DCT went rather strange

[SteveThackery 3,090]

2 hours ago, Rocker66 said:

Could it be because ordinary consumers had been doing simple jobs like putting plugs on for years and had got used to the old colours and therefore a reminder of the change  would be a good idea. You hardly needed to be an electrical genius to do simple jobs like that.

 

I don't think so, because "putting plugs on" is working with the flex, not the house wiring.  The label on the consumer unit warned of mixed colours in the house wiring, which stops at the sockets.

 

The label is still utterly pointless, though.  I mean, you can see with your own eyes the difference between red/black and brown/blue.  If you come across both in the same house, then you know it's got both colour systems, so why would you need a label?  If it's a blue wire or a black wire it's neutral; if it's a red wire or a brown one, it's live.

[Rocker66 34,435]

17 minutes ago, SteveThackery said:

 

I don't think so, because "putting plugs on" is working with the flex, not the house wiring.  The label on the consumer unit warned of mixed colours in the house wiring, which stops at the sockets.

 

The label is still utterly pointless, though.  I mean, you can see with your own eyes the difference between red/black and brown/blue.  If you come across both in the same house, then you know it's got both colour systems, so why would you need a label?  If it's a blue wire or a black wire it's neutral; if it's a red wire or a brown one, it's live.

But did it not tell which new colour was equivalent to which old colour to prevent any confusion?

[MikeBike 5,005]

 

3 minutes ago, Rocker66 said:

But did it not tell which new colour was equivalent to which old colour to prevent any confusion?

It's on the consumer unit Rocker so the label isnt supposed to be a "House wiring for dummies..."

It could start off like...

Blue is the new black, or rather the old black is the new blue, unless it's three phase in which case the Black is the new yellow or the old yellow is the new black and the old blue is the new grey.

[Rocker66 34,435]

Even so there is always the chance an enthusiastic amuter might try messing with it despite that being a bad idea in which case a warning label might just save a nasty incident. I’m all in favour of anything that helps people keep safe even if they are about to do something. For instance at the end of platforms there are signs saying not to go not the track despite the fact that you think it was common sense not to do so.

[commuter 262]

On 10/17/2017 at 18:22, Mikdent said:

Rocker, I have no doubt that you're absolutely right about the spanner monkeys at KM's, whether vastly experienced or trainees.(assuming that you are referring to them?).

 

And I'm sure that there are many switched on, hands on young techies up and down the country, but Andy is generalising about a certain situation, not condemning every youngster that works as a mechanic. 

 

Its a similar situation in the building game too. Ive had youngsters who haven't the foggiest idea how to lay bricks, they never improve but they have been 'awarded' NVQ's in brickwork, its farsical. 

 

In the meantime,  I who have C&G (2 credits and 1 distinction ) and am now being told that it is obsolete and that I have to take an NVQ course at my own expense of £1025!!!!!!.

 

And I'm teaching these youngsters. 

 

Madness, absolute madness. (Good album that is) 

 

Sorry, ranted a bit off topic there. 

Right on Jerry, I hear similar tales in the engineering industry. However the bottom line is always going to be there are those with bits of paper ( electronic or wood pulp) and those that do. I know who gets the job when its left to me to decide.

[SteveThackery 3,090]

20 hours ago, Rocker66 said:

For instance at the end of platforms there are signs saying not to go not the track despite the fact that you think it was common sense not to do so.

 

Surely that's for arse-covering rather than safety?  So that if someone does go on the track and get injured, they can't say the rail company was negligent for not warning them.

 

I think there are loads of safety-related signs like that: their purpose is litigation avoidance, in the full knowledge that if someone was stupid enough not to realise a rail track was dangerous they'd be too stupid to read anyway.

Edited October 18, 2017 by SteveThackery

[Rocker66 34,435]

15 minutes ago, SteveThackery said:

 

Surely that's for arse-covering rather than safety?  So that if someone does go on the track and get injured, they can't say the rail company was negligent for not warning them.

 

I think there are loads of safety-related signs like that: their purpose is litigation avoidance, in the full knowledge that if someone was stupid enough not to realise a rail track was dangerous they'd be too stupid to read anyway.

Partially true but then that could have been the reason for the labels on the electrical unit as well. . However you would be surprised how many people wander off down the track especially if they have missed the last train. If the signs just make one person think before doing so they are well worthwhile..

[SteveThackery 3,090]

3 hours ago, Rocker66 said:

 If the signs just make one person think before doing so they are well worthwhile..

 

Hmmm... I've never really bought into the "If it saves just one life it was worthwhile" argument, which of course is used extensively by H&S professionals to justify almost any degree of curtailment of our freedoms, infantilisation of the population, and our headlong rush to becoming one of the most risk-averse societies in the world.

Edited October 18, 2017 by SteveThackery

[embee 7,288]

Indeed. There must be a tipping point where the less blessed amongst us will think if there's no sign telling me it's dangerous or telling me not to do something, then it must be safe, right?

 

[Rocker66 34,435]

10 minutes ago, SteveThackery said:

 

Hmmm... I've never really bought into the "If it saves just one life it was worthwhile" argument, which of course is used extensively by H&S professionals to justify almost any degree of curtailment of our freedoms, infantilisation of the population, and our headlong rush to becoming one of the most risk-averse societies in the world.

So sorry that you feel that those of us that gave up a lot of our free time to be involved in H&S. In the case of of the signs I was referring to I can only say if you have ever had to clear up the mess after a human has been hit by a train you might see a point to them. 

Do you think that the “Think Bike” signs are also a waste of time ?

I can’t believe anybody would think that something that might save even one life is a waste of time and just done to annoy you.😡😡😡

[SteveThackery 3,090]

8 hours ago, Rocker66 said:

I can’t believe anybody would think that something that might save even one life is a waste of time

 

The key word is "might".  

 

A blanket 10mph speed limit across the whole country would almost certainly eliminate 95% (?? - a guess) of all road deaths.  Do you advocate that?  A blanket ban on all road transport would eliminate all road deaths.  Do you advocate that?

 

Do you advocate banning mountaineering?  Parachuting?  Houses with more than one storey?  Do you advocate putting a mandatory sign at the top of everybody's staircase that staircases are dangerous?  After all, it might save one or more lives, so it must be worth it, right?

 

The point I'm making is that there is no "correct" level of risk - we all draw the line somewhere.  And for me, the line is drawn too low already and is moving in the wrong direction.

 

8 hours ago, Rocker66 said:

 

.....and just done to annoy you.😡😡😡

 

Don't be silly - things like that don't contribute to the debate.

 

About the "Think Bike" signs - you're being a bit naughty there, because they are not there to protect drivers from risk, but to remind drivers to protect someone else from harm.  We could discuss that further if you like, although I doubt we'd agree!  

[SteveThackery 3,090]

9 hours ago, embee said:

Indeed. There must be a tipping point where the less blessed amongst us will think if there's no sign telling me it's dangerous or telling me not to do something, then it must be safe, right?

 

I fear we might already have passed it.  :-/

[Rocker66 34,435]

44 minutes ago, SteveThackery said:

 

The key word is "might".  

 

A blanket 10mph speed limit across the whole country would almost certainly eliminate 95% (?? - a guess) of all road deaths.  Do you advocate that?  A blanket ban on all road transport would eliminate all road deaths.  Do you advocate that?

 

Do you advocate banning mountaineering?  Parachuting?  Houses with more than one storey?  Do you advocate putting a mandatory sign at the top of everybody's staircase that staircases are dangerous?  After all, it might save one or more lives, so it must be worth it, right?

 

The point I'm making is that there is no "correct" level of risk - we all draw the line somewhere.  And for me, the line is drawn too low already and is moving in the wrong direction.

 

 

Don't be silly - things like that don't contribute to the debate.

 

About the "Think Bike" signs - you're being a bit naughty there, because they are not there to protect drivers from risk, but to remind drivers to protect someone else from harm.  We could discuss that further if you like, although I doubt we'd agree!  

Here we go with the old arguments that anyone involved with H&S has to listen too . That is people suggesting that we take everything to extreme lengths. The people that come up with those arguments never think of consequences of going to the opposite extreme and having no health and safety rules.

Personally I don’t regret one minute of the time I spent working towards making things safer for my fellow workers and the travelling public.

[embee 7,288]

Drifting (swerving wildly?) from the topic (guilty as charged).

 

The industry I worked in is acutely aware of H&S and as a manager I bought into it fully (I was accountable for my staff). The vast majority of stuff was 100% positive and with very rare exception everyone operated strictly with H&S in mind, both to the letter but also in the spirit.

 

However, even Rocker must admit that sometimes stuff, particularly signage, is just to satisfy the rules and cover ar$es and actually contributes little or nothing to the safety of the situation, for example

You know what, if it wasn't for those signs I think I'd be scaling the fence and having a go in there.

[Rocker66 34,435]

I have already said that some signs are to cover companies from being liable which in this day and age is fully understandable.However how can some people claim that signs such as those illustrated are infringing people’s liberties and freedoms.

A few years ago a young lad was seriously injured whilst “surfing” on the roof of a train. His parents tried to sue the railway company because their were no signs warning of the dangers of such an action.

[embee 7,288]

On ‎17‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 22:59, Rocker66 said:

But did it not tell which new colour was equivalent to which old colour to prevent any confusion?

No. it just said there's a mixture of the old and new (harmonised) colours. This could of course be confirmed by looking at what's there.

 

I think Rocker and Steve are singing off the same hymn sheet on this aspect

16 hours ago, SteveThackery said:

 

Surely that's for arse-covering rather than safety?  So that if someone does go on the track and get injured, they can't say the rail company was negligent for not warning them.

 

I think there are loads of safety-related signs like that: their purpose is litigation avoidance, in the full knowledge that if someone was stupid enough not to realise a rail track was dangerous they'd be too stupid to read anyway.

 

10 minutes ago, Rocker66 said:

I have already said that some signs are to cover companies from being liable which in this day and age is fully understandable.

................(stuff)........................

A few years ago a young lad was seriously injured whilst “surfing” on the roof of a train. His parents tried to sue the railway company because their were no signs warning of the dangers of such an action.

 

 

Maybe getting near a thread-lock time I suspect.

[Tez 72]

Did you accidentally nudge the manual switch . I say this because I did it myself once . Very worrying at the time, 

[commuter 262]

Wait until the disadvantaged  lobby wade into this issue. what about the dyslexic? They cant read the warning labels or might speak a foreign language too! Imagine the piles of accident claim forms which dyslexic's relatives must submit every day. Oh wait... they don't do they? So the labels mean nothing and do nothing at all; in real terms they are , as somebody already said just legal box ticking.

[Rocker66 34,435]

7 minutes ago, commuter said:

Wait until the disadvantaged  lobby wade into this issue. what about the dyslexic? They cant read the warning labels or might speak a foreign language too! Imagine the piles of accident claim forms which dyslexic's relatives must submit every day. Oh wait... they don't do they? So the labels mean nothing and do nothing at all; in real terms they are , as somebody already said just legal box ticking.

Isn’t that exactly the reason that signs often have internationally recognised symbols.

It amazes me that people who ride motorcycles have such a a disregard for something that is designed to aid safety. I wonder how they would feel if they were to come round a corner and find that the road surface had been planed off or there was loose gravel following resurfacing causing them to come off because there were no warning signs. Around here they now put up signs specifically aimed at motorcyclist where such work is being carried out.

[Bigglesaircraft 293]

Now now children, bedtime I think.

[SteveThackery 3,090]

11 hours ago, Rocker66 said:

Here we go with the old arguments that anyone involved with H&S has to listen too . That is people suggesting that we take everything to extreme lengths.

 

I used those arguments - taking things to their logical conclusion - to illustrate that there is no "right" level of signage, or of safety regulations, no "right" speed limit for a built-up area.  They are ALL a matter of judgement, and - crucially - different people's judgements are different, and nobody can claim their judgement is any better than anyone else's.  So my judgement on speed limits (they are mostly too low) is just as valid as anyone else's.

 

Quote

The people that come up with those arguments never think of consequences of going to the opposite extreme and having no health and safety rules.

 

That's a straw man argument - nobody has advocated having no rules.  The discussion is about how far the rules go.

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by SteveThackery

[Rocker66 34,435]

16 minutes ago, SteveThackery said:

 

I used those arguments - taking things to their logical conclusion - to illustrate that there is no "right" level of signage, or of safety regulations, no "right" speed limit for a built-up area.  They are ALL a matter of judgement, and - crucially - different people's judgements are different, and nobody can claim their judgement is any better than anyone else's.  So my judgement on speed limits (they are mostly too low) is just as valid as anyone else's.

 

 

That's a straw man argument - nobody has advocated having no rules.  The discussion is about how far the rules go.

 

No body is saying that their judgement is better than anybody else’s. As to speed limits I agree but would you agree that in many cases limits are necessary for safety and not as some people claim just notices to cover people’s rear ends if any thing goes wrong. Remember those speed limit signs are safety signs in a way especially those put up for temporary road works..

My argument is with those that are saying safety signs are not an aid to safety but just to save companies from being sued. I have twice agreed that some  are put up for that reason but others are there for genuine safety reasons. They are certainly not for as one poster suggests just to restrict people’s freedoms for the sake of it. For instance watching homes under the hammer I often see appliances in disused properties labelled up as Dangerous do not use. The only freedom they are denying anyone is the freedom to injure themselves by using that appliance.

[SteveThackery 3,090]

 I think we may well be approaching a place of agreement.  Yay!

 

Mate, do you think we ought to return this thread to its rightful owner?

[DaveM59 1,605]

Personally I have a disregard to being treated like an idiot by the 'safety watchdogs' and I hate being regulated for the benefit of the stupid. If someone is stupid enough to surf the top of a train and gets hurt shows that Darwins theory of survival of the fittest proves itself worthy.
My current job is in compliance and you wouldn't believe the amount of 'jobsworth' crap that is involved in protecting the stupid from the obvious. Still it pays my wages, hopefully for not too many more years to come. Roll on retirement.

[Rocker66 34,435]

25 minutes ago, DaveM59 said:

Personally I have a disregard to being treated like an idiot by the 'safety watchdogs' and I hate being regulated for the benefit of the stupid. If someone is stupid enough to surf the top of a train and gets hurt shows that Darwins theory of survival of the fittest proves itself worthy.
My current job is in compliance and you wouldn't believe the amount of 'jobsworth' crap that is involved in protecting the stupid from the obvious. Still it pays my wages, hopefully for not too many more years to come. Roll on retirement.

There not just the person who gets injured or killed that has to be considered but the effect on those that have to deal with it. Believe me somebody who has been hit by a train is not a pretty sight. There is also the inconvenience to hundreds possibly thousands of people whose journeys are affected.