Acer ventura

Signs of the times - Summer Branch Drop We know from the available data that the overall risk from Summer Branch Drop is mind-bogglingly low. The risk is so low, our risk of death from driving for the few minutes it takes to cover 3km/2mi is higher than from Summer Branch Drop over a whole year. Yet, fear-mongering and threats from risk entrepreneurs about legal action if such a mind-bogglingly low risk happens are pushing some anxious duty holders into wasting time and money on putting up confusing and ineffective signs; like this recent photo at Scone Palace, Scotland. Not only are the costs of commissioning and managing these signs grossly disproportionate to any questionable reduction in a risk that's already Acceptable. Their ineffectiveness may backfire on the duty holder and create an opportunity for a risk entrepreneur to act as an expert in the extremely unlikely event of someone being injured or killed. It'd be all too easy for them to claim the duty holder hadn't managed the risk well enough with signs and they could've reduced it more by fencing or pruning. Or if the visitor wasn't an English speaker, why wasn't the sign translated into their language. If you're a duty holder, or advise one, worry not about Summer Branch Drop and where, when, and how many signs to put up - or how many languages to use. We've got you covered with our handy Summer Branch Drop Guide on our Risk Management page. https://validtreerisk.help/Risk-Management

Just to confirm that we're going ahead with these training dates. Tree Risk-Benefit Assessment & Tree Risk Management Training | VALID VALIDTREERISK.HELP An elegantly simple solution to a complex problem - all in the palm of your hand!

Taking the 'defect' out of tree risk-benefit assessment has been published in the spring edition of the Arboricultural Association's Arb Magazine. You're welcome to download a pdf copy from the News page of VALID's website. Here's the introduction to whet your appetite. "We’ve grown up being told that when we assess tree risk we should be looking out for tree ‘defects’. The problem with this approach is what are commonly labelled as defects often aren’t defects at all"

Hi Khriss Sorry, t/R 0.3 isn't a sound guide at all. It's pretty much useless and incredibly misleading.

I thought some of you might find this post from VALID's News page useful, so am sharing it. Recently, I caught a podcast where a tree was declared 'safe' if it's less than 30% hollow. I think they meant 70% hollow. Either way, this isn't right for several reasons. I've posted about this before, but as long as this kind of mistake is being broadcast I think it's worth repeating so the message gradually gets home. The heart of the confusion is the t/R = 0.3 fallacy. t/R = 0.3 is when a residual wall thickness (t) is 30% of the stem radius (R). It's often cited as a failure threshold. It's not. The 'Why t/R Ratios Aren't Very Helpful' pdf explains why in detail. In short, one reason is because of a geometric property called section modulus. Wind load and material properties remaining equal, if you double the diameter you increase the load bearing capacity of a tree by 8 times. To add to the confusion, t/R 0.3 is often referred to as 70% hollow. In fact, a 0.3 t/R ratio is only 50% hollow. 70% is the radius, which is one dimension. t/R 0.3 is the area, which is two dimensions. This graph from Paul Muir shows the relationship of central hollowing on: A = Cross Sectional Area Z = Section Modulus t/R = 0.3 A = 49% loss of cross sectional area Z = 24% reduction in load bearing capacity To make matters worse. A tree with a t/R ratio of 0.3 can have a very high likelihood of failure, or it can have a very low likelihood of failure. If all that wasn't enough, it's seldom that where decay is of concern we're dealing with a cross sectional area of a tree that's a circle. Why tR ratios are not very helpful v5.0.pdf

This tree risk assessment review article by Peter Gray, from the Summer 2020 issue of Arboriculture Australia's 'The Bark', might be of interest to you. It can be downloaded from the News page of VALID's website here. https://tinyurl.com/y2xxbjeb

This makes for an interesting tree risk assessment case study. A TRAQ, QTRA, and VALID tree risk assessment were carried out on the same Pine trees in Western Springs, Auckland | NZ. It involves around 200 Pinus radiata. From a risk of branch or tree failure perspective, the trees of particular interest are those that could fall onto a footpath or property. The reports can be downloaded from the News page of VALID’s website here; Tree Risk Assessment Reports TRAQ | August 2019 Risk Ratings 1 Extreme 1 High – Extreme 7 High 1 Medium-High 36 Medium 23 Low-Medium 148 Low QTRA | December 2019 Risk of Harm for 15 trees is Tolerable (they’re ALARP) 4 1/30,000 7 1/300,000 1 1/500,000 2 <1/1,000,000 Random tree part or tree onto footpath 1/400,000 (Size Range 4) 1/500,000 (Size Range 3) 1/1,000,000 (Size Range 2) <1/1,000,000 (Size Range1) VALID | October 2020 Risk 1 Not Acceptable 50 Not Tolerable 6 Tolerable 141 Acceptable Cheers Acer Ventura

I don't doubt the decay's been active before it fruited, but why put such an accurate figure on it? It could've been decades, or a very short time because a volume of wood was rapidly rendered dysfunctional by a pruning event, limb loss, or root severance. As the only way we can comfortably age a fungal bracket, outside of quite a wide range, is to know when it first fruited, there's much more uncertainty about how long the fungus has been at work. Particularly, as it may have had a long nap during its life. Also, if you take your eyes of the prize, you'll see the fungal bracket's on a log.?

Summer Branch Drop Guide - Update As we’re going through a hot spell in the UK at the moment, it’s time to release v4.0 of the Summer Branch Drop Guide. Those of you who are concerned about the risk, this should help reassure you. The overall risk from SBD is mind-bogglingly low. In this update, we have an easy to grasp explanation of what mind-bogglingly low means. The overall risk from SBD for a whole year is the equivalent of the few minutes it takes to cover about 2 miles (3km) on a drive. 200 miles (320km) drive = 1 micromort (a one in a million chance of death). The overall risk from SBD is over one hundred times lower than this. If you’re a duty holder, unless you’ve got a tree that’s a repeat offender, there’s no need to fanny around with confusing and ineffectual warning signs. Just download the SBD Guide from the Government section on the Risk Management page of the website. https://tinyurl.com/y679ucl4

How'd you get those very accurate figures Khriss???

How old is this fungal bracket? One, two, five years old? I posted some of this in a reply on the Arbcology Facebook page, and thought it might be worth sharing it on here. It’s from an article I’m writing about what appears to be rotten at the roots of the expert evidence the court had to work with in a UK court Judgment known as Cavanagh v Witley Parish Council. ….. You can't count pore tube layers, like the candles on a birthday cake, to accurately age a fungal bracket. Perennial fungal brackets don't grow like trees that produce an annual ring each year. They often produce a new layer of pore tubes with each growth spurt. This can happen once, twice, maybe several times a year. Some years there's no growth. Other years there's growth but just the darker brown flesh and no pore tube layer. Those of you who may have heard anecdotal evidence that you can age fungal brackets like this, don't take my word for it. We can ask someone who's an internationally renowned mycologist with particular expertise in decay fungi. “Layers of pores/tubes on perennial brackets of fungi cannot be reliably used to judge age, because there is not necessarily just one new set per year. There could be several, or perhaps even no new pores” Professor Lynne Boddy, Cardiff University ..... Photo credit - David Humphries

Hi Khriss I saw and shared the dashcam footage on LinkedIn and Facebook yesterday. There have been some interesting responses. Here's my take on it with VALID's Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy. It's based on the dashcam footage and Google street view images. So it's made with those limitations. This a 'Very High' level of occupancy (on average more than one person. Or more than one vehicle. Or more than person and more than one vehicle). It would've been managed by Active and Passive Assessment. There are three levels of Active Assessment. Basic, Detailed, and Advanced. If you want more details, there here in the Government section. https://tinyurl.com/y679ucl4 Passive Assessment - Risk is Acceptable If you walked or drove past this tree, there's no obvious tree risk feature to trigger taking a closer look. Basic Assessment - Risk is Acceptable On foot. There are no obvious tree risk features. It looks there has been no recent major infrastructure work within the structural root zone to warrant any concern (weirdly, I know this location well). I can't see a trigger to go beyond a Basic Assessment to a Detailed level. Detailed Assessment - Risk is Acceptable From what I can see in the video, I'm not sure a Detailed Assessment, with a sounding hammer, would've revealed the extent of decay in the roots. There's some uncertainty about this, but the buttressing looks like it's nicely developed for a tree of this size, age, and management history. Advanced Assessment - Risk is Not Acceptable I think only an Advanced Assessment, involving a Static Load Test, would've established that the tree had a Safety Factor of less than 1.0. But I can't see a trigger to reasonably justify this. It wasn't THAT windy on Sunday in South Ealing. I wonder whether primary failure happened with the storms we had earlier (or last year), and it's only as the tree's come into full foliage, 4 years (?) into its pollard cycle, that the moderate wind load intercepted by the canopy hit the critical point. It now presents an interesting problem for the council. That paving specification at pedestrian crossings might be of concern given how long ago it was done and the root system resembles that of spring onion. Of course, it could be a 'black swan'. Generally, the chances of regularly pollarded London Plane, with no obvious tree risk features, and no obvious recent root damage, falling are incredibly low.

The Elephant in the Tree Why do elephants paint their toenails red? It turns out elephants don’t need to paint their toenails red to hide in Cherry trees. A hanging branch is so ‘f’ing obvious’, I didn’t include it in the original Obvious Tree Risk Defects* Guide. It's been coming for a while, and I’m now persuaded too many civilians don’t look up and see the elephant in the tree. Looking up is an Arborist and Urban Forester thing. The final nudge came from Rick Milsom (a UK Tree Officer) who shared a tale of a picnicking couple in his patch. Of all the places they could picnic in a park, they chose to do it under a 6m long broken branch on an Ash tree that was hanging on by the skin of its teeth. If they stood up, the tip of the branch was just above their heads. So, I’ve updated the Obvious Tree Risk Features Guide (v3.2) to include hanging branches. It's released under a creative commons license so you're welcome to use and share and it. I’ll sort out fitting it into the strategies this week. https://tinyurl.com/y679ucl4 * 'Defects', in the original, has been upgraded to 'Risk Features' PS I've updated some of the wording as well.

Unfortunately, it’s not been possible to navigate the UK government’s road map out of lockdown with much confidence, and we’ve had to push back the Summer tree risk training workshops to Autumn. Here are the revised dates and venues. Here's a link to the Training page of the website. Tree Risk-Benefit Assessment & Tree Risk Management Training | VALID LNKD.IN An elegantly simple solution to a complex problem - all in the palm of your hand! ..... A Money-Back Guarantee VALID is such a momentous and far-reaching improvement in the field of tree risk that it comes with a money-back guarantee. If, after training, you go back to how you used to assess and manage tree risk, we'll refund you the fee. Yes, it's that much of a game-changer.

You have my sympathy. The thread’s opening post is about a free, easy to understand strategy for Homeowners to manage their tree risk. There’s no App involved. I figured the best fit for this subject was in the General Chat group. After some interesting exchanges with Andrew, the thread was then trolled by my weird little obsessive stalker with a couple of shameless and bare-faced lies. I decided I shouldn't let that deliberate effort at smearing by deceit go unchallenged and it’s now gone off-topic. I’ll see whether the moderators can kill it and and do some tidying up, so the content resembles the title. Just to clarify. You can’t use the App to survey trees at a ‘Basic’ level. Neither is it necessary. You only use it if you need to take a closer look and increase the level assessment to a ‘Detailed’ level because you’ve spotted an obvious tree risk feature, and the risk might not be Acceptable or Tolerable. This is a trained Arborist thing, and not something for the Homeowner.

I when I'm asked to quote for tree risk assessments, and clients baulk at the price, I tell them that they can get a free tree assessment and advice from some tree businesses. I then caution them that the advice will seldom come without some tree work being recommend ?. To be fair, most tree work has little to do with risk management. A quick word of caution. I'd strongly advise not using the 'safe' word. I've written a short piece explaining why here. Is it safe? WWW.LINKEDIN.COM In this famous scene from The Marathon Man, Laurence Olivier finds himself in the uncommon position of being a...

Wow! You’re either being deliberately obtuse or alarmingly ignorant about what those QTRA 'Advisory Risk Thresholds' mean. If the latter. Then, as someone who was one of the main QTRA trainers for 10 years, and drove its development to v5.0, I’d strongly advise, at the very least, you familiarise yourself with the QTRA User Manual. It might also be worthwhile considering some update training.

Hi Jcarbor I appreciate the sentiment. Though, funnily enough, back then Julian was 'bitching' about QTRA on a Q&A thread I ran on here, when I was part of QTRA! He's now a self-appointed QTRA Brownshirt 'bitching' about VALID because I thought things could be done so much better and moved on to put VALID together in 2016, just as he joined QTRA. His unhinged Pepe le Pew pursuit of me across social media, no matter my approach to tree risk, makes me wonder whether it's because he's secretly got the hots for me and is wrestling with some deep repressed denial. Cheers

When you were frothing at the mouth and trolling me from the peanut gallery about this on the UKTC last year, the way I replied then was to say, replace VALID with the QTRA (where your self-interests lie) in your question. You wilfully ignored it then, and continue to do so. Replace VALID CIC’s ‘strategies’ with QTRA Ltd’s ‘risk thresholds’, and your increasingly desperate and hypocritical efforts at bad-mouthing VALID's approach to tree risk, compared to the one you’ve invested in (QTRA) becomes again, all too transparent.

Sorry, just picked up a bookmark error. 3 4 in the grab was incorrectly numbered 4 5. It's fixed now. Tree Risk Assessment & Tree Risk Management | News WWW.VALIDTREERISK.COM An elegantly simple solution to a complex problem - all in the palm of your hand!

It's difficult to imagine a place where the trees are, or have been, more regularly assessed.

Or is it Sudden Limb Drop? Or Sudden Branch Drop? I've updated this as a stand-alone document that can be used by any tree owner or manager outside of VALID's 'strategies'. It can be downloaded from the News Page here. Tree Risk Assessment & Tree Risk Management | News WWW.VALIDTREERISK.COM An elegantly simple solution to a complex problem - all in the palm of your hand! Here's the context. Arguably, the issue of managing Summer Branch Drop started to became a risk management thing in the UK after the Coroner's Inquest into the death of Erena Wilson. She tragically died in Kew Gardens and it was claimed the cause of her death was Summer Branch Drop. The Coroner’s verdict is that it was an accidental death. Woman killed by falling branch at Kew Gardens died accidentally, jury rules | UK news | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Botanical garden's tree inspections called a 'shambles' in court but coroner says Erena Wilson's death was 'ghastly... We then had a very dry summer in 2018, and Jeremy Barrell released a ‘Briefing Note on UK Summer Branch Drop’. https://lnkd.in/g8NpsbN VALID was just getting going at the time, and we were contacted by many concerned Arborists and duty holders who saw the Briefing Note as a ticking time bomb. This SBD Tree Risk-Management Guide was put together to help duty holders take a common sense approach and diffuse it.

I've been told that I shouldn't get involved in this kind of thing, but I think if it's let go without challenge some of the mud sticks.

Sorry, 'with' should be 'without'

With apologies to everyone else. For the public record I'm going to deal with just a few points in this, as briefly as I can. Given that your first post in this thread was insults and aggression,. Clearly, what you’re doing here is called ‘projection’. Your history on here, when I first encountered you in 2013, and on the UKTC when you migrated over there later, shows you're incredibly uncomfortable with anyone daring to disagree with you. It makes me wonder whether you’ve got a history of coercive control and gaslighting elsewhere. Your fact-lite, off-topic, insults have merely escalated from your first post. Including the weirdly affected ‘Mr Evans’. That rather sounds like you’ve found a barrister’s wig in your dressing up box, and might be an alarming window into your staggering sense of self-importance. Anyone can check my postings on here (and this thread) where I'm not dealing with your ravings and vested interests, and form their own opinion. Oh, dear me. You do like to wear your ignorance on your sleeve and then shout out loud about it, don't you. As I'm sure you can imagine, with your legal action nonsense later, this made me snort with laughter. Blimey, are you so deluded you genuinely think you represent everyone? I take it everyone includes these people? Tree Risk-Benefit Assessment & Tree Risk Management Training | VALID TINYURL.COM An elegantly simple solution to a complex problem - all in the palm of your hand! Really? Isn't this just you playing dress up with wiggy and being a blowhard again? I've not heard anything more about this since your unhinged rant threatening it on the UKTC some months ago. See above. Please don't try to pass it off as a thing outside of your head on here. The accusation is even funnier in light of your public 'QTRA knock off' claim above. BTW I'm not blocked from the UKTC, but again, why let facts get in the way of your weird campaign. The first part is self-evidently untrue, as I've demonstrated but you've ignored again. As for the second part, VALID is a registered not-for-profit Community Interest Company. As 'hilarious' as that might be to someone who runs a commercial company to make profit, and is the self-elected attack dog of the QTRA for profit tree risk assessment system. It's another one of those pesky fact things that seem to infuriate you. It's pretty self-evident that if a Homeowner downloads VALID's Homeowner's Tree RIsk-Benefit Management Strategy, or an Arborist does, and uses is, then in the extraordinarily unlikely case of claim being made, the Claimant will also be looking at whether a claim can be made against VALID CIC as well. Helpfully, the address of VALID's website is hyperlinked in the footer of each page. I guess it'd be the same with the NTSG if anyone followed their Chapter 5, 'How this guidance could be applied'. The risk of either happening is Acceptable. This, complete lack of self-awareness at the end, is just too funny.