Nonsense about trip hazards

editorial image
0
Have your say

I read the article about the Rustlings Road trees “Final call to trigger city debate on tree felling” (June 20, page 4) and about the falls apparently caused by tree roots as claimed by Streets Ahead chiefs.

Without detailed substantiation, which I understand has been repeatedly requested by the campaigners, there can be no proper scrutiny of these complaints and no proper context for them. There are risks in life - are the risks to walking down Rustlings Road higher than other risks in life or indeed walking down any other road? How many complaints does the average road get?

Rustlings Road must be used by many thousands who use the paths every year and falls can happen for all sorts of reasons - it’s not necessarily the tree’s fault.

Only the other day I tripped and fell in Barker’s Pool when I tripped over the steps surrounding the war memorial. My immediate reaction wasn’t to write to the council and ask them to cut down the war memorial and fill in the surrounding steps feature. No - I decided to look where I’m going next time.

But having read the nonsense about supposed trip hazards provided to the Star by the council and Amey, perhaps I should reconsider my options? Perhaps I should raise a trip hazard complaint and ask for the war memorial to be removed? This would seem to be the kind of suitably disproportionate solution that the council and Amey seem to favour and seems to be their default position.

What other considerations and solutions have they looked at for the 11 trees on Rustlings Road? And where can the evidence be seen by the public that these solutions have been given serious consideration?

But, fellow citizens, for the moment the war memorial is safe - unlike the trees - please sign the petition at http://chn.ge/1dtg74B

Name & address supplied