Can’t imagine why an underground railway should have a rigorous and wearisome obsession with safety. Not like it’s composed of dark, hot noisy tunnels with many immigrant workers who may not have English as their first language and 144 ton metal objects with people inside hurtling by at up to 60 mph.
You’ve put a smiley after this, so I don’t know how serious you are about this, but the chances of Brexit meaning less regulation of safety standards is negligible. Thank god.
Let’s ban ladders altogether and all other equipment for that matter, you can never be too safe in that environment.
Let’s ban the trains themselves… human lives are more valuable including those of non English speaking immigrants.
Common sense ? What common sense ??
We are talking The Holy Safety here, capeesh ?
Really?
I assume the formula is :
Total number of regulations = number of British regulations + number of EU regulations.
I get rather sick of the ‘health & safety’ myths that are spread by the severely uninformed.
If you take the time to read the legislation (which I have and still do on a regular basis) then you will note that specific safety measures are hardly mentioned, and cost is only ever mentioned when an absolute duty is placed upon a ‘responsible person’ whereby absolute is defined as being required to maintain safety without regard to cost - such as adequate insulation of conductors that are within reach.
PAT testing is not actually a legal requirement, all the law says is that those who are responsible for undertakings or in control of premises must ensure that equipment is safe. The question of how to do that is then left to the responsible person.
Codes of practice will also state that if certain practices are adopted then this will meet the requirements of legislation but will still mention that it is up to the responsible person to demonstrate that their practices are safe.
The cost largely comes from the insurance industry - they will only accept certain risks and hike their premiums up according to the prior safety record and safety management regime - insurance companies find it is better to specify how safety will be met since they are the ones who will be paying out on the compensation claims.
PAT testing is largely and insurance industry imposed practice and not a legislative one, the reality is that 30 seconds after testing an appliance can become unsafe - all that inspection and testing does is ensure that a watchful eye is maintained and provide evidence that the responsible person is taking reasonable measures to ensure safety.
If you think safety is expensive try having an accident.
Elf ‘N’ Safety gone mad, innit.
It would certainly be a lot cheaper to ban idiots than to ban dangerous work practices and dangerous equipment.
But then there’d be nobody left to be a worker or homeowner. We’d also be short a few posters here.
Further, a hell of a lot of these regs are to prevent owners and builders and manufacturers from deliberately building firetraps or electrocution hazards that are then sold to unsuspecting people who expect them to operate safely over their design lifespan in their design use case.
I realise that pushing a point to one extreme or the other can sometimes be a useful debating tool, but I don’t think it’s useful here unless either of us wishes to occupy a position placed at one of the extremes.
Do you want zero safety regulations? I doubt it. Do I want everything to be heavily regulated to the point that nobody can move or act? Of course not.
Take the police force for example. I imagine we agree there should be police officers. One of us might think there are about the right number of police officers - the other might think there are too many or not enough. Anyway, let’s suppose we both think the police should exist, but we disagree on the level of policing.
The argument (about the level of policing) would not really be advanced by one of us saying “Let’s make everyone a police officer!” or “Let’s abolish the police force entirely!” - because that’s so far away from either of our positions on the matter, it’s meaningless.
We came very close to that in AUS, or vic.aus? Although I think??? we’ve retreated???
In any case, when our solar-power inverter was installed a few years ago, the installers refused to install it any higher on the wall, because that would suggest that they had used a stool, platform, scafolding, or a ladder. Which would require a documented safety analysis.
That was followed by the suggestion that we would soon be unable to use any storage above hand-reach level. That’s the thing that I think the regulators retreated on. Also the local school no longer prohibits ladders, so I think they got the same message.
yeah, just goes to show that obsession with safety got no limits.
Reasoning and common sense are often ignored in favor of ass covering.
The fact that it happens in Australia and in the States to even more ridiculous extreme doesn’t get the UK of the hook,though.
And for those who
Does it matter if these requirements are not laws but created by greedy insurance companies or whoever ?
The restrictions/regulations are still in place and require compliance often at great cost that WE have to bear one way or another.
The governments makes insurance compulsory so I don’t see any myths.
Examples you mentioned are of course deliberately extreme.
I’m not claiming they are the best debating devices, but they are not meaningless.
Reductio ad absurdum is a proper and useful concept.
Anyway,
people have different attitude towards risks, some are more risk averse than others.
Some, perhaps majority (?) ,would do whatever it takes (and it often takes a lot) to reduce risk.
I’m in the minority here.
What bugs me the most is that it cost ME (in different forms) to make other people feel safe.
That’s basically why I got involved in this discussion in the first place.
I disagree that it’s about feeling safe. It’s about being safer. Of course being safe should make one feel safe.
It sucks when you have additional hoops to jump through just to demonstrate a level of diligence that you were already voluntarily complying with.
But not everyone is so conscientious and diligent, and consumers of services need there to be some kind of imposition of standards, both to try to provide an accepted level of safety, and to give them clear legal recourse when that accepted level has not been delivered through negligence, laziness or outright fraud.
I’m afraid ‘common sense’ simply isn’t as common as it oughta be (both in the case of the customer and the supplier), therefore, rules are required.
I mean, to bring it back to the topic - common sense would seem to dictate the you don’t poke metal objects into holes that have live electrical conductors in them - but, for example, young children don’t (and cannot be expected to) have that common sense - and they can’t be watched at every moment of the day, therefore, physical protection against this risk is a great idea.
Now, it could be argued that individuals should implement that protection for themselves - individual parents should install safety covers themselves, if they care about their kids enough, except it’s very often the case (and certainly is here) that built-in safety features are very much more effective in day-to-day use than aftermarket add-ons - sure, there’s a very small additional cost to build-in, but it very quickly merges into the background.
Sure is, and I have of course heard of it, but I’m not arguing that your position leads inevitably to zero control of any risks, and I don’t believe you’re arguing that my position leads inevitably to absolute and minute control of every concievable risk at any cost - therefore, Reductio ad absurdum is not especially relevant or useful.
That’s strange because this quote does not square at all well with your more recent post where you state
So what are you saying, that the cost is imposed by ‘greedy insurance companies’ - if that is so, then blame them for the safety culture and not - by implication - politicians and public officials.
Here is a fun fact for you, do you know how may people did not return home from work in 1974 - the year the umbrella Health and Safety at Work Act was passed?and do you know what those figures are now?
Here you are, some facts, instead of your own personal opinion
No need to thank me, I knew you would be grateful.
Actually the figures for both are over and under reported, and that’s because in 1974 deaths of people from accidents who were not at work - ie passers-by etc were not included, however such people are included since the scope of Health & Safety legislation has widened - so for example those people killed in the Clapham tram crash are now workplace deaths, but in 1974 they would not have counted.
Even with this, what we have is a reduction in death both in relative terms (per capita) of around 85%, and that same goes in absolute terms.
In addition, we also have a reduction in non-fatal injuries, we have fewer deaths from fire and explosion - in fact the only thing that has gone up is deaths from lung diseases - mainly asbestos related and of course this relates to fibres that were inhaled decades ago - when safety rules on airborne dust contaminants were nothing like as rigorous as they are now.
So what we have is massively reduced numbers of death and injury, massively reduced costs from such deaths and injury.
Some of us happen to believe that is a desirable outcome, although I completely understand you view that profit is far more important than the wellbeing and lives of workers and of the public - you are entitled to your entitled view
I have yet to see you refer to any figures that demonstrate that the cost of safety of so great that it would actually be worth returning to those days of pre 1974.
How much should we cuts safety by then? Maybe we should try for just a couple of hundred more deaths, after all the chances of it happening to you are still pretty small - you have lots of common sense so you will not cause an accident - but can you be so sure about me, maybe I have no common sense, and you will die as a result of my mistake or stupidity.
Maybe if we allow a few more deaths and maiming we can have a macho and self responsible society - what sort of number of deaths is acceptable to you? 10, 100? 1000? Go on, put your cards on the table, lets see what death and accident rate is acceptable to you.
I also do not see you producing any figures that would demonstrate how reduced safety would in turn reduce costs, you have not mentioned any such figure once, only your most imperfect opinion that safety is costly - in fact you have not once justified your view in any meaningful way - lets see you produce some numbers - but you wont because you cannot.
Here is my own take on this - I have a record of a few decades of ensuring work colleagues have every opportunity to return home from work by having numerous battles with managers and legislators all this time, I have found that when the consultation begins, the employers representatives such as CBI have never, not once ever, been able to provide a factual breakdown of disproportionate costs to industry that was imposed by legislation.
Right now my main battle is the number of deaths, suicides, assaults and injuries in prisons. You see we have had staffing cuts of around 30% in the last few years, and the number of incidents and deaths etc has risen to new highest ever levels - you see safety is not just about installations and equipment, its also about having enough boots on the ground, you might have read about a few riots in prisons just lately, by cutting costs our glorious leaders are directly responsible for the increases in all these matters, and added to this is the huge rise in reoffending, because the cost of reoffending criminals has gone up from around £11 billion to around £15 billion.
Cutting costs has demonstrably reduced safety from crime to the public and yet has increased costs, perhaps we should just let them all out to do whatever they want? That would cut the cost of public safety, maybe reduce you tax contribution too - seems to me you would like to live in a society where just going to work will cost you your life, and when you return home you’ll find your house ransacked by criminals on the loose.
As for the greedy insurance companies, there are lots of insurance companies out there, and all of them make assessment of actuarial risk, in this case the likely chances of accidents and their likely costs, and they base their premiums upon such calculations, and if you find the burden of insurance is very great, then the chances are that your organisation has an appalling safety record and so the insurance is costed accordingly
Nice. I especially liked the title “Self-reported non-fatal injuries”.
(Self-reported fatal injuries remain at a very low level)
one’s position in the debate does not have to be absolute/extreme for
Reductio ad absurdum to be a valid and relevant rhetorical device.
You object me using extreme examples , yet
that vulnerable child sticking metal objects in the sockets is himself an example of an extreme situation.
In any case, what about the children who live in other countries which don’t have sockets with shutters?
Shouldn’t we impose sanctions on all those countries for their irresponsible behaviour bordering child abuse ?
But we’re going circles here.
I got your view and you seem to understand mine.
There is a big gap in our visions of the situation that is difficult to bridge.
We’ve reached a point of *ad nauseam *, sorry for another Latin term.
No it’s not. It happens. It’s a completely valid example of a safety risk that is mitigated by UK 3 pin socket design.
They are at greater risk of that specific category of injury, for that reason - that’s the actual topic of this thread.
There you go again with your extreme measures. We can’t reasonably or practically do that, but that matters not a jot to my point in this thread, which is that shuttered sockets are safer, and that safety is worthwhile. Just because we can’t impose safety everywhere, doesn’t mean it’s worthless to impose it where we can.
I don’t think I agree. If you understand my view, why are you continually trying to demolish it with this extremist nonsense that has no bearing on my point.
And I only vaguely understand your view - it’s something to the effect that there is too much emphasis on safety, but I don’t think you’ve really made it at all clear how much less safety you’d like.
Here we go again :rolleyes:
My understanding of your position does not mean I agree with you. Far from it.
may be safer, but they are not worthwhile they are a waste of resources as entire world outside has proven.
No, they are perfectly safe as entire world outside has proven.
This statement is simply false.