Remove roadside trees.

[go-tazz]

Another two young kids die by hitting a roadside tree:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/two-boys-die-in-altona-crash/

Isn't it about time that roadside trees are removed?

The amount of times I've heard people dying by hitting a roadside tree is ludicrous.

This is one simple thing to reduce the road toll,(the added benifit is that they could sell them for firewood).

Travelling from Katamatite to Shepparton is a nightmare as you are always looking at branches that overhang

the road and when it rains you watch the dead trees in case they topple,(that's apart from the big roadside

trees that will kill anyone that hits them).

Someone will die because of those trees,(most are Gum trees and one given with Gum trees is that sooner

or later they will drop their branches).

Report them and you get a thank you and that's it.

Nothing gets done until a branch or a tree falls and then it's just cleaned up,(once it's cleaned up there is no

sign that it ever happened),

[cee-dee]

We have the same "problem" in the UK.

The root cause in most cases is excessive speed.

In hospital a few weeks back a lady next to me said she visited the grave of "her baby". I commiserated and asked how old her baby was when she died. She was 18!!!!!

She killed herself and her friend by "skidding on a wet road and hit a wall".

Now how fast have you got to be going to skid on a wet road and kill yourself and your friend? Too fast anyway?

[go-tazz]

---

@imastawka wrote:

How far off the road do you want to clear them, Tazz?

Have a buffer of 10 metres,(then they have some chance of surviving and no branches will fall unto the

road).

Have to agree with Amber.

No trees?   They'll hit something else.

But it wont kill them.

Like my fence.    I planted trees when the 2nd car came into my front yard.

I'd rather them hit a tree, than my family while we're sleeping

I would've done the same,(put a barrier up to stop it happening again).

I'm talking about country roads,(100 kms speed limit).

---

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

Dead trees, dying trees, unhealthy limbs, agree. I know gums can drop branches and need to be checked regularly. All trees, no.

People crash into power poles, too. The poles that carry the lighting to

make our roads safer.

There is none of them on country roads or highways,(I'm talking 100 kms speed limit where if anything can

go wrong as in one error/mistake will kill you).

I would hate to live without roadside trees. Most of the time, the responsibilty for a crash into a tree, involves the driver, not the tree. Speed, drugs, drink and lack of experience are contributing factors, often. Not blaming those who die, but a world without lovely, leafy, tree-lined streets? No thank you. 

I don't have a problem with trees that are on streets.

Most of the ones that get killed in the country that hit trees are due to fatigue and small mistakes,(not

one of the above).

if the trees weren't that close to the road most would've probably survived.

Take care on the roads everyone.

---

Country roads often have trees from the roadside to the fences which are up to 30 to 50 metres away.

It's the roadside trees that do the damage and removing them would leave plenty of others,(there is also

plenty of  space left to plant others).

I know of a number of trees that are no more then 2 metres from the edge of the road,(one had a safety

barrier put  on the edge of the road which is 2 foot from the tree 2 months after an accident killed 3 people). 

Surely they can come up with a tree that grows a certain size that can slow a car enough for the people

to survive,(the sale of the wood from the roadside trees could fund it).

The workforce could come from work for the dole scheme,

That would be my perfect scenario.

Sorry if I value life more then trees,

[amber-eyed-girl]

Tazz, quite frankly, those who drink to the point of affecting their responses, or do drugs and drive, don't value their own lives let alone anybody else's. Same with those who drive recklessly with a confidence beyond their ability. I am not sorry, that I value beauty, and think that people need to take responsibility for their own behaviour.

I agree, and reiterate, that sick, or dead trees, at risk of causing accidents, need to be removed not be a danger.

[go-tazz]

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

I get what tazz is saying. The Princes Highway around where I live passes through several national and state parks and is thickly and closely lined with gum trees.

That's what it's like driving to Shep,(it was similar around Portland).

  It is truely terrifying driving along there when the wind is blowing.  There is debris being blown onto the road all about the place. Sometimes you have to cross onto the wrong side to avoid fallen branches.

Which can cause a head on accident,loss of control or a bad accident.

I have a friend who mother was killed by a roadside tree falling and crushing her car.

I don't think anyone is calling for completely denuding the landscape of trees, but a bit of roadside maintenance wouldn't go astray.

---

That is the whole point,(nothing is being done to remove obvious dangerous trees and branches).

When I go to Shep next I'll try to remember to take the camera,

[amber-eyed-girl]

Would anyone, care to read the first sentence of my first post?

Tazz, you called for the removal of roadside trees in yours. So you did not mean all?

[go-tazz]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

Tazz, quite frankly, those who drink to the point of affecting their responses, or do drugs and drive, don't value their own lives let alone anybody else's. Same with those who drive recklessly with a confidence beyond their ability.

I am not sorry, that I value beauty, and think that people need to take responsibility for their own behaviour.

As I already stated the people I'm talking about are killed by accidents which are not due to any of the things

you stated,(they are killed because they make a small mistake,are fatigued,try to avoid an animal,hit a

branch or tree that's fallen across the road or have a head on because they tried to avoid a tree branch,etc).

They end up as accidents where they get killed because they hit a tree that's too close to the road or a

branch that's fallen from one of those trees.

I agree, and reiterate, that sick, or dead trees, at risk of causing accidents, need to be removed not be a danger.

---

Which will never happen as that just doesn't seem to be part of their "works" program.

I know it can take up to a week to get branches removed,(that have been removed from the road by others).

[go-tazz]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

Would anyone, care to read the first sentence of my first post?

Tazz, you called for the removal of roadside trees in yours. So you did not mean all?

---

Off course not,(it's the ones that are too close to the road that do the damage).

They are the ones that need to be removed.

Sorry if you thought my post referred to all roadside trees,

Edit: I must have missed this: All trees, no.,sorry,

[amber-eyed-girl]

I did! Which is why I was speaking of driving error. Cool...thanks

[icyfroth]

Leave the trees alone.

Most motor vehicle accidents occur through excessive speed/alcohol/drugs/fatigue/inattention or a combination thereof.

Why chop down the innocent trees?

[lurker172602 · Accepted solution]

There is a difference between people crashing into trees because of speed, alcohol or whatever, and trees crashing into people because of a lack of roadside maintenance.

Try driving on the "highway" around here during a storm, or even just a windy day, and you'll understand exactly what tazz is on about.