason for believing their choice to be reasonable. I think the AA are really letting the side down by not offering better guidance as to single rope usage.

How did they decide 2 ropes? Where are the studies showing the benefit to working with 2 ropes? The logic seems to be that if one rope is safe, then two ropes should be twice as safe. So why not 3 ropes or 4??

Hey, that lead worked out. Was put in touch with a company called Ascendant Access, who set up after selling SEV. They were really helpful. One phone call and the guy had the diagram emailed to me 5 minutes later. Thanks for the help.

Thanks for the reply. I'll give him a buzz and check it out.

This might be a long shot, but we have an Aerial AL22ST Truck Mounted Platform that is giving electrical problems. The fitter is telling us he needs a wiring diagram to fix it. The machine was built in 2000 by a company called SEV, who have since been taken over by someone else and no longer retain manuals or documentation. Would anyone know of a place where we might source a wiring diagram or anywhere that might have old technical manuals that we could try?

Codes of Practice cannot contradict legislation. The hierarchy of legislation is: 1) Primary Legislation - Acts of Parliament (Basically "The Law") 2) Secondary Legislation - Regulations (Cannot contradict primary legislation, or where there is any doubt, primary legislation rules.) 3) ICOP/ACOP - Published and approved interpretation of the law (Acts and regulations) written in plain easy to understand language.

Thanks Mick. Was completely stumped. Looks right to me.

Could anyone ID this tree for me please?

Looks right to me. Thanks for the help. Any idea how to stop them or would it be even worth it? Maybe tempt them away from the tree with a pint and a bag of chips?

Could someone ID these fella's please? Seem to be absolutely mauling these trees.

Looks spot on. Cheers for the help.

Few more. Couldn't upload earlier for whatever reason. Initially I though either some sort of Poplar or Lime.

Any chance you could find a link to this? I'd be interested in seeing it. I found this small study a while ago which indicates almost no change after a single impact from varying heights, but can't imagine how an impact would make biner stronger. http://www.outdoorsafetyinstitute.com/news/single/should_you_retire_a_dropped_carabiner/