OT: Lawnmower operator presence control

Home| Search | About
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Model Engineering in UK - Model engineering, metal crafts in UK 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
OT: Lawnmower operator presence control Christopher Tidy 08-01-2008
Posted by Christopher Tidy on October 4, 2008, 10:39 pm
Please log in for more thread options

Christopher Tidy wrote:
> moray wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The best place to get an answer would be your local H&S office. As
>> much as people hate them, they can be quite handy for finding out such
>> things.
>
>
> While I have yet to contact the local H. & S. office (I do intend to), I
> came across something interesting today. I was looking at a brochure for
> the latest Dennis lawnmowers. None of their most expensive machines have
> an operator presence control, but the cheaper ones do.

For the record, I'm going to note here that I was mistaken. The most
expensive machines do have an operator presence control.

Sad, really, as it'll make them a pain to use.

Best wishes,

Chris


Posted by Christopher Tidy on September 12, 2008, 9:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options

moray wrote:

> The best place to get an answer would be your local H&S office. As much as
> people hate them, they can be quite handy for finding out such things.

Thanks for suggesting that I contact the HSE. I have now had a response
from them, and I thought I would share it here for the benefit of others.

There is no specific legal requirement in the UK that a lawnmower be
fitted with an operator presence control. However they also referred me
to the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The gist of
these regulations is that the employer must select equipment with care
in order to reduce or eliminate risks to the health and safety of their
employees.

Based on these regulations, a good lawyer could probably construct an
argument either for or against an operator presence control. It could be
argued that it has few negative effects, and therefore is a worthwhile
added safety feature. But it could alternatively be argued (in my view
more convincingly) that the feature is a nuisance, increases operator
fatigue, provides a false sense of security, is very rarely used to stop
the engine for safety reasons, and is a feature commonly omitted from
larger, more dangerous machines.

In the end I am left with the gut feeling that it is much more important
for the employer to choose his operator carefully than to ensure his
machine is fitted with an operator presence control. While the following
quote is a bit frivolous, I believe it's appropriate here:

"You can't idiot proof anything; every time you try, they just make
better idiots."

I forget who the quote comes from.

Thanks for the advice.

Best wishes,

Chris


Posted by Lester Caine on September 13, 2008, 2:11 am
Please log in for more thread options


Christopher Tidy wrote:
> In the end I am left with the gut feeling that it is much more important
> for the employer to choose his operator carefully than to ensure his
> machine is fitted with an operator presence control. While the following
> quote is a bit frivolous, I believe it's appropriate here:
>
> "You can't idiot proof anything; every time you try, they just make
> better idiots."
>
> I forget who the quote comes from.

I'm still waiting for MY lawnmower to come back after the gearbox associated
with the 'operator presence control' failed after 2 months ( 5 or 6 uses ).
It's taken 10 weeks so far and no sign of it coming back soon so I've asked
the Credit Card company to refund us.
I think I've said before about 90% of equipment failures being due to the
built in test equipment that is supposed to make things more reliable. Strip
all the crap, keep it simple and you will be much better of :)

And if anybody is thinking about a new lawnmower - don't bother with Mowerland :(

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Posted by Christopher Tidy on September 13, 2008, 5:04 am
Please log in for more thread options


Lester Caine wrote:
> Christopher Tidy wrote:
>
>> In the end I am left with the gut feeling that it is much more
>> important for the employer to choose his operator carefully than to
>> ensure his machine is fitted with an operator presence control. While
>> the following quote is a bit frivolous, I believe it's appropriate here:
>>
>> "You can't idiot proof anything; every time you try, they just make
>> better idiots."
>>
>> I forget who the quote comes from.
>
>
> I'm still waiting for MY lawnmower to come back after the gearbox
> associated with the 'operator presence control' failed after 2 months (
> 5 or 6 uses ). It's taken 10 weeks so far and no sign of it coming back
> soon so I've asked the Credit Card company to refund us.
> I think I've said before about 90% of equipment failures being due to
> the built in test equipment that is supposed to make things more
> reliable. Strip all the crap, keep it simple and you will be much better
> of :)

Just out of interest, what is the make and model of your mower?

Some pieces of electronics have made machines more reliable during their
intended lifetimes. Modern car engines start more reliably in cold
weather than most old engines, for example. But all added complexity,
especially electronics, compromises the long term maintainability of a
product.

In 50 years time, are people going to be collecting the lawnmowers and
engines made today? I think few people will be interested, because they
aren't the exemplary pieces of workmanship that they used to be.

Best wishes,

Chris


Posted by Lester Caine on September 15, 2008, 2:43 am
Please log in for more thread options


Christopher Tidy wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> Christopher Tidy wrote:
>>
>>> In the end I am left with the gut feeling that it is much more
>>> important for the employer to choose his operator carefully than to
>>> ensure his machine is fitted with an operator presence control. While
>>> the following quote is a bit frivolous, I believe it's appropriate here:
>>>
>>> "You can't idiot proof anything; every time you try, they just make
>>> better idiots."
>>>
>>> I forget who the quote comes from.
>>
>>
>> I'm still waiting for MY lawnmower to come back after the gearbox
>> associated with the 'operator presence control' failed after 2 months
>> ( 5 or 6 uses ). It's taken 10 weeks so far and no sign of it coming
>> back soon so I've asked the Credit Card company to refund us.
>> I think I've said before about 90% of equipment failures being due to
>> the built in test equipment that is supposed to make things more
>> reliable. Strip all the crap, keep it simple and you will be much
>> better of :)
>
> Just out of interest, what is the make and model of your mower?
MOWERLAND ML18SP SELF PROPELLED PETROL MOWER

> Some pieces of electronics have made machines more reliable during their
> intended lifetimes. Modern car engines start more reliably in cold
> weather than most old engines, for example. But all added complexity,
> especially electronics, compromises the long term maintainability of a
> product.
In this case I think the continual stopping and starting of the motor has
stressed the 90deg gearbox that takes power from the engine to drive the rear
wheel. It had just seized solid, and one would have to dismantle the 'operator
presence control' to get the belt off to make it a simple push along.

On the aspect of 'ealth and safety' - I think I will probably do more damage
to my back having to restart the engine every time a empty the basket. Which
can be 30 or 40 times each session :(

> In 50 years time, are people going to be collecting the lawnmowers and
> engines made today? I think few people will be interested, because they
> aren't the exemplary pieces of workmanship that they used to be.
Examples of how not to do things in future :)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

Similar ThreadsPosted
Altivar operator terminal? October 11, 2006, 2:21 pm
Pneumatic Control October 12, 2006, 12:30 pm
Jaguar Cub Remote Control Box August 3, 2008, 10:53 am
Turnbuckle style control rods October 4, 2006, 8:06 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap