Mat

Just about the perfect level of detail. Thankyou

So if I was using a bollard for rigging, would I use any accessories with it (such slings)?

Do you critically look at a lot of others climbers kit on a regular basis though? I have lost count of the times that I have come across Krabs with useless gates, ropes with the end full of silky knicks (not to mention the hundreds of prussics that are so frizzy or glazed that I wouldn't use them to hang my chainsaw on, let alone climb on). Why do people chance their life on such duff kit? 1) gradual decline - they hardly notice it getting worse (generally prussic loops) 2) apathy - they are fed up with messing about trying to get stupid 'self lockers' to work, so they stop bothering 3) tight wad-ness - those silky knicks always seem to be on the 'spliced eye end' of a nearly new rope. Just try borrowing someone else's kit to do a really tall spindly tree above a set of nasty spikey railings, and tell me you feel perfectly comfortable.

Well now, here is the 'elephant in the room'. Again, taken from Thorough examinations and inspections of lifting equipment - Work equipment and machinery What are the specified intervals for regular thorough examinations? Unless there is an 'examination scheme' specifying other intervals, thorough examinations should be conducted every: 6 months, for lifting equipment and any associated accessories used to lift people 6 months, for all lifting accessories 12 months, for all other lifting equipment Define a 'lifting accessory'

If you choose to follow this, that is fine - its your personal choice. Your statement does make it sound rather like it is accepted 'good practice' rather than an individuals personal opinion. In order to comply with LOLER check out about 1/3rd of the way down this little beauty... Thorough examinations and inspections of lifting equipment - Work equipment and machinery QUOTE: When should thorough examinations be carried out? In order to verify that lifting equipment and accessories remain safe for use, and to detect and remedy any deterioration in good time, thorough examinations are required throughout the lifetime of the equipment, including examinations: before use for the first time - unless the equipment has an EC Declaration of Conformity less than one year old and the equipment was not assembled on site.

But a user checking their kit prior to using it is EXACTLY what LOLER requires. LOLER also requires a weekly recorded inspection to be made on all items subjected to high wear (which in the case of arb work, is probably everything).

Aaaaaah, now I see what you mean. What we need then is an example of an accident that didn't happen because a bit of kit was removed from service as a result of LOLER. Hmmmmm, that may be tricky.

Surely that statement knocks the rest of your argument out of the water. If, despite the 'LOLER regulations', people were falling out of trees due to continuing to use knackered kit, then I would agree that LOLER 'was not working'. When I consider the rubbish we used to be expected to climb on when I started in this industry (pre 1998, and therefore pre LOLER), and compare it to the standards of kit used these days, I TOTALLY see the benefits. Why should lads go home in a box simply because their manager is more interested in increasing his bottom line than giving them half decent kit?

well, strangely enough, here is 'an accident where kit failed' http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/climbers-talk/56708-zig-zag-failure.html

LOLER is a regulation. Like many regulations it has an approved code of practice. Here is the LOLER 'ACOP'.... http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l113.pdf ... what a treat. If you have read it, how can you not see the point (surely it is just 'common sense')

After. The Mewp overturned on the 5th June 2013 The machine was new. Once it became apparent that there was a calibration issue, Genie released the following safety notice (as a direct result of the incident) on the 29th July 2013 http://www.genieservice.eu/safety/download/bulletins/130005_EN.pdf The HSE report was released in March 2014 Looking at the photo, its an awful long way to have to fall.

Is this documented anywhere?? If true, its one of the maddest investigations ever.

Details of the findings on the link... HSE Safety Alert - Genie Z135/70 Mobile Elevated Work Platform (MEWP) A very sorry tale.

Fire wood, I should think. It's going to be a warm winter

.........sooooooooooooooo, nobody really seems to want the trees there then.......... what to do..... What to do?

who said he 'had to put the trees there'? Was it a planning restriction? Do they have legal protection (such as a TPO)? Is the land part of a conservation area?

Link is from a post made in 2008

'Compensation' would, at very least, depend on who it is who thinks the trees need cutting. If it is you, rather than B.T. that thinks the trees should be cut, I don't see that B.T. would have an obligation to compensate (although they could give you some cash out of the kindness of their hearts).

Hi Steve, It is a sizable text, and by the look of it it was done on a manual typewriter! Page 126 covers tree looping. In a nutshell: Page 126 c. 12 Telecommunications Act 1984 Sea. 2 (3) If the operator contravenes the requirements of this paragraph he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. (4) In any proceedings for an offence under this paragraph it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. Tree lopping 19.--(1) Where any tree overhangs any street and, in doing so, either- (a) obstructs or interferes with the working of any telecommunication apparatus used for the purposes of the operator's system, or (b) will obstruct or interfere with the working of any telecommunication apparatus which is about to be installed for those purposes. the operator may by notice to the occupier of the land on which the tree is growing require the tree to be lopped so as to prevent the obstruction or interference. (2) If within the period of 28 days beginning with the giving of the notice by the operator, the occupier of the land on which the tree is growing gives! the operator a counter-notice objecting to the lopping of the tree, the notice shall have effect only if confirmed by an order of the court. (3) If at any time a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above has not been complied with and either- (a) a period of 28 days beginning with the giving of the notice has expired without a counter-notice having been given, or (b) an order of the court confirming the notice has come into force, the operator may himself cause the tree to be lopped as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above. (4) Where the operator lops a tree in exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above he shall do so in a husband-like manner and in such a way as to cause the minimum damage to the tree. (5) Where- (a) a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above is complied with either without a counter-notice having been given or after the notice has been confirmed, or (b) the operator exercises the power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above, the court shall, on an application made by a person who has sustained loss or damage in consequence of the lopping of the tree or who has incurred expenses in complying with the notice, order the operator to pay that person such compensation in respect of the loss, damage or expenses as it thinks fit.

BUT, as Steve said in the OP, the trees and wires run alongside a road, so I guess they overhang it. This means that BT may, "by notice to the occupier of the land on which the tree is growing, require the tree to be lopped so as to prevent the obstruction or interference". (Telecommunications Act 1984)

and I agree (unless B.T. ever rock up and request that he has his trees cut back as they are causing a nuisance - which is highly unlikely [if there is a problem, B.T. will just restring the cable]).

But BT's problem will not be a 'tree cutting problem' it is a 'stringing a new wire thought a load of trees problem'. Read the OP. Its what I did, then I tried the answer his question (how unfashionable am I)..

Exactly. When I read the OP: BT don't seem to have a problem - its SteveA that has the problem, therefore its SteveA who should sort out 'their' problem (in the nicest possible way).

Am I not right in thinking that under UK (maybe British(or even just English / Welsh)) law, if a tree is causing a 'nuisance', it is the responsibility of the tree owner? (PS B.T. or STIHL.......? it's tricky, but I think that B.T. are worst) after all, at least Stihl are a site sponsor.

I also got a vid of a bloke climbing up a reeeeeealy high radio mast if you're interested