Everything that's been said is true, but unless you can successfully lobby for a change to official definitions, and a change to the way that the law is worded, you have to take every opportunity you can, no matter how slow/difficult it will be to effect a significant change, to tell people what LV and ELV actually mean.
Yes - but as I said, the beliefs of much of the general public's are so well-entrenched that such an exercise is likely to be ineffective or, at best, extremely slow, and the confusion would persist for the decades that such a process would probably take. Indeed, as below, the confusion would probably
increase during and throughout such a period of 'education'
Although my personal view is that the 'official' definition of LV should never have been allowed to arise, there would probably be considerable resistance to any attempt to change that definition now that it has become well-established.
Ironically, the education you suggest (and the well-intentioned attempts to provide such education in places like this) could actually make the confusion/ambiguity much worse. At present, I think you'd have to look very hard to find an ordinary member of the general public who would describe a 230V/240V item as 'low voltage' (virtually none of them will even be aware of that official definition) - so we can be all-but-certain that, when they speak of 'low voltage', they mean ELV. However, if your campaign succeeded in getting an appreciable proportion of the population 'educated', we wouldn't have a clue what a particular member of the public meant when they spoke of 'low voltage'.
If it were happening (and, thankfully, it doesn't seem to be) I think the one thing that (at least for the next few decades) we would have to seriously consider 'banning' (despite 'official definitions') would be having any mention of 'low voltage' on any consumer product which was not actually ELV.
Kind Regards, John