ARGUMENTAÇÃO JURÍDICA PARA SUPRESSÃO DE ÁRVORES NATIVAS NAS FAIXAS DE DOMÍNIO

Maia, Dayane Thomazi; Bezerra, Barbara Stolte · 2015 · Crossref

DOI: 10.17271/231884723142015936

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the legal and safety conflict regarding the removal of native trees within the "faixa de domínio" (road right-of-way) of highways in Brazil. The authors argue that the presence of large trees in these zones significantly increases the risk and severity of run-off-road accidents, thereby threatening human life. The study is motivated by the apparent contradiction between environmental legislation, which often requires compensation for tree suppression, and traffic safety regulations, which prioritize the protection of human life. The central thesis is that the right to life, a fundamental constitutional guarantee, supersedes environmental rights, and thus, the removal of hazardous vegetation from high-speed roadways should not require environmental compensation or complex licensing. The methodology combines bibliographic research with technical field visits. The authors analyzed Brazilian traffic laws (such as the Traffic Code), environmental laws (including the Forest Code), and international safety standards (AASHTO). They also conducted technical visits to traffic secretaries, road agencies (DER-SP), highway concessionaires, and environmental bodies in the Bauru region of São Paulo to assess current practices and contractual obligations. The study reviews the structure of roadways, defining the "obstacle-free zone" as a critical safety area, and analyzes the economic, human, and environmental costs of traffic accidents, noting that collisions with fixed objects like trees account for a significant portion of fatal incidents. The findings highlight that trees in the right-of-way serve as lethal obstacles during emergency maneuvers and can cause secondary hazards, such as falling onto the roadway or fueling fires from spilled fuel. The authors assert that engineering measures, specifically the removal of trees from the obstacle-free zone, offer the best cost-benefit ratio for reducing mortality. They argue that current environmental compensation requirements create bureaucratic delays that leave drivers exposed to unnecessary risks. Legally, the paper posits that traffic safety laws are "special laws" that should prevail over general environmental laws within the specific jurisdiction of the road right-of-way, based on the principles of specialty and consumption. The significance of this work lies in its proposal to resolve the legal inconsistency that hinders road safety improvements. The authors conclude that the suppression of native or non-native trees in high-speed road right-of-ways is indispensable for safety and should be exempt from environmental compensation and licensing. They advocate for a legal interpretation where the protection of human life takes precedence, suggesting that road agencies should have the exclusive authority to maintain obstacle-free zones without the burden of environmental compensation, thereby aligning legal frameworks with international safety standards and reducing preventable deaths.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• external distraction