|
|
Post by Zany on May 10, 2024 6:06:59 GMT
What I'm really finding difficult in this thread is that some people believe that because they can find a few examples of over caution and maybe even idiocy then that somehow proves the whole idea of legal obligations on safety and having formal processes to meet such are somehow wrong. Still they can always look to get a job at Boeing www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68979354 I don't know who claimed that. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 10, 2024 12:16:53 GMT
What I'm really finding difficult in this thread is that some people believe that because they can find a few examples of over caution and maybe even idiocy then that somehow proves the whole idea of legal obligations on safety and having formal processes to meet such are somehow wrong. Still they can always look to get a job at Boeing www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68979354 I don't know who claimed that. I said 'believe that' not 'claimed that' but the whole tone of this unfortunate post strongly suggests the author was of that belief: ukopenpolitical.freeforums.net/post/3366/thread |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 10, 2024 12:32:50 GMT
Then you entirely missed the point. I was trying to define between necessary and unnecessary safety checks. You don't need a safety course to use a ladder at home because you have common sense. You do need a safety course to use a ladder at work because you have no common sense. Ah well can't win them all. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 10, 2024 17:05:39 GMT
ALARP is so obviously what is common sense but you refused to discuss it.
Spending £10 million of effort to net save maybe one life is ruled out by ALARP. Spending £100 to do so is ruled in by it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 10, 2024 18:50:52 GMT
ALARP is so obviously what is common sense but you refused to discuss it. Spending £10 million of effort to net save maybe one life is ruled out by ALARP. Spending £100 to do so is ruled in by it. How does ALARP decide the risk of death or injury in the first place? Without stats? ALARP, Should I pin all our electrical cables every 300mm with steel clips. In the event of a fire how many lives might it save? ALARP If I add an extra call point in a children's play area will the increased number of call points save lives or will the number of false alarms make deaths more likely. ALARP How likely is it that the pressure gauge on a fire extinguisher is faulty, and how likely is the result of such an error likely to lead to harm if we are told not to use them in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 10, 2024 18:57:51 GMT
I think I'm wrong and maybe safety is priority number one.
So. All rented houses need their boiler checked every year. Why?
Well to make sure they are functioning properly and not putting carbon monoxide into the home.
Excellent and very important.
So lets increase that to every home.
Every home owner should be required to have their boiler checked annually by law.
Don't you agree.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 10, 2024 19:51:42 GMT
ALARP is so obviously what is common sense but you refused to discuss it. Spending £10 million of effort to net save maybe one life is ruled out by ALARP. Spending £100 to do so is ruled in by it. How does ALARP decide the risk of death or injury in the first place? Without stats? ALARP, Should I pin all our electrical cables every 300mm with steel clips. In the event of a fire how many lives might it save? ALARP If I add an extra call point in a children's play area will the increased number of call points save lives or will the number of false alarms make deaths more likely. ALARP How likely is it that the pressure gauge on a fire extinguisher is faulty, and how likely is the result of such an error likely to lead to harm if we are told not to use them in the first place. Of course ALARP uses any available stats to look for a forward plan. A frequent difficulty is actually getting a usable value for a life. A good approach to safety starts with thinking about this question: 'could you do more and if you could why wouldn't you?' And there's always the classic 'and what will you say on the day of the inquiry' |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 10, 2024 20:08:03 GMT
How does ALARP decide the risk of death or injury in the first place? Without stats? ALARP, Should I pin all our electrical cables every 300mm with steel clips. In the event of a fire how many lives might it save? ALARP If I add an extra call point in a children's play area will the increased number of call points save lives or will the number of false alarms make deaths more likely. ALARP How likely is it that the pressure gauge on a fire extinguisher is faulty, and how likely is the result of such an error likely to lead to harm if we are told not to use them in the first place. Of course ALARP uses any available stats to look for a forward plan. A frequent difficulty is actually getting a usable value for a life. But so much is imposed without stats or data, that's what I was complaining about. Agreed, and its the one we use, Its why ROSPA are asking us to work with them in this new field we are working in. I use, what would I say if someone was seriously injured and I knew it was a possibility. The problems come when others impose pointless "safety" upon you. Those who's jobs depend on them finding something to report. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 10, 2024 20:39:31 GMT
Another common cause of serious injury in homes is slipping. This is caused by unsafe flooring such as ceramic tiles which if wet are very dangerous.
All home owners should be required to remove unsafe floors and replace them with non slip surfaces.
Don't you agree.
ALARP
'could you do more and if you could why wouldn't you
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 10, 2024 21:48:33 GMT
Because the risk is actually slight and the cost of replacing a floor not trivial.
But making people aware of the importance of mopping up spills is a good move. Eg public information films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 11, 2024 6:59:36 GMT
Because the risk is actually slight and the cost of replacing a floor not trivial. But making people aware of the importance of mopping up spills is a good move. Eg public information films. So another thing that is dangerous at work but not at home. And compulsory gas boiler checks on rented homes but not private ones. How about linked fire alarm systems? Its beginning to look like your safety first stance is not quite as committed as you claim. Perhaps you should refine it to safety first if someone else pays. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on May 11, 2024 7:24:09 GMT
You are coming over a bit Kenneth Williamsy Zany.
In your own home you have a duty of care to yourself.
As a landlord or owner of a commercial premises you have a duty of care to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 11, 2024 7:37:02 GMT
You are coming over a bit Kenneth Williamsy Zany. In your own home you have a duty of care to yourself. As a landlord or owner of a commercial premises you have a duty of care to others. And your relatives? And the cost to the tax payer.? So you're another one who takes safety very seriously so long as someone else pays. I'm hoping to get you to recognise why its important to separate needed safety from un-needed 'safety'. No decent business man nor member of a private home should mind the cost of necessary safety. And you as well have avoided answering the boiler test question. Apparently critical if you rent and not if you buy. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on May 11, 2024 7:53:02 GMT
The “boiler” question is the same as the “floor” issue or any other similar “question”.
In a private home, the occupier is responsible for and control his own safety. In a rented home or commercial premises , the person controlling safety is not the same person as is impacted by safety failings.
While the majority, probably the vast majority of landlords and business owners are responsible, rogues do exist, hence society’s decision to insist on checks to protect those unable to protect themselves.
While I am sure there are unnecessary rules, I have to say the rules you have highlighted as unfair seem proportionate to me.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on May 11, 2024 9:10:40 GMT
Because the risk is actually slight and the cost of replacing a floor not trivial. But making people aware of the importance of mopping up spills is a good move. Eg public information films. So another thing that is dangerous at work but not at home. And compulsory gas boiler checks on rented homes but not private ones. How about linked fire alarm systems? Its beginning to look like your safety first stance is not quite as committed as you claim. Perhaps you should refine it to safety first if someone else pays. Perhaps you could actually read what is being posted instead of reimagining false accounts of it |
|
