Let Darwin's theory continue to work. Sometimes it is the tree that dies, if the tree is big enough it is the driver. As has been mentioned most of these large trees were there before the internal combustion engine was invented, many will still be there after they have all gone!
When my 17 year old spun his Corsa I showed him some of the photos on wreckedexotics and made a point of taking him back to the site and pointing the trees he had been lucky not to hit. I believe it calmed him down a bit - he was suitably shocked at the time.
Recent theory suggest that removing road markings etc (actually making the road appear more risky) is better at reducing speeds than making the roads safer! Similar to the 6 inch spike on the steering wheel - so leave the trees where they are.
|
I have a photo that I took just a few years ago, near Heathrow.
It shows a proper triangular warning sign with the words "Trees removed".
It was on my commute route and I think I know what it is supposed to mean but as a stranger what would your reaction be to such a sign except to be puzzled and slow down.
Answers on a postcard ?
|
It shows a proper triangular warning sign with the words "Trees removed".
It wouldn't mean anything to me. Was it to wind up Swampy and his ilk?
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
"Let Darwin's theory continue to work."
Too late for that mate, the welfare state took care of natural selection through ability...
Let the trees be, motoring is dangerous - people die - but the death rate in this country is at a perfectly acceptable level given the population density.
|
|
|
|
Darwin rules OK.
V
|
Typical of modern Britain, motorist loses control so blame something else. This isn't a lack of compassion but I think this blame culture is leading to a compassionless society.
More trees and windfarms.
Steve.
---
Xantia HDi.
Buy a Citroen and get to know the local GSF staff better...
|
|
|
I drive along a road (Biddulph to Congleton) which is tree lined and one of the trees ended up with a smashed car embedded in it plus a dead driver. The presence of the tree was irrelevant as there was a killer wall 2 metres behind it.
(It is a 30mph limit and now has a speed camera which does now restrain the speeding puppets).
But if we follow the logic to its final and absurd conclusion, pedestrian safety barriers near schools should be removed as they pose a threat to drivers.:-(
madf
|
I can think of no good reason to plant trees close to a road, whatever the speed limit prevailing. The trees may well have been there before the road, but a rutted cart track was probably there before the road. Do we want to revert back to that, as well?
It is not always the driver who collides with the tree who comes off worse, a glancing impact throwing the car across the road may well take out an innocent party. They will be just as dead as if they hit the tree. How is that a ?Darwin? effect?
Visibility is often reduced, masking pedestrians of all ages. It can almost be guaranteed that maintenance on the trees will be neglected leading to overhanging branches, leaves left uncleared etc. This leads to slippery patches, and unthawed ice. Why take the risk?
A local road that I use is tree lined both sides. The trees are actually at least 10 feet from the road edge and on one side are behind a wall. They are so neglected that the branches actually overlap to form a tunnel. Even in high summer visibility is severely restricted. Most of these trees are old and starting to shed branches, some branches are even dislodged by high vehicles. Some of the ones on the wall side of the road are causing the wall to become unsafe. Is that safe? Why should the motorist have to risk the wall collapsing or a tree being blown down or a large branch falling?
I would rather have a wide, clear area both sides of the road, thank you very much.
|
Around 1960, hitching up the Rhone valley near Aix en Provence during the Mistral, strong enough to blow you about and make it impossible to stand in one place without staggering.
Got a lift in one of those slab-sided biggish Citroen vans, up a long straight route nationale with poplar trees close to the road on both sides. Every vehicle on the road was being blown from side to side of it, so that they were using the whole road. Thanks to the practised skill of their drivers, however, they always seemed to miss each other in the event, although the whole thing was quite alarming.
Passed a DS buried nose first in a tree, but it didn't look as if anyone had been killed.
|
|
I would add: trees shouldn't be taken away just because they are close to roads. This country simply isn't big enough for that. If a tree is thought to be a hazard, put a bit of armco to deflect any car heading towards it.
|
" would rather have a wide, clear area both sides of the road, thank you very much. "
On that logic, all pedestrian crossings plus warning lights should be removed. Plus all traffic lights/all safety barriers, all bridges on motorways should be widened .. etc...:-)
madf
|
|
If trees near the roadside are that much of a problem then why does humankind insist on putting telephone poles and street lights, which are just as hard and thick as many trees, within a couple of feet of the kerb, surely all these should be placed at the rear of the pavement away from the kerb. Placed away from the kerb they would also not obscure any pedestrians, particularly thinking of small children, waiting to cross a road from the sightline of motorists.
|
Madf,
I'm thinking more about rural roads than urban, here. Obviously street furniture is necessary for pedestrian crossings etc. In my town we have a crossroads where emerging traffic from the minor roads have their view obscured by parked cars both sides of the junction. Literally within a few yards of the junction is a pedestrian crossing. A few yards past that is a telephone kiosk sited on a narrow pavement, blocking it, in fact. The area is a nightmare.
Cockle,
I don't know if your comments are tic, but moving poles etc to the back of the pavement, or at least a few feet back if the pavement is a wide one and cantilevering the pedestrian crossing lights out to improve visibility for both drivers and pedestrians is a good idea.
Visibility and observation are vital to road safety, more important imho than speed cameras.
I am not saying that all trees should be cleared back away from the road, just that it seems, as the op said, silly to plant new ones there, just as it is dangerous not to manage those that are already there.
|
Of course, you could argue that a solid line of trees or lamp posts, metal poles etc on the edge of the road might protect pedestrians from "killer cars"! Why do we insist on having pavements/cycle tracks next to cars which could be doing any speed up to (!) 70 mph?
Money, I guess.
--
Phil
|
No, mjm, not really tic.
About 30 years ago I was involved in planning the telephone provision for a new housing estate in Essex and , having lived in Southend all my life, automatically planned all the poles to be placed at the kerbside of the pavement only to be told that that was fine in Southend Council territory but not in the rest of Essex as Essex County insisted all poles, etc., should be placed at the rear of the pavement for precisely the reasons I outlined previously. Apparently Southend Council's argument was that having the poles at the back of the pavement close to front walls made the streets untidy in that rubbish became trapped between wall and pole and it also made their street cleaners' job more difficult as it was more difficult to sweep round a pole against a wall.
Not really looked that much recently but the difference still existed with the established street furniture certainly until quite recently.
Also I've never understood why street lights always seem to be placed on the outside of a bend, precisely where rally and race marshals are told not to stand in case a driver loses control. There is a road near me where the lights actually change from one side of the road to the other to be on the outsides of first a left hand bend and then a right hand bend, unsurprisingly they get regularly hit.
As for drivers being poor if they are unable to miss these obstacles at the road side, admittedly there are some who through lack of ability or sheer disregard for road conditions put themselves at risk but there are also instances where a driver may lose control with far less contribution on his part; a sudden blow out comes to mind, purely because I once suffered one and found myself unceremoniously dumped in a ditch having narrowly missed a lamp post and a tree on the way, as much by luck as skill.
Regardless of the pros and cons of road furniture placing I'm afraid it just adds to the impression of poor, piecemeal road planning that we suffer from in the UK.
|
|
|
>>I would rather have a wide, clear area both sides of the road, thank you very much.
>>
Beware of my area.
In the otherwise "normal public road" where I live there are two small pear trees happily growing in the normal width paved pavement and they have, in the last few years started to fruit in abundance.
Now they do make a really squishy road.
Wher I used to live, again a normal road, had a massive cedar tree growing IN the tarmac of the road.
No armco, IIRC no white stripes, no warnings, no kerbs around it, nothing.
I could ride my bike between the tree and the kerb and I have never sen any damage to the tree.
How things have changed re H & S.
|
|
|
|
|
Vin
'fraid not. Darwinism in humans was killed off by medical science :-(
JH
|
|
I find the best thing with trees is to avoid hitting them.
|
|
To true Nick. I think (as it is a while since formal training etc) that one of the principles in advanced driving is to bear escape routes in mind, in the event of a hazard. Given that trees are not an uncommon feature, is it not strange that a trained driver is unable to take action to avoid hitting trees at speed? Of course, one riposte is that the OP was thinking of the multitude of untrained drivers, at risk. I'd prefer to preserve the trees: its the drivers that are supposed to be sentient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
