I know just what you mean, David. I worked as an electronic technician at a local school for a couple of years in the 1980s and sussed the teaching profession (generally) during that time. You are not being cynical, just honest!! However, I can't (there's that word again) agree with your comment that regulations make situations worse. If the hot tap was always on the left, then everyone, left or right handed, deaf, blind or alzheimic would automatically use their left hand through habit. So how about not having ANY regulations whatsoever, then we can all drive around at 60 miles per hour, slowing down when we think we need to, killing or maiming a few more toddlers in the process? No. My point is that there IS a regulation out there, and plumbers - perceived by many as bodgers - aren't aware of it. Q.E.D.
HOT TAP - WHICH SIDE OF BASIN?
- Thread starter Simeon
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Oh what a joy to read David and Simeon's offerings. The regulation industry pulls at our heartstrings with "the blind may scald themselves" - such emotive words - but the whole thing is a stonking great con. If anyone is capable of detecting an imminent flow of scorching water it's a blind person.
More regulations, more jobs for jobsworths, more on our taxes. Rant away, David.
More regulations, more jobs for jobsworths, more on our taxes. Rant away, David.
hmmm. good point simeon - the one about driving.
it seems to me that regulations are good when they have a clear logic and apply to situations that call for them - like driving on one side of the road or other or driving slowly through populated areas or in traffic.
but even then we all must expect the maveric driver to do the unexpected - we know that - so in a sense we accept that the rule 'can be broken' and thereby make them breakable - so i agree if the world was perfect and tidy rules would be great. but introduce a small element of chaos and the whole thing starts to revert to what it is, controlled chaos.
also they [rules] seem to work with a strange dynamic that often has an unpredictable effect -
for example: seat belts as a safety measure have increased speeds and fear of collision and thereby made pedestrian injuries more numerous and grave.
often rules are made worse by a beurocratic need to invent new ones.
For example: wood burns. doesn't it? so the building regs up until fairly recently insist that fire escapes be made from steel. sounds reasonable doesn't it?
tests show that a 4 inch hardwood beam will outlast the longest evacuation time for a multistorey building as the carbon deposited will prevent further combustion. whereas upon short exposure to heat steel will warp and pull a fire escape off of the building meanwhile those escaping from areas above the fire will suffer serious burns from contact with the metal even above the source of the heat.
Reading these forums often makes me think that the issues raised by regulations and proffessional pride are more to do with care than with correctness - nothing is more depressing than hearing some intelligent person (no personal reference intended) insisting that things are done by the book, when they cannot see why the book is written - and when to care enough to take the initiative to do better than the book.
the tap will not always be on the left. and why is the water coming out scalding anyway.
Recently i was party to a meeting about fire safety, all of the discussion was about insurance and being covered "in the event" - a sobering point was made about the inadequacy of such considerations should one of the actual people present be horribly burned and the focus was redirected to our real duty of care, rather than some abstract future event involving a theoretical person.
oops rant number 2 here endeth
it seems to me that regulations are good when they have a clear logic and apply to situations that call for them - like driving on one side of the road or other or driving slowly through populated areas or in traffic.
but even then we all must expect the maveric driver to do the unexpected - we know that - so in a sense we accept that the rule 'can be broken' and thereby make them breakable - so i agree if the world was perfect and tidy rules would be great. but introduce a small element of chaos and the whole thing starts to revert to what it is, controlled chaos.
also they [rules] seem to work with a strange dynamic that often has an unpredictable effect -
for example: seat belts as a safety measure have increased speeds and fear of collision and thereby made pedestrian injuries more numerous and grave.
often rules are made worse by a beurocratic need to invent new ones.
For example: wood burns. doesn't it? so the building regs up until fairly recently insist that fire escapes be made from steel. sounds reasonable doesn't it?
tests show that a 4 inch hardwood beam will outlast the longest evacuation time for a multistorey building as the carbon deposited will prevent further combustion. whereas upon short exposure to heat steel will warp and pull a fire escape off of the building meanwhile those escaping from areas above the fire will suffer serious burns from contact with the metal even above the source of the heat.
Reading these forums often makes me think that the issues raised by regulations and proffessional pride are more to do with care than with correctness - nothing is more depressing than hearing some intelligent person (no personal reference intended) insisting that things are done by the book, when they cannot see why the book is written - and when to care enough to take the initiative to do better than the book.
the tap will not always be on the left. and why is the water coming out scalding anyway.
Recently i was party to a meeting about fire safety, all of the discussion was about insurance and being covered "in the event" - a sobering point was made about the inadequacy of such considerations should one of the actual people present be horribly burned and the focus was redirected to our real duty of care, rather than some abstract future event involving a theoretical person.
oops rant number 2 here endeth
ah yes forgot my reply to your point 
following from above i'd define bodgers as careless - not because they dont know any given rule but because they arent interested in the effect of their actions - perhaps if they did it would occur to them to look for a standard.
following from above i'd define bodgers as careless - not because they dont know any given rule but because they arent interested in the effect of their actions - perhaps if they did it would occur to them to look for a standard.
Sponsored Links
David - it’s called the law of unintended consequences and the regulatory world is full of them.
We have two kinds of law in this country: Those that kick in after the event (murder, theft etc) and those designed to stop the event happening. It’s the latter that cause so much difficulty.
If you stab someone and they die, that’s murder. If you steal their purse, it’s theft.
But if you, an experienced and accident-free motorist, drive at 71mph on an empty motorway, in a well-maintained car, on a Sunday morning in perfect conditions, you have committed a crime because someone has decided it is “dangerous”.
Another person who passed his driving test yesterday can drive 1mph slower in torrential rain, in the dark, in an old banger, on the M25 in rush hour, tailgating the car in front, and he is within the law.
The risks of an accident are several orders of magnitude apart yet one may be fined and lose his job; the other is untouchable. This is truly unjust. As Clarkson said last week, they tell you “Speed kills” then fine you for proving that it doesn’t.
The accident prevention / health / safety industry cannot resist legislating against things that might happen.
I read that bread-bins are a cause of accidents in the home. How long before the cry “something must be done” echoes around the HSE and bread-bins are outlawed? How many Bread Bin Outreach Monitoring Strategy Co-ordinators will be taken on to counsel people against using them and prosecute in cases of Bread Bin Abuse? Yes, you read it here first.
In an earlier post someone said they’d been to a presentation by an oil tank manufacturer showing what can happen if a car drives into a tank and a spark sets it alight. Shock, horror. Something must be done. So we must all buy new tanks and surround them with steel walls (also provided by the manufacturer, of course). The one thing they failed to mention was the number of cases of cars driving into oil tanks and setting them alight - a darn sight fewer than bread bin accidents, you can bet.
In a neighbouring village with a speeding problem the police recently installed a device that showed, on a large display for all to see, your speed as you enter the village. The effect was dramatic. Every driver immediately slowed down to 30mph or less, aware of the shaming effect and “up for the game”. Everyone said it was the best deterrent they had ever seen. Guess what? The police removed it after a day. Of course they did; it worked well, it required little maintenance, no bureaucrats, and did not raise revenue.
Which brings me to the point. Instead of the Fat Controller making it nearly impossible for someone like me to install a central heating boiler in my own house without running up against the authorities (hold you breath, Oilman), he should channel his resources into providing all the information we need about “best practice” and the reasons for it, instead of simply leglislating against those with initiative. The cowboys who do the real damage will always exist and he will never eliminate them; the rest need advice.
Rant over for today.
We have two kinds of law in this country: Those that kick in after the event (murder, theft etc) and those designed to stop the event happening. It’s the latter that cause so much difficulty.
If you stab someone and they die, that’s murder. If you steal their purse, it’s theft.
But if you, an experienced and accident-free motorist, drive at 71mph on an empty motorway, in a well-maintained car, on a Sunday morning in perfect conditions, you have committed a crime because someone has decided it is “dangerous”.
Another person who passed his driving test yesterday can drive 1mph slower in torrential rain, in the dark, in an old banger, on the M25 in rush hour, tailgating the car in front, and he is within the law.
The risks of an accident are several orders of magnitude apart yet one may be fined and lose his job; the other is untouchable. This is truly unjust. As Clarkson said last week, they tell you “Speed kills” then fine you for proving that it doesn’t.
The accident prevention / health / safety industry cannot resist legislating against things that might happen.
I read that bread-bins are a cause of accidents in the home. How long before the cry “something must be done” echoes around the HSE and bread-bins are outlawed? How many Bread Bin Outreach Monitoring Strategy Co-ordinators will be taken on to counsel people against using them and prosecute in cases of Bread Bin Abuse? Yes, you read it here first.
In an earlier post someone said they’d been to a presentation by an oil tank manufacturer showing what can happen if a car drives into a tank and a spark sets it alight. Shock, horror. Something must be done. So we must all buy new tanks and surround them with steel walls (also provided by the manufacturer, of course). The one thing they failed to mention was the number of cases of cars driving into oil tanks and setting them alight - a darn sight fewer than bread bin accidents, you can bet.
In a neighbouring village with a speeding problem the police recently installed a device that showed, on a large display for all to see, your speed as you enter the village. The effect was dramatic. Every driver immediately slowed down to 30mph or less, aware of the shaming effect and “up for the game”. Everyone said it was the best deterrent they had ever seen. Guess what? The police removed it after a day. Of course they did; it worked well, it required little maintenance, no bureaucrats, and did not raise revenue.
Which brings me to the point. Instead of the Fat Controller making it nearly impossible for someone like me to install a central heating boiler in my own house without running up against the authorities (hold you breath, Oilman), he should channel his resources into providing all the information we need about “best practice” and the reasons for it, instead of simply leglislating against those with initiative. The cowboys who do the real damage will always exist and he will never eliminate them; the rest need advice.
Rant over for today.
I see you've just got back from the pub
.Of course this guy is breaking the law, and so is the guy in front of him. The speed has to suit the condidions as well as being within the speed limit. The vehicle has to be in a suitable condition for motorway use. Tailgating is categorised as dangerous driving.
PS I hope you didn't drive back from the pub, you were obviously under the influence
. (and all you had to do was fill in a Building Notice application form available here (er... and pay a small fee of course).
wouldn't it be great....we could have a new law that made it regulatory that everyone must have mixer valves installed in case of a cylinder stat failure, then we could all do a compulsory course on mixer valve service and maintenance. While we're at it we could enforce compulsory exclusion zones around fires, ban kettles, ovens, panel radiators. The public need protecting.
Is there anyone who doesn't put their fingers under the hot tap as it warms up...blind or not??
Is there anyone who doesn't put their fingers under the hot tap as it warms up...blind or not??
Oilman, you're a saint. I'll even forgive the charge of intoxication (false as it happens. Well it was last night).
Our house is actually just over the border from S. Cambs. Sorry if you were misled but your gesture is still greatly appreciated. I have the District Council's forms and pen is poised.
Paul
PS: OK, delete "banger" and "tailgating" - the comparison still holds true. I was simply trying to illustrate how so many regulations, from speed limits to flue clearances, give the impression that risk is magically eliminated by travelling 1mph slower or moving a flue 1cm to the right, yet suddenly increased to the point of requiring punishment in the opposite case. There are more effective ways of reducing risk, like improved road engineering or, better still, PRT (personal rapid transport) monorail systems in our congested cities. But that needs vision and courage - something the Welsh Assembly lacks, having scuppered a radical PRT scheme for Cardiff to the utter dismay of the city council. I'll take your point, Oilman, if you take mine.
Our house is actually just over the border from S. Cambs. Sorry if you were misled but your gesture is still greatly appreciated. I have the District Council's forms and pen is poised.
Paul
PS: OK, delete "banger" and "tailgating" - the comparison still holds true. I was simply trying to illustrate how so many regulations, from speed limits to flue clearances, give the impression that risk is magically eliminated by travelling 1mph slower or moving a flue 1cm to the right, yet suddenly increased to the point of requiring punishment in the opposite case. There are more effective ways of reducing risk, like improved road engineering or, better still, PRT (personal rapid transport) monorail systems in our congested cities. But that needs vision and courage - something the Welsh Assembly lacks, having scuppered a radical PRT scheme for Cardiff to the utter dismay of the city council. I'll take your point, Oilman, if you take mine.
It's not illegal to drive at the speed limit on the motorway in torrential rain. Reason being it would be impossible to legislate. However, the police could do you for dangerous driving, but only if they feel you pose a danger. You wouldn't and couldn't be done for speeding.
When you see those flashing amber signs saying "50" on the motorway, these are only advisable speed limits, it only becomes a required limit if there is a red circle round it (as per the variable limits near Heathrow on the M25). So again, you can't be charged for speeding by going past one at 70.
Those signs that show your speed are not always a good idea, there have been instances of them becoming magnets to teenagers for miles around, seeing who can get the biggest speed! I do know of some boring ones that just say "Slow Down", but seeing as I drive like a granny I never see them
And finally, the Highway Code is not law, you can not be charged with "Disobeying the Highway Code". There is a paragraph at the front of it pointing out that it is only a guide. I do think they should make an offence of "Driving like a goit"?
I quite like the word "should". As an Analyst I have to make great distinction between Shall, Should, Must and Will. They all have their place.
When you see those flashing amber signs saying "50" on the motorway, these are only advisable speed limits, it only becomes a required limit if there is a red circle round it (as per the variable limits near Heathrow on the M25). So again, you can't be charged for speeding by going past one at 70.
Those signs that show your speed are not always a good idea, there have been instances of them becoming magnets to teenagers for miles around, seeing who can get the biggest speed! I do know of some boring ones that just say "Slow Down", but seeing as I drive like a granny I never see them
And finally, the Highway Code is not law, you can not be charged with "Disobeying the Highway Code". There is a paragraph at the front of it pointing out that it is only a guide. I do think they should make an offence of "Driving like a goit"?
I quite like the word "should". As an Analyst I have to make great distinction between Shall, Should, Must and Will. They all have their place.
another obscure driving fact is that the speed limit is not 70 mph on a dual carriagway but 77mph - the reason...
speedometers are required to have a +/- tolerence of 10% so if you are doing 77mph it is a valid defence that your speedo was misinforming you.
however do 78 mph and you are doing 8 mph over the limit.
(and there is always a chance that your speedo IS 10 out!)
it isnt much use as a defence in 20 mph zones though
speedometers are required to have a +/- tolerence of 10% so if you are doing 77mph it is a valid defence that your speedo was misinforming you.
however do 78 mph and you are doing 8 mph over the limit.
(and there is always a chance that your speedo IS 10 out!)
it isnt much use as a defence in 20 mph zones though
Adam writes
Whatever laws or systems are introduced, there will always be nutters around. I guess the number of teenagers who play this "game" is miniscule and must be balanced against the beneficial effect of a general reduction in traffic speed among non-nutters, who make up the vast majority.
So why not link the speed monitors to a central computer that can spot a pattern of gross speeding and send a police car down there, targeting the real idiots instead of the average beleaguered motorist?
Whatever laws or systems are introduced, there will always be nutters around. I guess the number of teenagers who play this "game" is miniscule and must be balanced against the beneficial effect of a general reduction in traffic speed among non-nutters, who make up the vast majority.
So why not link the speed monitors to a central computer that can spot a pattern of gross speeding and send a police car down there, targeting the real idiots instead of the average beleaguered motorist?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Deleted member 15266
- Plumbing and Central Heating
