......as far as I could make out (by application of engineering logic), a ring with bridges is no less safe than one without bridges (and, indeed, on the contrary, it seemed to me that the existence of bridges would tend to have beneficial, rather than detrimental, effects).
.....I was thinking more about the 'books' - many of which say or imply that a bridge is a 'serious problem', some of them citing the 'broken ring' scenario as being the reason a bridge is dangerous (even though you and I agree that it is no more dangerous than a break in a ring which doesn't have bridges)
Sorry, John, out of order to even suggest this.
In your engineering logic this might make sense.......but in the real world, of course a ring final with a bridge would be more dangerous.
Why? - Because in the real world an electrician has to test that ring final -
The first test of which is end to end continuity.
If there's a break in a 'normal' ring final this will show up on end to end tests.
If there's a break in the outer ring of a 'ring final' that contains a bridge, then end to end testing will appear 'normal'.
If you know what you are doing, your next set of 'tests' (figure of 8 ) will reveal results that point to a 'ring within a ring' (bridge).
If you don't understand the readings, or, due to the layout, they are too close to what the readings should be anyway, and you don't realise there is an 'interconnection', then you could go away leaving a DANGEROUS fault on the circuit.
You could not then just note these results at each socket and leave it at that.....because there could be that break in the outer ring.
So you have to adjust your testing procedure and re-test end to end continuity to make sure it encompasses the whole 'ring'.
That, is the danger....not the 'coding'.