Straight Dope Message Board

[Mrs McGinty]

Originally Posted by Grim Render

Yes, it is a peculiar exception to the rule.

The following stats on injuries and deaths suggest the UK is one of the world's more safety-conscious countries:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...igh_desc=false

https://sites.google.com/site/ryoich...lity_by_county

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/european/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

But I can understand how experience might lead you to form the opposite impression. Some of the people I used to work for were incredibly cavalier about health and safety, and probably still are when they can get away with it. The thing is, though, the large contractors who run most of the really dangerous jobs are regulated very closely these days, and are very leery indeed of getting hit with violations.

Of course, a certain proportion of the workforce continues to moan on relentlessly about health and safety, despite those rules protecting them and causing disadvantage only to their employers. It seems that some regard it as thoroughly unmanly to be unwilling to risk life and limb to help some executive buy a bigger yacht, even though they themselves are barely paid a living wage.

[ToughLife]

those rules protecting them and causing disadvantage only to their employers.

unnecessary rules and regulations impose significant cost on the employers-
cost of compliance .
This cost will eventually be factored into the price of goods and services, making them more expensive for everybody,
including those "moaning" workers.

[Mrs McGinty]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

unnecessary rules and regulations impose significant cost on the employers-
cost of compliance .
This cost will eventually be factored into the price of goods and services, making them more expensive for everybody,
including those "moaning" workers.

But the rules and regulations in question aren't unnecessary, unless you don't value the safety of the workers. Over the period where health and safety rules became a go-to complaint about excessive regulation, the rate of workplace deaths fell dramatically:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm

No doubt there are specific cases where legislation has been excessive or otherwise poorly conceived, but the general trend represents a clear improvement in worker safety, to a degree whereby such excesses ought to be seen as the acceptable price of saving a hell of a lot of lives.

On a personal note, if the rules we have now had been in force back in the 60s and 70s, my grandfather would probably have worked another decade, and lived another two. As it was, his lungs were ruined by exposure to poisonous chemicals which, at the time, were regulated little further than the requirement they not kill you immediately.

[ToughLife]

such excesses ought to be seen as the acceptable price of saving a hell of a lot of lives.

acceptable to whom ?

Just look at these figures: (PDF)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...XqHaYpY_XduUeP

• The rising cost of compliance has
created significant barriers to entry for
small or new fund managers seeking to
enter the market
• Use of outsourcing and third-
party vendor support will increase
significantly as managers seek to focus
on their core business
• Small to medium firms will increasingly
struggle to achieve profitability as
regulatory compliance requirements
increase

from (PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-41Jw7DTG3Q4EA

[Lucas Jackson]

Originally Posted by GMANCANADA

Bottom line is that it's not based on any rational thing (like practical safety concerns), mostly just Brit's incredible slowness & resistance to change.

Kind of like Koreans and can death.

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

acceptable to whom ?

Just look at these figures: (PDF)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...XqHaYpY_XduUeP


from (PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-41Jw7DTG3Q4EA

One of those reports is a US one, and the other is from a bunch of hedge fund managers. I'm not sure those really have the interests and well-being of the workers at heart.

[ToughLife]

I'm not sure those really have the interests and well-being of the workers at heart.

What workers ?
Those who would lose their jobs to outsourcing to countries without mad regulations ?
Or,perhaps,workers who won't be able to find a job in the first place,
because companies can't afford them ?

[Melbourne]

Originally Posted by Magiver

what I would like to see, and I think it's British thing, are junction boxes with built in busses. Instead of pig-tailing wire with wire nuts you just connect them to a bus. Really cleans up the real estate behind sockets and switches.

Standard new installations here (aus) don't include wire nuts. If you have to include wire nuts in a new installation here, you probably should run another line from the switchbox

We don't run ring circuits. I can't see that anybody around here would include bus bars in a box just on the off chance that somebody might want them later.

[Mrs McGinty]

The broader economic case against h&s regulation is barely relevant from the perspective of an individual worker. The potential for loss of earnings through injury (something I experienced myself, albeit as a result of personal idiocy rather than inadequate regulation) is a much more pressing economic concern.

Most people who work in dangerous jobs recognise this, and so are in favour of high safety standards. For those workers who moan, the issue is most often expressed in cultural rather than economic terms: they feel like they're being treated like children, as if they don't know how to judge the risks for themselves. The problem is that, much of the time, they don't. Serious accidents are a low-probability thing - the kinds of dangers we're bad at judging because we don't often experience them. For some people, this makes them excessively cautious; for others, it makes them foolhardy. The point of health and safety regulation is to impose standards based on evidence that goes far beyond individual experience. The workers who bang on endlessly about h&s are the ones who won't accept this, as if it's some kind of slight on their manhood to follow the advice of 'experts' over their own heuristics.

And, yes, we could talk about competitive advantages on an international scale, but do we really want to take a race-to-the-bottom approach on worker safety? Wouldn't it better for those countries with higher standards (which are, for the most part, the ones with the biggest markets relative to population size) to club together and demand improvements in conditions from those foreign countries and companies that want access to their markets?

[ToughLife]

Mrs McGinty,
thanks for being reasonable and patient.
I really appreciate that.
But there are regulations and there are regulations.
Nobody argues against meaningful regulations.

The problem is...
government bureaucrats, myriad of controlling bodies,parasitic unions and other self-interested organisations,
local administration jobsworths you name it...
generate a lot of "rules" and "regulations", which are not based on facts,logic or common sense
but are created simply to justify their own existence.
Who benefits from that ?

Wouldn't it better for those countries with higher standards (which are, for the most part, the ones with the biggest markets relative to population size) to club together and demand improvements in conditions from those foreign countries and companies that want access to their markets?

This a well-known concept aka market protection.

In the ideal world it (clubbing together) might look like a good idea,
in reality it just creates obstacles for the less developed countries and, as such,
helps the industries,that employ the army of lobbyists and campaign contributors.
Nobody really cares about workers.

Let's call a spade a spade.

[Pardel-Lux]

Why is UK so cautious about electrical sockets and wiring? Perhaps they used to be, but lately they have thrown their caution to the wind: Look! (I love this KAL)

[casdave]

I would be incredibly surprised at a fridge with a 3 amp fuse in it, I would have expected at least 7 amp - but what would I know, only been electrician for 20 years or so.

The fact that there is a fuse does not necessarily stop ALL fires - around 1/3 of household fires are electrically initiated, and once the fire has started then disconnection is unlikely to extinguish it.

This of course is to utterly miss the real problem which is that the cladding on Grenfell Towers was completely unsuitable and that there is a serious deficiency in our Building regulations for fire prevention and testing of materials - you aimed at a target and missed it so badly

Next, death rates from workplace accidents have fallen from around 700 per year just before the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) was passed to just under 100 per year in 2018.

Much more significant is the reduction in deaths from workplace illness, there was a huge toll from long term exposure to various dusts, such as stone dust, coal dust and of course asbestos. Together the costs in claims alone run into many billions and then you have to add in the costs to health services, insurance claims, lost production - the scale of it is truly staggering.

Do you actually think we should go the way of Mexico and allow our employers to poison us, or make us terminally ill? Do you really think that this reduction in cost to industry is worth it? If you do then you are a complete fool - those costs have to be borne by society through the taxpayer, increased insurance and massive personal costs.

I really and truly despise those who complain there is too much health and safety and are completely ill-equipped to understand the total costs of work related accidents and ill health - yes it might just reduce immediate costs on the bottom line for shareholders, but when you look at the long term costs there is simply no comparison, we have around 2500 people a year dying from asbestos that was used long ago, and this will only slowly decline because there are so many workers carrying the precursors to asbestos is into their later years when cancer is more likely to develop.


You really need to wake up somewhat and dispel some of your ignorance, I will give you a hand


http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/history/index.htm

My post may seem terse, but as a person who has had to represent workers who are suffering workplace illness against intransigent employers it really grinds my gears to find such complacent ignorance in relation to costs of Health and Safety, not to mention the personal tragedies that are the frequent outcome of breaches of safety law.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

Mrs McGinty,
thanks for being reasonable and patient.
I really appreciate that.
But there are regulations and there are regulations.
Nobody argues against meaningful regulations.

The problem is...
government bureaucrats, myriad of controlling bodies,parasitic unions and other self-interested organisations,
local administration jobsworths you name it...
generate a lot of "rules" and "regulations", which are not based on facts,logic or common sense
but are created simply to justify their own existence.
Who benefits from that ?

Who decides what constitutes a regulation and what's just a "regulation"?

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Who decides what constitutes a regulation and what's just a "regulation"?

anyone with a bit of common sense.

casdave
relax mate,
I told you before: we don't give a rat's ass about your "considerate" opinion.
You are one of those useless jobsworths who are a big part of the problem.
People like you cost the country in general and each individual a lot of money.
Your parasitic well-being depends on this nonsense you're preaching,
meanwhile hard-working union members are paying your salary.
This is just disgusting.

[casdave]

Yup, met your type before, representatives of workers are parasites yadda yadda yadda.

As for my salary paid by union members, well no it isn't and never has been - which is true for around 99% of trade union reps - but never let the truth get in the way of your assumptions, in addition reps tend to spend far more of their union time completely unpaid, and lastly, union members are perfectly free to either leave a union or not join - you tone is actually insulting and condescending to all adults of working age who have the absolute right to make their choice.

I note the 'anyone with a bit of common sense' jibe, methinks you are just jangling the strings, you have not cited any facts, or reports and instead you simply pull rubbish from your backside - to be expected from a person who is deliberately trying to be provocative.

I notice that you have not actually responded to my reply in relation to Grenfell Towers - could it be that you have decided to vacate your position because you know jack about Electrical Wiring Regulations, Building Safety, Material Safety or Fire Regulatory Reform Acts? I suspect you are a person who knows very little in this regard because to date you have not presented any meaningful facts - just wild assed opinions.

I also note, I have not seen any post here that refutes the points I have made in relation to the OP. There are pros and cons in relation to our electrical wiring regulations, however I haven't seen any of the cons discussed factually, but once a system has been rolled out with installed protective earth return conductors it is very difficult to change this to a system that removes that third conductor

[bob++]

The town where I live used to be the world's largest manufacturer of needles. A century or more ago, this was largely a cottage industry, with the various stages done in small workshops. The highest paid workers were the men who ground points into the blanks before they were polished. This was done on a grindstone and it was hard, dirty work.

These men earned good wages but they didn't tend to live much beyond 30, because of the dust they were inhaling. Someone came up with the idea of using a fan to extract the dust and they went on strike because they could see that people would soon be prepared to do the job for less money.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

anyone with a bit of common sense.

Okay. So "anyone with a bit of common sense" should be able to ignore regulations they don't approve of? What?

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Okay. So "anyone with a bit of common sense" should be able to ignore regulations they don't approve of? What?

Some may disapprove certain rules and/or regulations but still comply with them.
In other cases people can ignore them if they can get away with it,
which is not always possible ..then it becomes an unnecessary burden.
In any case common sense is a keyword.

For example,
some idiotic "health and safety" rules that should be ignored:

- To hold a handrail while climbing / walking down the stairs
(actual regulation in some companies)

- to wear hard hats for repair man working on the phone cabinets on the ground level or on the pavements ( saw it few times)

-children using jumping castles, because it might be potentially (!) unsafe

-

From 1 September 2017, the energy label introduced a tougher maximum power level of 900W, cut the maximum noise level to 80dB and requires vacuum cleaners to pass two durability tests - one on the hose and another on the motor. The ratings on the label now range from A+++ through to G, rather than simply A to G, to allow for more differentiation.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2017/08...-need-to-know/

[Really Not All That Bright]

If you think requiring people to use handrails is idiotic, you may not be qualified to arbitrate "common sense regulation" yourself.

Originally Posted by ToughLife

Some may disapprove certain rules and/or regulations but still comply with them.
In other cases people can ignore them if they can get away with it,
which is not always possible ..then it becomes an unnecessary burden.
In any case common sense is a keyword.

Well, that certainly sounds like a workable policy.

[Dewey Finn]

So how do you judge who has "common sense"?

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

So how do you judge who has "common sense"?

Yeah right,
define "has"..

[casdave]

As for those new regulations on vacuum, cleaners - you are aware that this is not related to safety at all, these are based upon a EU directive that all member states must incorporate into their legislation and is (supposedly) related to reducing energy consumption for sustainable energy use - its basically part of the EU 'green policy'

So you score zero points for not being able to recognise the difference between safety and environmental considerations - yet you would like us to accept your 'common sense' when your reading comprehension is so poor

Except that it is not green in the slightest because it does not take into account that one of the largest energy inputs of any product is that of manufacture itself - so by encouraging consumers to ditch their older appliances this has the effect of actually increasing total energy consumption.

The EU rulemakers are not stupid and are aware of this, its just another trade barrier to keep us consuming more, and keep out non EU manufacturing through the use of a CE standards barrier.

As it happens, quite a few years of my working time were in a Combined Heat and Power Station (CHPS) and as a result we got a lot of useless interference from the EU and from the environmental agency so we had to keep abreast of the latest crazy EU directives.

Much of the safety legislation you deride comes from EU directives and is not passed by our representatives through parliament - around 80-90% of our legislation is imposed upon us in this way, EU directives compel all member nations to incorporate them into national laws - and this happens without the populations of those nations demanding such changes.

It is this undemocratic imposition of rules from outside our country, rules which are frequently at odds with their stated intention, that has led me to vote BREXIT just to free us up from all the nonsense - so that we can get laws that we want debated through our parliament, submitted by our population.

It take it that you would be in agreement with my position.

[Dead Cat]

Before the thread devolves into another Brexit debate, a related question if I may: when using my electric lawnmower on a circuit protected by RCD, can I assume that using an additional 'circuit breaker' device between the plug for the mower and the socket is redundant?

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by casdave

So you score zero points for not being able to recognise the difference between safety and environmental considerations.

I'm talking about ALL stupid regulations not just your Healts & Safety obsession.
The difference is irrelevant.I don't like useless rules in general.. safety related orotherwise.

Totally agree with the following ,though:

Much of the safety legislation you deride comes from EU directives and is not passed by our representatives through parliament - around 80-90% of our legislation is imposed upon us in this way, EU directives compel all member nations to incorporate them into national laws - and this happens without the populations of those nations demanding such changes.

It is this undemocratic imposition of rules from outside our country, rules which are frequently at odds with their stated intention, that has led me to vote BREXIT just to free us up from all the nonsense - so that we can get laws that we want debated through our parliament, submitted by our population.

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

Before the thread devolves into another Brexit debate, a related question if I may: when using my electric lawnmower on a circuit protected by RCD, can I assume that using an additional 'circuit breaker' device between the plug for the mower and the socket is redundant?

it depends on the tripping current (rating) of the breaker on your lawnmower.
If this rating is lower than rating on the fuse board (typically 32 amp) it may trip before the one on the board and it won't interfere with any other electrical appliances.
Or it may not , it's called breaker discrimination
depends on the length / cross-section of the power cord (resistance) as well.

[casdave]

Hi DeadCat

The benefit of using an RCD on your electric lawnmower is that when you chop the cable it will trip just the lawnmower off, and not the one in your distribution board that likely also controls a load of other circuits in your house. It is also likely to trip a wee bit faster 50mS is a long time to be part of a current path until the RCD disconnects - so any time you can reduce it is a good thing.

[Dead Cat]

Thank you both, that's clear.

[Brayne Ded]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

not really, fuse is obvious overkill.
The entire world ( with some exceptions)
lives without fuses in the plugs.
The fridge that burnt Greenfield Tower down had a 3a fuse.
Didn't help much, did it ?

And that was the problem. The fridge should have had a 13 amp fuse. A 3 A fuse is intended for shaver adapters.

[Melbourne]

Originally Posted by casdave

I would be incredibly surprised at a fridge with a 3 amp fuse in it, I would have expected at least 7 amp - but what would I know, only been electrician for 20 years or so.
.

240V x 3A = 0.75KW.

I'll be charitable and assume you're talking about American voltages levels, and power levels from big 20 year old refrigerators

They do, of course, draw much more power at every start up, but that 3 amp fuse is good for more than a moment of 10A current.

[Brayne Ded]

The UK uses those large plugs with built-in cartridge fuses and and earth pin. Plus switched sockets, which can be very useful at times. The rest of Europe uses round pin connectors, mainly with 2 pins but increasingly with a third one for earth. No switched sockets. You can pull out the plug with relatively low power devices, but for an iron or a fire a switch would be much better. Fires usually have switches, irons don't (some switch off if you turn the dial far enough, and they do switch off internally once they have reached the correct heat).

[hibernicus]

Originally Posted by casdave

Except that it is not green in the slightest because it does not take into account that one of the largest energy inputs of any product is that of manufacture itself - so by encouraging consumers to ditch their older appliances this has the effect of actually increasing total energy consumption.

Regulations setting energy efficiency criteria and energy labelling for small appliances only affect new appliances being sold - there is no requirement for anyone to ditch their older appliance, and in fact there is quite a strong incentive not to do so, if you own a 2200W vacuum cleaner and you will no longer be able to buy a new one that is equally powerful. Secondly, the regulations do indeed take account of the energy required in manufacture, both by setting durability criteria and end-of-life rules.

[hibernicus]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

from (PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-41Jw7DTG3Q4EA

This report doesn't relate to safety regulation at all. It's about the cost of regulatory compliance in the financial sector.

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by Melbourne

240V x 3A = 0.75KW.

Brayne Ded
And that was the problem. The fridge should have had a 13 amp fuse. A 3 A fuse is intended for shaver adapters.

sorry I mistyped "3amp fuse", it was supposed to be 13amp ( standard)
I apologize for the confusion

[ToughLife]

Originally Posted by hibernicus

This report doesn't relate to safety regulation at all. It's about the cost of regulatory compliance in the financial sector.

please read my post #74

I'm talking about ALL stupid regulations not just your Healths & Safety obsession.
The difference is irrelevant.I don't like useless rules in general.. safety related or otherwise.

[Brayne Ded]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

anyone with a bit of common sense.

casdave
relax mate,
I told you before: we don't give a rat's ass about your "considerate" opinion.
You are one of those useless jobsworths who are a big part of the problem.
People like you cost the country in general and each individual a lot of money.
Your parasitic well-being depends on this nonsense you're preaching,
meanwhile hard-working union members are paying your salary.
This is just disgusting.

Disgusting, yes - what you are saying is truly disgusting. A "considerate" opinion obviously depends on whether or not you are the worker or other person at risk.

The problem is that you were born about a century or so too late. The "make a profit and the workers be damned" mentality was normal in thre 19C, but we have progressed since then. OK, some of us, and in certain countries. Out in the Third World the mayhem goes on. Outsourcing jobs from the highly regulated advanced countries to the Third World benefits nobody in the long run. (I'll skip a long discussion as to why.)

Any chance that you might grow a conscience in less than geological time?

[bob++]

Health and Safety rules are generally A Good Thing. The problems arise when individuals start creating their own rules or implementing the existing rules with no application of common sense.

As a truck driver I came across this fairly often:

One place insisted the everyone wear a yellow vest and hard hat - this even applied to me while driving my truck in their yard.

One place, after being fined because someone was injured, decided that drivers would have to be well clear of the forklift trucks that were loading them. Sensible - yes? The problem was that they built a cage with Armco and we had to stand within it, even if it was pouring with rain. If anyone needed the toilet we had to shout for attention and work came to a complete stop until they returned.

A paper manufacturer insisted that drivers were not to climb onto the back of the trailer. We were loading 6' reels stood up on end and the only way to strap them down was to reach up and position the strap and corner protectors from the floor of the trailer. They told us to drive out and park in the road where they were no longer liable.

A friend drove a low-loader, delivering machines to building sites. He went to collect a 30-tonne machine from a site in London, loaded it on and started to chain it down. The H&S bod came steaming over and told him that he could not stand on the bed of the trailer - bear in mind that this was a low-loader and the bed is maybe 18" off the ground. A stand-off ensued as my friend (quite rightly) refused to move without the machine being secured and the H&S guy refusing to allow him to do it. Senior management got involved and they cordoned off the area to allow him to work. A job that should have taken an hour or so, took half-a-day.

A constant source of irritation is the widespread situation where the rules - yellow vest/hard hat/ keep to the marked walkways etc - did not seem to apply to management while we were threatened with being banned from the site if we did not conform.

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

please read my post #74

So, you don't believe the financial sector needs regulation? Because 2008 would like a word with you.

(Sorry, off topic, but Toughlife brought it up)

[Anaglyph]

Have a look at the BBC documantary "Hidden Killers of the Post-War Home - Full Documentary" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKyqn9wU_vE
The episode on earlier time periods are also worth watching

[Teuton]

If I was going to have my house rewired, I'd rather have someone with casdave's attitude!

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

anyone with a bit of common sense.

casdave
relax mate,
I told you before: we don't give a rat's ass about your "considerate" opinion.
You are one of those useless jobsworths who are a big part of the problem.
People like you cost the country in general and each individual a lot of money.
Your parasitic well-being depends on this nonsense you're preaching,
meanwhile hard-working union members are paying your salary.
This is just disgusting.

Moderator Warning

ToughLife, insults are not permitted in General Questions. This and most of your other posts are entirely inappropriate for this forum. This is an official warning. I am also instructing you to stop posting in this thread.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Brayne Ded

What a rectum

Disgusting, yes - what you are saying is truly disgusting. A "considerate" opinion obviously depends on whether or not you are the worker or other person at risk.

The problem is that you were born about a century or so too late. The "make a profit and the workers be damned" mentality was normal in thre 19C, but we have progressed since then. OK, some of us, and in certain countries. Out in the Third World the mayhem goes on. Outsourcing jobs from the highly regulated advanced countries to the Third World benefits nobody in the long run. (I'll skip a long discussion as to why.)

Any chance that you might grow a conscience in less than geological time?

Moderator Warning

Brayne Ded, just because another poster is violating the rules doesn't entitle you to insult them as well. This is an official warning.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[casdave]

Unfortunately there are workers who try to use safety legislation in order to avoid carrying out tasks they would rather not undertake - partly idleness, and partly its just resistance to instructions from their managers and supervisors.

You can usually recognise those folk because they will decline do do something and instead say something along the lines of "Can't do that, its against Health and Safety"

Well of course that is all complete tosh, the HSE quite clearly encourages workers to look after their own safety by using their own expertise to find safe ways to undertake work.

If you are a supervisor or manager you will reconise this type, the ones who do know what they are talking about will instead tell you that a task may not be accomplished in a particular way and state specifically which part of Safety protocol is the problem they might well know the exact law being breached, and it is then a very good idea for the supervisor or manager to then ask for alternative safe methods of working.

Safety law is not there to prevent work activities, it is there to enable work activities, but in a manner that does not give rise to danger.

As a union rep I have had to deal with recalcitrant staff who simply fail to understand that their role is to carry out lawful instructions of managers safely - half the time I'm trying to keep these workers out of trouble by giving them advice on their job description - sometimes that comes down to reminding them of the consequences of their behavior.

The other issue with safety is that of managers who simply fail to interpret safety law correctly and take an unreasonable approach - so that you get really stupid company rules - such as not cleaning walls above 6 feet because its supposed to be risky - but of course it is not provided the proper working methods are used.

The post by Bob++ is an absolute classic and demonstrate not the weakness of safety legislation, but the intransigence and lack of knowledge of the site management.

Imposition of meaningless and stupid safety rules that are based on ignorance by managers actually tend to make workplaces more dangerous because it reduces the credibility of the safety practices that do matter.

As a union rep I usually have to look at things from the management point of view, and the truth is that most of the time the managers are right, and when they are wrong it is far more productive to offer practical alternatives and advice, I've often found that company safety officers are usually third rate - they got the bit of paper certificate but have rarely actually done the work they are trying to control.

[filmstar-en]

There is a certain truculent type who will use ANY rule as an excuse not to do something or exercise power over the working environment or some process.

They will invoke some block and demand other prove they are compliant with some higher authority before work can proceed. It is a power play and common feature of many organisations.

Health and Safety
Human Rights
EU
Computer Security
Data Protection Act
SAFE
Electrical wiring
Building regulations

Take your pick!

However, travel to a country with none of these things and you soon realise why they are there. Just walking from the plane through Mumbai airport you see workers operating angle grinders with no guard, sparks everywhere, no goggles. Moving heavy loads in sandals and no helmets, Plugging in power tools into electrical sockets using bare cables. The number of accidents they must have is shocking.

Legislation in the UK has developed largely as a result of some awful disasters and hideous accidents. It has been hard won. I remember well how Health and Safety taken much more seriously in the Oil and Gas in the UK after the Piper Alpha Oil Rig disaster. It began to catch up with the safety standards the were put in place in the Chemical industry after the Flixborough disaster. Hopefully we will get some joined up regulation when the Grenfell investigation reports on the factors that caused that hideous towering inferno. This legiislation by catastrophe is not a particularly good record and it does not suggest the UK is very proactive.

Regulations are there for a good reason and it is quite possible to do a job while following them. They need not be anti-competitive or hinder business if they apply to everyone, equally.

Let us separate the issue of petty politics in the workplace from rules that are designed to ensure safe working. For a workplace to be safe, it needs much more than a rule book, it needs a workplace culture that understands and avoids risks and hazards while going about its business.

For every jobsworth who presents obstacles there are cowboys who take risky shortcuts to get a job done so they get paid faster.

Both types are pimples on the backside of progress and it is an unfortunate experience to have to work with them.

The British standard for domestic electrical fittings is very safe and has prevented a lot of electrocutions and fires. Looking at it is history, it seems to be have been conceived with the best of intentions for the safety in the home by experts in the field. For once, we got it right.

Better a formally appointed committee with the public interest in mind than companies and their lawyers competing to promote a standard that leverages their patent assets.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by ToughLife

- To hold a handrail while climbing / walking down the stairs
(actual regulation in some companies)

Anyone with common sense would do that anyway, that's why the handrails are there. The regulation exists because too many people dont' have common sense, and some of them hurt themselves falling down the stairs.

[Melbourne]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Anyone with common sense would do that anyway, that's why the handrails are there. The regulation exists because too many people dont' have common sense, and some of them hurt themselves falling down the stairs.

I never used the handrails when I was a child. Because (1) They were too high. (2) I bounced when I fell down, (3) I wasn't very high off the floor, and (4) I had excellent flexibility and balance.

It wasn't until I was in my 20's, when I almost stumbled going down stairs, when my dad made a narky comment about using the hand rails, that it occurred to me that hand rails were now in reach. I've used the handrail ever since. Only started because somebody made an narky comment.