openspaceman

They couldn't because the action was in two parts, the first that the tree was part of the highway. They had to defend that as their liability would have been automatic under a highways act. The Judge ruled that the tree was not part of the highway. He seems to be a smart cookie in assimilating all the points even though they were not familiar ground. The second part of the action was proven but it looks like it was because of omissions of recording rather than the other factors, just as in the Cavanagh case he ruled this was a high risk tree that should be inspected annually. I do not think the Bing images are available but there are streetviews which suggest the tree, presumably planted when the A45 was dualled (why plant a tall forest tree in the central reservation) so not veteran like the Cavanagh case, had dieback for several years. Being lime the dead branches would have been readily shed annually removing symptoms and probably not appearing worse other than misshapen.. Even a closer view from the central reservation may not have noted problems behind the plethora of sucker shoots but K Deustra is difficult to notice and limes have a poor ability to isolate compartment one breaches as they only exude a waxy bladder into the vessel rather than block it with tyloses. It looks like the HE had delegated all their responsibilities to Amey, who in turn had sat, Carillion like, handing out work and taking a cut with neither client nor contractor keeping records when public money was spent, Had a proper tree inspection taken place [1] and been recorded with the inspector being able to defend whatever decision had led to the tree still being there then HE may have been able to ask for some of the responsibility to be apportioned with the driver. After all we don't get to see, as no post accident witnesses were sought, whether the tree was struck or did it strike the car; why was the car in the outside lane, it was not a tall tree and the damage would have been less 10ft over. How fast was the car travelling and what were the conditions. Mind this didn't cut ice in the poll case as the drive by inspection wasn't accepted as being adequate nor by a suitably qualified person. The judge also severely criticised an arb witness in both Cavanagh and this case because they were not objective and/or economical with the truth. So in both cases their testimonies were ignored. [1] I did undertake rudimentary inspections prior to 2013 but they were simple above ground non intervention eyeballing, always within a reasonable distance and most often all around the tree. I had 2 minutes per tree on average over 5k trees in 170 locations. but my notes were typed up and photographs taken and synchronised with a GPX trace. After the Cavanagh case I declined to do the work again as I have no arb related qualifications, mine being mostly competencies to do the work but I did attend the basic Merrist Wood tree inspection course and my professional liability insurance was in place and my insurer accepted the risk knowing I was undertaking the work. The inference from these three cases, Poll, Cavanagh and this one is that HE has not taken any of the lessons on board plus tree inspections are going to get much more expensive and we'll all be paying for that in taxes.

Any chance of an explanation of how a soft and normal ones are done? It'll be a first for me. Pictures would help.

Dunno about that but does the lady inspector exist other than on Amey's payroll?

Once you know the size Astrak worked for me 5 years ago.

How long has it been burning and since the last log went on? Somehow there isn't enough air getting to the offgas as a very fuel rich flame is going up the flue. The air holes at the back are having to provide too much of the air to counter this, the result is you have the flames still burning (and being quenched) into the flue. if you could see outside I think it would be brown smoke.Try to decrease the air wash and cut out primary air so the fire just dances over the logs. Is the door sealing shut? With my Morso sometime the ash tray sticks out a bit proud because I haven't clean the ash spilled at the back and this stops the bopttom rope sealing.

It's 57 years since I was introduced to rock climbing at harrisons rocks near groombridge and our scout leader referred to it as Hobbs belay IIRC, I cannot remember what the anchor points at the top were. Friction boots were PAs and they hurt they were so tight.

...and conifer don't coppice, or were they something else?

I'm sorry but I don't know

Why? Salt will only make it difficult for anything else to grow there till it washes out over a few years.

If the youtube video is the one with the chain riveted to the blade I feel certain they are illegal here but the type in your link are ideal in that they sharpen with a round file just like a sawchain. They are very good for respacing natural regen that have got up to 2-4" where a mulching or star blade won't cope.

One of the problems with hand winching is that you get little momentum into the tree, the hinge only holds for a limited amount of travel, then the fibres at the back of the hinge start failing in tension. With a powered winch the tree gains a bit of inertia as it rotates about the hinge to keep it moving in roughly the right direction. Generally you can fell a leaner directly opposite the way it leans but as soon as you try and go against the lean and sideways the tension on the uphill side of the hinge is too great. This is why one leaves a triangular hinge but ultimately you need a holding rope higher in the tree too.

Yes, in fact I think barber chair happens when the wood is at full and high strength but tensioned, it's when the bending moment on the hinge is higher than the fibres of the wood can hold together.

This is where getting the interest of an elected councillor may be worth pursuing.

Ideally the TO should allow the adjacent landowner to remove the trespassing limbs as his right and then mitigate the outcome by reducing cut limbs outwith the property, if that is inappropriate the tree should be removed.

were both lines attached to his bridge by one crab? I've known two people that have fallen in tree work and died as a result, I've been struggling all day to remember the first chap's name, such is memory as one gets older.

Ah you may be right. I was thinking there's more air in between brash than chip, it gets smaller when you cut it up. Yes you are right, chipping branches and twigs achieves a ~tenfold reduction in bulk as the air spaces reduce but chipping solid timber increase the bulk because you are introducing the air spaces.

It is in that if you chip a tonne of green hardwood cord you end up with around 2.5m3 of chip.

Amazing bit of forethought building those portals 4 lanes wide

Looks like @Khriss did too. No the belay for the climber would be a groundsman and only when he was shifting position after which his main line and a back up he attaches (strop or lanyard) becomes his safety attachment. Not that I'm particularly advocating anything just thinking it is a method that could be readily adopted without major changes in climbing kit or technique.

I'm sorry I was not referring to the Hobbs belay device, I actually used one of these for negative rigging a couple of weeks ago and I quite liked it. In rock climbing where the climber is climbing and being belayed by a man on the ground and the anchor point is somewhere at the top of the pitch I knew this as a hobbs belay. I am still awaiting clarification on this point but it could mean that the anchor point used for the lowering rope but, from what you say, not the lowering rope could be used in this manner as the climber moves to his next work position,

I would agree for the whole job but in this instance the top has already gone so David and his long day would leave little mess and no roots to get rid of.

Yes I liked mine, powerful and with a 28" bar capable without the trepidation I used to have when hauling out the 084 or 2100.

Oh dear, just when I thought we were getting on so well ?

I'll be watching out for comments but to me it is eminently practicable with little expense but at the cost of a groundman's time and less rope management by the climber than with two climbing ropes. I also see an eddy current fall arrest system using gravity for rope tension and a one way capstan as being a possibility but this would fail the 0.5 metre drop requirement as it would simply lower at a controlled rate. It may be an analogy of resistance to new legal requirements but it's a poor analogy otherwise as a seatbelt does not impede the function of driving a car in any way but managing additional rope systems clearly does affect a climber's working.

In UK the DNO does not have to have contractors in, they can pay the land owner to do the work. Obviously they have H&S concerns but routine coppicing when the tips are outside the vicinity zone of the lines should be little danger.