Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

To "tree" or not to "tree"..that is the question

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' at netrider.net.au started by ascottaudio, Dec 7, 2011.

  1. I will keep this short and sweet.

    1) In these days of conservation and sustainability we want to keep as much of our "wilderness" as possible.

    2) Every tree at the side of a road is a potential fatality.

    3) Why not harvest "road trees" ?



    I rest my case you honour...
     
     Top
  2. you idiot it would be far to expensive to do that!
     
     Top
  3. I get laughed at when I talk to myself. For some, it's just a sign of character, a pleasant eccentricity that endears them to people.

    What's the difference?

    Who f*kken cares?
     
     Top
  4. yeh.. well tell that to the parents of the 4 friends of mine that would have survived if it weren't for the fact that when they ran off the road they hit a huge tree!..
     
     Top
  5. Were they talking to themselves?
     
     Top
  6. did they all hit the same tree?
     
     Top
  7. maybe they should of stayed on the road or stayed home
     
     Top
  8. A local council decided to cut down all street trees after working through a risk assessment project. Street Trees are actually rather expensive for local councils to maintain to a safe level.

    No trees = no maintenance plus no potential insurance claims

    Edit: The rate payers went ballistic as a result as they were not consulted. No chance of any council having a repeat of that
     
     Top
  9. yeah cut down all the trees and install those wire rope safety bariers
     
     Top
  10. at 100km/h departing the road at 25 degrees (worst case scenario) you need 81m clear zone

    do u really think this is an option???

    if 4 of your friends were in the car at the same time i think there is more involved than just trees to blame.. were they drinking, speeding, underage etc??
     
     Top
  11. Whilst any loss of life is a tragedy, I think BiG DaN91 is correct. Why blame the tree? It wasn't "the tree" that killed them.

    However I can't understand the new fire regulations. If I've heard correctly, landowners are now allowed to clear within 10m (?) of their house. Is that right? What good is that?
     
     Top
  12. well this threads going well
     
     Top
  13. Pardon? I don't understand...
     
     Top
  14. I got it from a road safety lecture from last semesters traffic unit at uni.

    Basically it says

    Common Run-Off-Road
    Treatments
    • Concrete Barriers
    • Guardrail Barriers
    • Wire Rope Barriers
    • Clear Zones

    It then explains the 4 types and theres a graph showing fatal risk vs stopping distance with different degree of depature for clear zones. Clear zones are just empty space where theres nothing for you to hit

    RURAL EXAMPLE
    Criteria:
    100 km/h; Angle of Depature 25°;collision with tree 2.5 m;
    PRT 2.5 seconds
    = Risk of death: 100%;

    Rural Guidelines -
    Current Guidelines: 9m
    Clear zone required for SS compliance: 81 m
    Clear zone required for Biomech tolerance:78 m
    Realistic CZ width on urban roadside:10 -20m


    URBAN EXAMPLE
    Criteria:
    60 km/h; AoD 5°; collision with street pole 0.5 m;
    PRT 2.5 seconds
    = Risk of death: 33%;

    Urban Guidelines -
    Current guidelines: 4.2 m
    Clear zone required for SS compliance: 5.3 m
    Clear zone required for Biomech tolerance: 4.7 m
    Realistic CZ width on urban roadside: 0.5 m
     
     Top
  15. Get rid of all the trees, straighten all the roads, and remove all distracting beauty.


    No thanks, lives sadly cut short is an acceptable price to pay for living in a world in colour.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Lets ban cars instead 'cos every driver on the road is a potential fatality.

    Youre buying into VicPol and TAC's argument that crashes are unavoidable.
     
     Top
  17. Well put!
     
     Top
  18. This is supposed to be a research topic thread and needs to be kept on topic.
     
     Top
  19. I think the proposition at point 3 is in conflict with the premise at point 1.
    Why not teach drivers about target fixation instead?
     
     Top
  20. tress would of been there before the road and most likely before humans
     
     Top