Pulling Main Fuse E-Petition

[JohnW2]

Yes I disagree. ... When Westie and his colleagues come to install a supply, or replace a damaged cutout, or whatever, they still have to prepare and attach the cable into it. That cable will still be live*, the terminals it connects to (which by definition are upstream of the integral switch) will still be live, and so for many operations it will make no difference.

Of course - but no-one has suggested otherwise.

However, by adding the switch, they've effectively admitted that the current system is unsafe - and so they cannot do the live work any more.

There's no reason on earth why 'they' should extrapolate so widely and inappropriately. The fact that one can 'easily' remove the need for one operation to be done live does not mean that one has to stop doing other things live if there is a good reason (even if only consumer convenience).

I think the time has probably come for me to try to clarify what I said when I started all this, and what my personal views actually are. To remind you, what I asked was:

am I the only person who is quite amazed that, in the 21st century, we still regard it as acceptable for unswitched 'cutouts'/'main fuses' to be installed?

I am amazed that 'we' ('the system') still regards this as acceptable - because of the attitudes of the ('Nanny State') era in which we live. There are plenty of examples of unavoidable hazards (in industrial, laboratory, military etc. settings) which can only be 'managed' by the use of appropriate protective measures and equipment (and appropriate training). However, is it fairly unique, in the highly regulated world of 2012, for a hazard to be allowed to persist 'unnecessarily', even if the risk presented by that hazard can be minimised by training/PPE etc. It's just not the way that our highly (over?) protective society thinks.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the present situation, and would be perfectly happy for anyone who wanted to pull a cutout fuse (for a legitimate reason) to do so, using as little (if any) or as much PPE (and training) as they felt necessary - with the perpetrator alone considered responsible for any harm that came to them. However, I'd also be more than happy with the disappearance of countless other aspects of the highly-/over-regulated (Nanny?) state - particularly given that the state allows me to drink, smoke, drive, jump out of planes and climb mountains!

I have, in my time, pulled cutout fuses, taking whatever precautions I felt necessary - and if I had come to harm by so doing, would not have regarded it as anyone's fault but my own. I've also done some much more hazardous/foolhardy things in my time, both electricity-related and otherwise, and feel the same about that. So, personally, I don't feel the need for the state to protect me - but, given how 'the system' actually thinks in 2012, I am indeed rather surprised/amazed that ('unecessarily') unswitched cutouts are still 'accepted' by that system.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

However, I'd also be more than happy with the disappearance of countless other aspects of the highly-/over-regulated (Nanny?) state - particularly given that the state allows me to drink, smoke, drive, jump out of planes and climb mountains!

I think a lot of us here agree with that.

 

[JohnW2]

However, I'd also be more than happy with the disappearance of countless other aspects of the highly-/over-regulated (Nanny?) state - particularly given that the state allows me to drink, smoke, drive, jump out of planes and climb mountains!

I think a lot of us here agree with that.

I'm sure that's true. Do you therefore now at least understand what I meant when I said that I am amazed that unswitched cutouts are still 'accepted'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you therefore now at least understand what I meant when I said that I am amazed that unswitched cutouts are still 'accepted'?

Yes but the DNOs and Suppliers are powerful and do not want it changed.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you therefore now at least understand what I meant when I said that I am amazed that unswitched cutouts are still 'accepted'?

Yes but the DNOs and Suppliers are powerful and do not want it changed.

Very true - but they seem to have been unusually successful in exercising that power. I can think of countless other things imposed by 'hazard-reducing' rules, regulations or laws that very powerful voices would prefer not to exist!

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

If you look really, really carefully a lot of the hazard reduction has been more for liability purposes than hazard removal!

How organisations operate safely is generally up to them, there is no "big brother" approving their rules and regulations. The HSE generally only gets involved if there is an accident or they get asked. There are no where near enough inspectors to actually inspect every work place. e.g. as I understand it there are no more than a handful of specialist electrical inspectors in the country
Have a look at a lot of HSE legislation most of it is about what needs to be achieved than how.

Yes the DNOs are a big voice as they generally operate through the ENA for overall policy, but they don't want prosecuting or to have to pay out following an accident so develop "Safe Systems of Work" which is what the legislation requires.

 

[SimonH2]

If you look really, really carefully a lot of the hazard reduction has been more for liability purposes than hazard removal!

That's very true

How organisations operate safely is generally up to them, there is no "big brother" approving their rules and regulations. The HSE generally only gets involved if there is an accident or they get asked.

In a way, that is part of the problem. But because many people really have no idea about risk and risk management, they tend to just "set rules" without any justification other than "it's elf-n-safety mate". A while ago the HSE (IIRC) put out a press release specifically pointing out that it wasn't them "banning everything in sight" and they are sick of being blamed for stuff when it really isn't their fault.

There's a lot of "monkey see, monkey do" in elf-n-safety. For example, most small airfields imposed a "hi vis jacket when airside" rule a few years ago. This despite the fact that there is a notable lack of incidents where the wearing of hi vis would have made the slightest difference. Yet because someone somewhere said they all had to have an elf-n-safety plan, they just sat down and wrote a few rules which sounded good or copied what they saw others doing. Ie, they didn't do any risk assessment, mostly because the owners/operators probably wouldn't know where to start.
On of the flying mags dis a competition to come up with something to print on the back of hi-vis vests. The winners were "warning, hot jet eflux" (with a downwards pointing arrow), and "I'm wearing this to cover someone else's a**e !" which neatly sums up it's function.

The best story I recall reading at the time this kicked off was ...
Person was checking his plane over, there was a call from the clubhouse and someone handed him the phone. The tower asked "why aren't you wearing a hi-vis jacket ?" He asked "how do you know I'm not wearing one ?" Tower said "I can see you". To which the answer was "well if you can see me from half a mile away then I don't need one" and hung up.

Yes the DNOs are a big voice as they generally operate through the ENA for overall policy, but they don't want prosecuting or to have to pay out following an accident so develop "Safe Systems of Work" which is what the legislation requires.

Exactly. They have a plan in place, the risks have been assessed and safe working methods devices to mitigate those risks. That really is all there is to it.
The regs do not require that risks be reduced to as low as is possible and to hell with the cost. I think the wording is usually "as low as reasonably practical" - and inherent in the "reasonably" bit is that there is a point where the cost of additional risk mitigation isn't justified.
Of course, if you are a red top editor with a bee in your bonnet, or a politician looking for a soundbite, then "to hell with reasonable" might be order of the day.

 

[JohnW2]

If you look really, really carefully a lot of the hazard reduction has been more for liability purposes than hazard removal!

I would say that one doesn't need to look that carefully - in this increasingly litiginous society, it is a very common phenomenon - but usually over and above what Big Brother/Nanny imposes

How organisations operate safely is generally up to them, there is no "big brother" approving their rules and regulations. The HSE generally only gets involved if there is an accident or they get asked. ... Have a look at a lot of HSE legislation most of it is about what needs to be achieved than how.

Again, totally agreed.

However, I would have thought that the concern about liability/litigation would make DNOs, like most people in the present era, keen to eliminate as many possible causes of harm 'at source', rather than relying on training/PPE etc. to minimise the risks resulting from allowing those potential hazards to remain ... so I'm not sure that I really understand how what you say actually explains the apparent strong resistance of DNOs (at least, you ) to the idea of cutouts with integral switches! To be clear, I would again re-iterate that I personally am perfectly happy with non-switched cutouts - but I'm surprised that the system sees it that way, and that DNOs don't want their backsides covered a bit more than I would!

Kind Regards, John