Cut down tree's to save lives

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Bill M

More of an issue is power poles that are in some cases 100 mm from the road side (Melbourne)

If its the Steel pole they are designed to sheer (I suppose more damage is likely if it fell on someone).

There's still a lot of Timber ones I've seen are mlostly in 50-60kph areas,

[CoupeKing]

Woteva happens, just make sure that the people involved in the removal of the trees are not the tools on 200k per year from my Council. They will relocate them in the middle of a roundabout so you cant see anything.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Picture this...

Your driving along a country road, its a fine sunny day. The posted limit is 100k/hr and your cruise control is set.
In the back seat are your kids, busy reading a book, in the passenger seat, your partner is getting a few winks before you reach your destination.

Ahead you see an oncoming car, nothing out of the ordinary.
All of a sudden some form of native wildlife appears on the road in front of the oncoming car.
You cant control their actions and so they swerve into your lane as a reaction.
To avoid a head on you swerve too, lose control of the car on the dirty shoulder and slide passenger side first into a large gum tree.
The result is catastrophic for car and occupant and in a split second your world is torn apart.

Who do you blame, the animal, the other driver for becoming startled or you for not correcting your slide.
You cant stop the animal from doing erratic things on the road, they don't know any different.
You could blame the other driver, but who hasn't been startled by an unexpected object appearing on the road.
Or you could blame yourself for not steering your car away as you did in the controlled conditions of an advanced driver training course you have completed.

All of these things contributed to the resulting accident, but only one thing took the lives of your partner and child, the tree you hit 3 meters off the road.

Its ok to say drive to the conditions, but what if you are and the whole thing comes about as a result of no fault of your own.

Technically I blame the car that swerved to avoid the animal, the law states you are not to put at risk any other vehicles or people by trying to avoid animals, but people are known to make mistakes under these circumstances.

[monzie]

A few years ago "Trees close to road" signs started appearing in the area, what a laugh, they only lasted about 6 months before they where taken down.
I presume it was an insurance thing, "Sorry sir it's your problem, we told you the trees where there"

[jpblue1000]

Leave the trees where they are and legislate that anyone with a license must use a driverless car. Problem solved again
Or accept that human life has a price. That price should be less then the social, environmental and capital cost of preventing that person from dying.
We moan about governments spending our tax dollars on being overly intrusive to our lives, imagine the cost of protecting all drivers, passengers, pedestrians, wildlife cyclists, children and baby jesus from themselves in everything they do, even cotton wool can be suffocating!
Accept some of us will die unnecessarily and unfairly and move on.

JP

[blackf6]

What's next, gravel traps and roll cages?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Would you rather people drift into a tree or drift into oncoming traffic?

Why are the trees in the middle of the road??

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Or accept that human life has a price. That price should be less then the social, environmental and capital cost of preventing that person from dying.

You cant have it both ways. You cant police trivial behaviours like 3kmh over an arbitrary limit under the guise of safety, all the while raking in millions, and choosing not to spend anything on making the road environment safer.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by b0son

Why are the trees in the middle of the road??

Most people driving into random trees are dozing off. (or suicide)
Getting rid of roadside trees wont stop them from dozing, it will just mean they will hit something else. Perhaps a culvert, a creek, a dam or another oncoming car.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by DeJaVu GT

What's next, gravel traps and roll cages?

I wish they would loosen up on roll cages

[aussiblue]

The way it's going with self drive cars etc automatic tree and telegraph pole avoidance will be here soon.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Most people driving into random trees are dozing off. (or suicide)
Getting rid of roadside trees wont stop them from dozing, it will just mean they will hit something else. Perhaps a culvert, a creek, a dam or another oncoming car.

Or perhaps the sudden shaking of the car would wake them up and give them a chance to react.
Remember the little rumble strips they put on the edge of highways etc. If they are installed to wake up a driver, surely a vehicle running onto the shoulder would have similar results, only difference is if a tree is right there its game over, no option.

Some of the trees along the roads through the Adelaide hills are just plain ridiculous and it is only by luck that more lives haven't been claimed unnecessarily as a result of their presence.

Im not saying to simply clear out all trees, but to remove those which present a real danger.

Im suggesting a common sense approach, dependant on speed zone, nature of the road and environment and the size of the trees.

For example, On country roads where the speed limit is 100 then there should be a 5 mtr clearing from the edge of the driving lane (including bitumen shoulder).
If that road has a section where animal traffic is frequent (through scrub area's where roo's etc. are sign posted) then the clearing should be another couple of mtrs. to allow for better reaction time.
In addition, any tree with a trunk greater than say 30cm should be removed altogether and a smaller growing tree put in its place.

That takes care of providing a run off area whilst still maintaining some level of protection from environmental erosion and natural habitat.

In many rural areas this is already regular practice.

The mate I mentioned earlier who hit the palm tree, had that 1 tree not been there he would have continued through the rest of the light scrub and ended up in a cereal crop, yes he may have rolled the car and been killed in some other manner, we will never know as the tree he hit was not forgiving.

[Adamz Ghia]

There shouldn't be anything either side of the road for 10 metres. Every time they do a road upgrade they should cut everything within 10 metres down and pave the road either side, especially in the country. Of course this can't be done everywhere but on major routes it should be aimed for. It's silly having trees right up to the road side, not in case someone hits them, but they act as cover for kangaroos ect at night. The Sunraysia Hwy is bad to drive at night for this reason. Roos will still hop out but if you have 10 metres clearance either side of the road you're going to see them coming rather than if they just jump clear out in front of you...

[blackf6]

But it's not just trees to worry about. What about cliff drop offs and batters on the edges of the road way. I agree the roads could be safer. But how safe can we make it. The safety aspect within our work places and lives has gone to far. Might as well just give up all our freedoms and be done with it. Live in a bubble.

[V8kado]

Do people not realise that some of Australia's rural roadsides have some of our oldest communities of bushland. Some of the old gum trees are well over 150+ yrs old and you just want to cut them down or move them to another spot, ha ha!

I mean have a look over the fence at some of these rural roads your all talking about and you wont won't see a tree for miles sometimes, fully cleared for farming, nothing, zilch!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by DeJaVu GT

But it's not just trees to worry about. What about cliff drop offs and batters on the edges of the road way. I agree the roads could be safer. But how safe can we make it. The safety aspect within our work places and lives has gone to far. Might as well just give up all our freedoms and be done with it. Live in a bubble.

Cable barriers, as are installed in many situations now.

You pay rego, tax on your fuel and they try to fine you every 50mtrs, don't you want your contribution spent on improving the very roads we enjoy our passions on.
I wouldn't have a problem if the federal government directed enough funding to get a program up and running to improve safety for all of us whilst employing people removing identified objects and constructing safety barriers where necessary.
Its progress, I'd rather the money spent there than on some imports new car and furnishings.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on it, I just saw it as something positive towards road safety with an economic kickback as opposed to the continual whining over the speed cameras and revenue raising debates.

[pigglesworth]

Of course trees which are practically touching the road are a fatal accident waiting to happen and ought to be removed, but in general, I reckon drive to the conditions, and be (you and your car) in a condition suitable for the conditions! As far as I know, most fatalities on country roads generally occur at night, even though the vast majority of vehicle journeys are undertaken during the day so I'll focus on night driving.

There are a litany of increased risk factors for driving at night in rural Australia that any responsible driver is aware of (stray animals, reduced visibility, tiredness, oncoming vehicles reacting poorly to these same factors, etc). Just because a speed limit is posted as 100 or 110 doesn't mean that this is the speed you should do at any time in any condition. Reducing your speed by 10 or 20 km/hr is often the difference between life and death when something unexpected happens, and is going to be far more effect at increasing your chances of surviving your night time road journey than asking the government to go cutting all the trees down. Even if one of these 'out of your control' events like an oncoming vehicle straying in to your path, stray cow, etc you will have a much improved chance of reacting/avoiding or surviving the accident. If you can't deal with the 10 minutes this might add to your journey along a risky road, then either drive during the daytime or accept the risk. I don't see the point in spending public money to cut down large swathes of trees in road reserves so that we can all excersice our 'right' to fang along half asleep in an old EA at 110km/hr without the chance of hitting a tree (of course this is an exageration and not a generalisation of all road deaths).

Somebody above dismissed the installation of warning signs alerting people to trees close to the road - I actually think this is a great idea. I've seen a few such signs over here in WA and it really gets your attention. It reminds me that I'm driving along a road within and built around an 'imperfect' natural environment, where I need to pay constant attention to controlling this vehicle that is moving at a speed which could kill me if I made any tiny mistake with my braking, steering, speed, etc.

Removing all trees within cooee of roads would reduce road fatalities by some amount but, as pointed out by other people, trees aren't the only danger and it would come at an unreasonable and disproportionate cost to the environment, to taxpayers and even the visual amenity of rural roads. My 2c!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by pigglesworth

Of course trees which are practically touching the road are a fatal accident waiting to happen and ought to be removed, but in general, I reckon drive to the conditions, and be (you and your car) in a condition suitable for the conditions! As far as I know, most fatalities on country roads generally occur at night, even though the vast majority of vehicle journeys are undertaken during the day so I'll focus on night driving.

There are a litany of increased risk factors for driving at night in rural Australia that any responsible driver is aware of (stray animals, reduced visibility, tiredness, oncoming vehicles reacting poorly to these same factors, etc). Just because a speed limit is posted as 100 or 110 doesn't mean that this is the speed you should do at any time in any condition. Reducing your speed by 10 or 20 km/hr is often the difference between life and death when something unexpected happens, and is going to be far more effect at increasing your chances of surviving your night time road journey than asking the government to go cutting all the trees down. Even if one of these 'out of your control' events like an oncoming vehicle straying in to your path, stray cow, etc you will have a much improved chance of reacting/avoiding or surviving the accident. If you can't deal with the 10 minutes this might add to your journey along a risky road, then either drive during the daytime or accept the risk. I don't see the point in spending public money to cut down large swathes of trees in road reserves so that we can all excersice our 'right' to fang along half asleep in an old EA at 110km/hr without the chance of hitting a tree (of course this is an exageration and not a generalisation of all road deaths).

But what is the right speed for the conditions, I mean its ok to say do 10 or 20k less in a 100 zone, but what happens when the bloke from AFF comes up behind through a winding section where he cant overtake me and gets ****ed off because im 20k under the limit HE feels is right or should be allowed to drive at as posted?
He gets on here and we all bang on about grey nomads and if you cant drive to the limit you shouldn't be on the road.
Or he gets pinched for jumping to light speed to pass me in the tiny gap with visibility to just make the move and then proceeds to cry about revenue raising.

Its double standards.

[aussiblue]

I wonder if having large trees (such as our South West Karri) close to the road encourages people to drive more carefully and safely; would removing these tree and the creation of a clearer wider vista perhaps actually encourage more over speeding etc. ? As someone who grew up driving on narrow gravel country roads winding through Karri and Jarrah forests I know I even as a silly young fella I always took more care in the forests (who knows what boomer, or large log truck, farm tractor etc was around the corner) than when I was on the open coastal plain roads.

[blackf6]

It's a great topic. Just not entirely feasible. I too slow down when tree's line the road, as you are usually blind to what's around the corner.

[pigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

But what is the right speed for the conditions, I mean its ok to say do 10 or 20k less in a 100 zone, but what happens when the bloke from AFF comes up behind through a winding section where he cant overtake me and gets ****ed off because im 20k under the limit HE feels is right or should be allowed to drive at as posted?
He gets on here and we all bang on about grey nomads and if you cant drive to the limit you shouldn't be on the road.
Or he gets pinched for jumping to light speed to pass me in the tiny gap with visibility to just make the move and then proceeds to cry about revenue raising.

Its double standards.

I don't think it's double standards, we're talking about driving to the conditions (i.e slower) during riskier times (night, rain, etc) on risky roads. Old farts and nervous drivers who plod along 20km/hr below the speed limit wherever they go regardless of conditions is a different story.

On a side note, I don't mind it when I come across somebody going slower than me at night (within reason) - gives me a chance to pass them and use my superior high beams and spotties unimpeded.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by pigglesworth

I don't think it's double standards, we're talking about driving to the conditions (i.e slower) during riskier times (night, rain, etc) on risky roads. Old farts and nervous drivers who plod along 20km/hr below the speed limit wherever they go regardless of conditions is a different story.

On a side note, I don't mind it when I come across somebody going slower than me at night (within reason) - gives me a chance to pass them and use my superior high beams and spotties unimpeded.

Who's we?

I don't think anyone is talking about rain or dark, in fact the few examples given have considered perfect conditions, bright, sunny days.
The reference to driving to the conditions in this thread is with regards to allowing for risks associated with trees alone.

The point is, what is deemed safe for one on a tree lined rural road on a sunny day might not for another and when that happens we get impatience and aggravation as has been displayed on here numerous times over the years.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by pigglesworth

Of course trees which are practically touching the road are a fatal accident waiting to happen and ought to be removed, but in general, I reckon drive to the conditions, and be (you and your car) in a condition suitable for the conditions! As far as I know, most fatalities on country roads generally occur at night, even though the vast majority of vehicle journeys are undertaken during the day so I'll focus on night driving.

There are a litany of increased risk factors for driving at night in rural Australia that any responsible driver is aware of (stray animals, reduced visibility, tiredness, oncoming vehicles reacting poorly to these same factors, etc). Just because a speed limit is posted as 100 or 110 doesn't mean that this is the speed you should do at any time in any condition. Reducing your speed by 10 or 20 km/hr is often the difference between life and death when something unexpected happens, and is going to be far more effect at increasing your chances of surviving your night time road journey than asking the government to go cutting all the trees down. Even if one of these 'out of your control' events like an oncoming vehicle straying in to your path, stray cow, etc you will have a much improved chance of reacting/avoiding or surviving the accident. If you can't deal with the 10 minutes this might add to your journey along a risky road, then either drive during the daytime or accept the risk. I don't see the point in spending public money to cut down large swathes of trees in road reserves so that we can all excersice our 'right' to fang along half asleep in an old EA at 110km/hr without the chance of hitting a tree (of course this is an exageration and not a generalisation of all road deaths).

Somebody above dismissed the installation of warning signs alerting people to trees close to the road - I actually think this is a great idea. I've seen a few such signs over here in WA and it really gets your attention. It reminds me that I'm driving along a road within and built around an 'imperfect' natural environment, where I need to pay constant attention to controlling this vehicle that is moving at a speed which could kill me if I made any tiny mistake with my braking, steering, speed, etc.

Removing all trees within cooee of roads would reduce road fatalities by some amount but, as pointed out by other people, trees aren't the only danger and it would come at an unreasonable and disproportionate cost to the environment, to taxpayers and even the visual amenity of rural roads. My 2c!

There used to be several highways in America that became open limit after a certain time at night. Once a limit was imposed the death rate increased. I think fatigue (and driving slow aids fatigue) is a bigger factor than people realise.

Edit: It was an open limit by day, not at night. Either way the death rate still increased.

[pigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Who's we?

I don't think anyone is talking about rain or dark, in fact the few examples given have considered perfect conditions, bright, sunny days.
The reference to driving to the conditions in this thread is with regards to allowing for risks associated with trees alone.

The point is, what is deemed safe for one on a tree lined rural road on a sunny day might not for another and when that happens we get impatience and aggravation as has been displayed on here numerous times over the years.

I mean 'we' as in what I thought you and me were talking about.
Anyway, I get what you're saying.
What I was getting at is that most of the fatal tree-related accidents people have referenced in this thread would have occurred during these 'not ideal' conditions. Not suggesting we should put up with having to drive slowly on major roads because they aren't safe due to trees even during good conditions. I was more pointing out that we shouldn't go about changing the environment because things like trees pose a hazard only during poor conditions or for poor drivers, which is often the case.

Of course if a major road has trees so close that you can't safely drive the speed limit in a sedan in sunny dry conditions then the road isn't fit for purpose and a) speed limit should be reduced (which is a lazy, cop out approach) or b) improved with particularly close trees removed, barriers installed, etc.

[bobthebilda]

This has to be one of the stupidest comments ever made by a public official. Sure, the newer roads have great drainage, barriers, enforcements etc that allow areas to be cleared further away from the road. Most of the older roads, especially older highways etc, that are surrounded by trees owe their longevity to the trees that surround them. One just has to look at some farmland that surrounds these roads, and see the damage caused by uncontrolled runoff ( due to and clearing), to see how powerfall water can be. Clearing trees from around roads without the necessary culvert, drainage, enforcement works, will only quicken road degradation, thus causing more deaths.

[jpblue1000]

Have road reserves generally been carved through Private property?
Perhaps the cost of removing trees some many meters back from the road edge Is prohibitively expensive?
Perhaps loosing a few drivers isn't such a bad thing when compared to the cost of saving them as some people cost a lot of money to save.
Our road network length per capita is second only to Canada so paying for that luxury is damn costly to the entire economy for what gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_network_size)

Sure it might be a good plan but in reality totally unfeasible...especially as we don't seem to want to pay 7 bucks to see a doctor to save our lives!

JP

[Bill M]

Expect the unexpected, parked cars, pedestrians, wildlife, cyclists etc.
It is the driver's responsibility to be alert to potential hazards, wanting trees cut down or roadside objects cleared for 10 metres is unrealistic.
Drive safe according to the conditions.
cheers
Bill.

[danzvtil]

This topic is a big slimy slippery slope. The areas of the Adelaide hills they are talking about are undulating, windy and wooded areas. People live there because of those reasons. There are untold risks inherent with driving through these areas daily (these roads form part of my work territory). Bottom line is these roads shouldn't be considered complete until barriers are erected that prevent cars from running into trees.
I liken this to building a house without a roof, then proposing to ban the rain so you don't get wet.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Leave the trees where they are and legislate that anyone with a license must use a driverless car. Problem solved again
Or accept that human life has a price. That price should be less then the social, environmental and capital cost of preventing that person from dying.
We moan about governments spending our tax dollars on being overly intrusive to our lives, imagine the cost of protecting all drivers, passengers, pedestrians, wildlife cyclists, children and baby jesus from themselves in everything they do, even cotton wool can be suffocating!
Accept some of us will die unnecessarily and unfairly and move on.

JP

And what price do you put on a life...? Is someone on $200,000 a year more important than someone on $45,000 a year.

[aussiblue]

And what price do you put on a life...?

Is life of any value if it is risk free?