by *regulations *I meant all sorts of rules and requirements and not just legal provisions.
I later clarified my statement in post #99
I added “greedy insurance” to the list after reading in your post #125
I don’t see any contradictions or inconsistencies .
Now
your link provide an interesting reading,
but your vicious, for lack of a better word, post was a classic straw man.
I never disputed the need for reasonable H/S rules.
I never said that any number of death is acceptable, unfortunately they are just unavoidable regardless of amount of regulations.
I appreciate your professional efforts I’m not fighting that.
All I’m saying there must be a balance between safety , convenience and cost.
Here I found interesting statistics
see tables 5-13
also a few quotes
page 40
far from unanimous
page 47
that’s a lot of money, most of it probably justified but some definitely not.
You’re quoting a newspaper article about Lord Young, who was commissioned to write a report on Health and Safety in 2011 - he did this, and wrote a report called ‘Common Sense Health And Safety’. One of the key points in this report is that newspapers tend to print hysterical fiction about ‘health and safety gone mad’.
I wouldn’t say it was a key point but
yes, this annex D seems to contradict the entire article.
It gives just three examples of incorrect media reporting.
Only two of them were in fact incorrect.
One about clown and oversized shoes is pretty much spot on .
Here is an original article]
it reads among other things:
see… it is about H/S but Larry Dewitt would obviously deny it.
The drowned boy case was discussed in the Parliament and was indeed shown to be a myth,
but
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said:
Sure, it doesn’t come from the Health Executive, but from some “public authorities”.
They mislead the public ( in this case to save money)
They prey on a typical sheepish Brit, who when given coded signal “Health and Safety” instinctively
agrees because, in accordance with the Pavlov’s reflex theory,
“Health and Safety” is immediately associated with unconditional compliance.
Yes, things are this bad. Lifelong brainwashing works.
I don’t think I even disagree with you that people can go overboard with a culture of concern about health and safety. You give someone a job to make the workplace safe, there is a natural tendency for them to overdo it out of personal fear of reprisal for omission. Yes, health and safety sometimes does ‘go mad’. and culturally, Britain prefers to err on the side of caution, whereas it seems culturally, other countries perhaps do not.
Who is right and who is wrong? I don’t think there’s a clear answer that will satisfy everyone. Is it better to have a bit more freedom to act and a bit more sudden death in the workplace, or is it better to try to make things safer, at the cost convenience. It’s not a simple question.
However, to bring us back around to the topic - I don’t believe UK electrical codes are an example of health and safety gone mad. They stand out as having a lot of effort and some cost invested in them, but they are, by and large, good designs. Not perfect in every way, but good solutions for a range of genuine safety matters.
I bet you think that by making longish posts and including a few opinions cited as fact, that maybe I would go away - far from it.
I actually do think you are somewhat misdirected, because you think the cite from HSE supports you position, indeed I think you do not actually understand what the report is saying.
So, lets get to it, from the very same report we have a discovery that costs related to safety fall more heavily on smaller organisations than larger ones,
Well WOOPPPEE DO, all that demonstrates are economies of scale and absolutely nothing else. Actually it demonstrates, and is supported in the report, that larger companies have more expertise in Health & Safety, and its obvious to you , me and everyone else that greater expertise is far more likely to reduce costs - you get what you pay for, hire inexperienced staff and you will get less safety compliance at greater costs.
The large enterprise also places more value upon safety
This also implies the reverse is true that poor safety is seen by large organisations as a disadvantage - not really surprising, if you lose critical staff and have work stalled to investigate and correct the damage caused by an accident, then deadlines are not met and there will be contractual penalties.
Then we have the following, again taken from the report that you have cited
In other words, when you have large organisations with more experience in safety, it costs less, and you have fewer accidents, and in the smaller organisations, where there is less experience - there are more accidents.
There is another reason for this - larger organisations are far more likely to be Trade Union organised, trade unions have a serious direct interest in ensuring the safety of their members, indeed it is why many trade unions came into existence in the first place.Union organised workplaces have fewer accidents than non-union workplaces - hence smaller companies that are less likely to have worker representation will have more accidents.
Personally I think the absolute most telling conclusion comes from the following quote
This betrays the real problem of smaller companies, because accidents are prevented by knowledge and experience, and not by equipment such as PPE. Smaller organisations often just do not get it, I do realise that you probably are not a safety specialist, so I will try to explain.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is seen as the very last layer of safety, it is the absolute last resort of all the levels of safety measures that you can take, this is because the item presenting a danger to people has not been controlled - the only thing between and accident and a danger with PPE is usually some from of lightweight protective barrier or filter.
In fact if you are involved with safety, you will know that there is a hierarchy of control,
1)Remove the hazard - either select a design where the specific hazard does not exist, or remove the hazard - Elimination
Replace the hazard - this is to use something that is not dangerous, such as using lower voltages like 110v on a construction site instead of say 415v for portable electrical appliances, or we could use a different insulating material - so instead of asbestos we might select something else - Substitution
3)Construction - here we design something in such as way that people cannot be exposed to the hazard - so we put guards on moving parts of machines, we put suitable insulation on cables, we make sure that dangerous machinery is in a secure locked area - Engineering
4)Procedures and protocols - Here we ensure staff are suitably trained and these are the only ones who will be exposed to the hazard - but their skills and knowledge means they know how to prevent danger to themselves, we may well have risk assessments, safe systems of work - and we record everything - Administration
Clothing, this comprises boots, gloves, eye protection, headphones and all the many assorted things we might wear - PPE - the problem here is that in the previous 4 items we took a look at the hazard and did something about it, but in this scenario we have done nothing about the hazard itself
So, if you have companies who find their greatest safety cost is PPE, it means they have dismissed all the better accident prevention measures and are relying on the lowest level of protection available
So, it comes as no surprise that organisations whose greatest safety cost is PPE, are those organisations that have the most accidents. Naturally this places further burden upon them, because they will also bear the costs of accidents too - so they get the double hit against them.
It is also worth noting the following - accidents are thankfully uncommon - but this breeds complacency - you can go years and never experience one, but the larger organisations have wider experience and will carry out a lot more work, the more likely you will have accidents or have safety experts who understand the full potential of costs related to accidents - and this acts a powerful incentive to minimise dangers, however smaller organisations often simply do not have the breadth of experience and when there is an accident the company cannot cope and simply goes bust
There is a widely quoted figure that in the event of major fire, over 30% of companies cease trading, you can imagine that larger organisations will be very motivated not to have that happen and will train their staff accordingly, smaller organisations just don’t appreciate the risks from fire - and why do you think I have selected fire as a specific risk,
Easy, its because electrical faults account for getting on to 60% of fires.
So, how many more workplace deaths do you wish to legislate for? So you want to reduce the costs associated with safety - fine then go on a political campaign and campaign for more deaths and injuries in the workplace - you can the promote the financial benefits of such a regime, I am completely sure that you will lose your deposit.
VOTE FOR ME, VOTE FOR DEATH AND ACCIDENTS AND WEALTH
Yeah, right, that’ll go down well with the electorate - you know - the people who will actually suffer to cost of those accidents, they are likely to be in the majority, the Baron von Richepigges of the world who will make more money might vote for your proposal but it won’t get you elected.
The problem with simplistic people who propose simplistic solutions to complex problems is, they are simple - they work on bias and prejudice, they do not use facts or information, they read papers and get quotes from other simplistic people just like themselves, so I imagine that a simplistic person would obtain all of their anti-safety quotes from a publication such as The Daily Telegraph and they would not choose to read all the accident reports. or read the evidence gathered by parliamentary committees - because that means reading lots of long reports and that is too complex
Let me give you a clue here, because the battle is grossly uneven, I do read those reports, I also contribute to them, I investigate accidents and I will also ensure that injured members of my union understand how to make a claim, however the first thing I will do is to use the information I have to ensure that accidents are prevented in the first place.
You really need to argue on a different subject with another person - someone who does not know what they are talking about
You have my sympathy, because in addition to knowledge, facts and experience, I also have the other thing that people like me need, I will not let go…ever. It took us around 70 years to bring companies such as Turner & Newall to book for killing tens of thousands of workers with asbestos - you don’t really imagine I would ever let go of a thread on a message board do you?
I have friends and colleagues, most long since dead, a few who are still dying, and quite a number who are living with uncertainty, what I will not have is some ignorant person on a message board spouting to me just how much safety costs, when companies have covered up their lies for generations - having made their profits in times when laws and regulations were much slacker than now - I understand the direct cost of safety, I have been to too many funerals.
Read that last cite, and then tell me how expensive safety is
Wow ! You are a real pro ! I’m impressed!
Those quotes would look great in your CV.
You are an extremely competent, sophisticated, knowledgeable, experienced, caring valuable member of society.
And who am I to even write on the same board with you?
I’m just half- literate, ignorant simpleton, who know nothing yet dare to write in the same thread.
Unfortunately despite all your credentials you seems to have a reading comprehension disability.
All your righteous indignation is misguided because I’ve never stated things you are so desperately (yes, it looks quite desperate) trying to dispel.
You are fighting a straw man by attributing the articles facts onto me with points of view I have never disagreed with.
Please keep you arrogant opinions to your lefties buddies and colleagues.
I guess to a righty, a moderate would appear to be left wing, however, fact still remains, you believe safety provision is too much, and you would like to see it reduced, yet, you do not mention exactly by how much - you never actually state how many more deaths you are prepared to accept.
I know that accidents cannot be prevented, I also understand that there is a metric to all this, and that the costs and sacrifice do have to be proportionate to the objective of safety provision.
However, I would like to see evidence that is costed, there is a measure, it used to be (rather conveniently) £1m per road death in other words there had to be an improvement in safety to the tune of 1 road death to justify spending that amount on reducing the danger in a specific road safety hotspot, there are of course variations, because public confidence and national interest are also taken into account, and more lately the environmental costs of accidents.
If you have a complaint about too much safety then fine, give us some measures, quantify the risk - if the risk is miniscule and the costs are unreasonable, then it makes sense not to maintain safety provision.
Many of the issues that folk complain about in relation to safety are actually not driven by those who understand how to conduct risk assessments, often they are put in place by managers who have very little real knowledge of safety, of risk or even of danger.
There are many such health and safety myths, stupid stuff blown up out of all proportion, some of the stupid things amounted to staff who were simply using safety as an excuse to avoid work - you can always recognise someone who knows nothing about safety law or practical safety measures, they will decline to undertake a task and instead use the words ‘Health and safety’ but without ever mentioning the level of risk and extent of harm, they just use these words as a mantra.
This sort of stuff is swallowed whole by those who are free of actual analytical thought, its far easier just o follow blind prejudice
Honestly, there are loads and loads of stupid misinformed rules and decisions that are put in place by ‘jobsworths’ who are ignorant of safety, part of it is just misguided, but most of it is down to ignorance, you will recall that I mentioned that training is one of the main things that will improve safety, well that’s because people who are responsible for safety need to have some competence in the field, we are living in a society that seems incapable of basic hand-skill tasks, they literally cannot change a light bulb, they have no idea how to change the oil in their cars, they just do not have any practical skills, and these people somehow climb up the hierarchy and are given roles where they may have to consider safety.
If you wish to reduce safety spending and stupid local implemented rules, then spend some money on training, hire people like me - it will actually cost you less money, it will also save you time and effort.
Its not the resources devoted to safety that is the problem, its the inability to prioritise sensibly, to work out which dangers are real, and which are extremely unlikely - most folk really do not have much of an understanding of risk, they worry about some event they saw on tv, such as an aircraft crashing on their house, and forget to check the tyres on their cars.
Toughlife, I see that casdave has given you an excellent comprehensive summary of why health and safety legislation is important. You should read it and take it on board.
Sure it seems onerous and overbearing but I promise that a lot of what you see and perceive as over the top, is based on hard won (and sometime lethal) experience. Those of us who work in these areas can educate you if you are open to it.
My own background is in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Specifically drug product manufacturing, sterile liquids, packaging and various clinical trials areas.
If you think those examples you’ve already quoted are rather too zealous then…hoo-boy! let me introduce to the wonderful world of interpreting the MHRA and FDA requirements. What they demand and the processes and safeguards that arise from that would turn your hair fucking white.
Well blow me down: I see in another thread that Direct Bury at 12" is a thing with “Underground Feeder” cable.
IN vic.aus I’d have to have it put in a conduit. And if I remember correctly, 600mm deep (a bit more than 2 feet). And probably a warning tape at 200mm. And the conduit must be orange.
All of our electrical rules have been simplified, so I’m not sure that there are any other rules I could use now that allow direct bury under concrete / in armoured cable / 6’ deep.
When I put a new bathroom in my house, I wanted to put a double plug under the sink (it’s a pedestal sink without a surround). I’ve found over the years that plugging some stuff into the plug over the sink was a hassle (vacuum cleaners, towel warmers, etc). My contractor said I couldn’t have a plug down low in the bathroom because of the fear water might get into it.
I asked, “Then why is there a double plug underneath the kitchen sink for the disposal?”
Because people splash water around more in a bathroom than a kitchen (especiaslly inside a kitchen cabinet). But they also splash near a kitchen sink, which is why there are restrictions on outlets near the sink.
I just did a quick look for the code on this and I can’t find one. I found that there must be one withing 3’ of the basin edge not more than 12" below the counter top. Nothing to say you couldn’t add a second one lower than that. Could be in a more extensive search than I’m going to undertake.
Remember that this is governed by both the National Electrical Code, plus any local code (usually the whims of the local inspector). And it was a contractor, not an inspector, who said this.
Well, as far as weirdness in the NEC, I require GFCI for 110 VAC outlets in the kitchen, but not for 220 VAC outlets in the kitchen. When I get around to it, though, I’ll be sure to have a GFCI breaker (if I can find one for my Homeline box).
