Suggestions For A Time-Switch

[apprentice87]

Yard owners are all nuts. We all know that there is only one thing stupider than a horse, and that is its owner, but yard owners are MUCH worse....

As Kerching said, it is all one way with them... My other half had her horse at one place, a nice enough place to be honest, but the owners used to let others throw hay in the field for their horses to eat as they were too lazy to feed them properly. Now, you never ever do that, [throw food in a field] as the horses will fight over the hay, and someone or some horse is going to get hurt.

My other half spoke to the yard owners about this who then tried to expel her. So what does gobby GF do?? tells them; "pay any tax do you?? Got planning permission have you?? [You might have a farm, it is still illegal to keep horses on it] Well, you can shut your mouth and i will stay here as long as i like, unless of course, you want me to go and have a little word with the inland revenue!!!!!!!!!!. That sorted things out!!!!!

john....

 

[Sharpend]

Well well it seems legal prowess runs through your house!

 

[binky]

:slap :slap :slap :slap

that's brill!

As an alternative, how  about a dusk sensor with timer to turn off lights after eg 4 hours. Is anyone likely to be at stables 4 hours after dark? ( or just a good old fashioned timer switch)

You could work with PIrs, with lower part of detection window blanked off, or fit 'curtain' PIRs - you have to check suitability. But if you do go down the PIR route 1/set for  a,long delay, like 30 mins, 2/ use a PIR per light so that you don't lose all the lighting in one hit, which should alleviate most of Johns' concerns.

 

[apprentice87]

It depends on how the place is run. Some places have a curfew at a certain time, so no lighting needed, others you can come and go as you like so it is often dark when you get there. Yard owners generally make up the rules as they go along though.. Anyway, the several smaller lights with PIR's should work or the long delay, would be something that would have to be experimented with i suppose.

Anyone that wants a horse must be nuts though, all that money and out in the cold all the time. I am even thinking of selling my motorbikes, as, after all, how much use do they get in the UK... Be better off spending the money on a decent milling machine, or a decent tube bender.. I fancy making my own bike frame sometime you see. Something like a big V twin in a cafe racer type frame. Sort of like a "Norvin" but rather cheaper!!!

john...

 

[binky]

Norvin - showing your age there! I have to say I kind of gave up bikes a few years ago when I went self employed and gave up the office job. That was after 14 years of no other form of transport - when the sun is out, I miss it, the rest of the time I don't miss the agro. The advent of mobile speed cameras didn't help much! The bike is still in the garage, distinctly looking like a garage ornament.....it's on the list of things to do! :innocent

 

[apprentice87]

What bike you got??

john..

 

[steptoe]

It depends on how the place is run. Some places have a curfew at a certain time, so no lighting needed, others you can come and go as you like so it is often dark when you get there. Yard owners generally make up the rules as they go along though.. Anyway, the several smaller lights with PIR's should work or the long delay, would be something that would have to be experimented with i suppose.

Anyone that wants a horse must be nuts though, all that money and out in the cold all the time. I am even thinking of selling my motorbikes, as, after all, how much use do they get in the UK... Be better off spending the money on a decent milling machine, or a decent tube bender.. I fancy making my own bike frame sometime you see. Something like a big V twin in a cafe racer type frame. Sort of like a "Norvin" but rather cheaper!!!

john...

What is your actual surname, John ????

is there something you need to tell us,?  'lord lucan'    ?????????

http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/guy-martin-to-honour-britten-in-whanganui-2013122119#axzz3PNLjhOY3

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5rjJQUnq5Js?feature=oembed

 

[binky]

What bike you got??

john..

K reg Triumph daytona 900 - Hinckley triple, bit of a heavy old beast by todays standards, but as i used to ride all winter, the fairing was good for keeping hands dry, and weight helped it plough through puddles on dual carriageways mid-winter.

 

[Sidewinder]

Anyway,

Back to the horses [and I hate the things by the way]… The trouble with horse yard owners, is they are all complete nutters and want it both ways. If you think horses and their owners are a nuisance, simple answer; DO NOT HAVE THEM THERE…. They all seem to forget that they are paying customers…

Anyway, a horse is a "prey" animal, this is why it has eyes on the sides of its head, the better for spotting something that may want to come up and eat it. Compare this to a cat for example, that has both eyes on the front of its head, the better for "target acquisition"

Anyway, a horse has funny eyes that take a lot longer to re-adjust to the dark after being in the light, so, you suddenly switch off the lights, and the thing is liable to freak out as it presumes that this is part of a plot to bring about its undoing; This is not good…

Now remember what I said about if there is an accident you can kiss your yard goodbye?? Well, best you read this then……

Liability

Engineers have a  criminal liability under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Particularly important are two clauses in the legislation:

Clause 3: General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.

[SIZE=12.5pt](1)   [/SIZE][SIZE=12.5pt]It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking[/SIZE][SIZE=12.5pt] in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. [/SIZE]

Clause 40: Onus of proving limits of what is practicable etc.

[SIZE=12.5pt]In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]to do something... so far as is reasonably practicable ... it shall be for the accused to prove ... that it was... not reasonably practicable to [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement.... [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]There is also a civil liability in contract where the designer has a design obligation to exercise ‘reasonable skill and care’. Finally, the engineer has a civil liability in negligence – a common law concept of the scope and the duty owed by one party to another.[/SIZE]

Now, as it is "reasonable foreseeable" that there will be dangerous consequences in the event of the lights suddenly going out, you are going to be hung out to dry by the courts if there IS an accident.

Read up on the Ramsgate ferry disaster. The port of Ramsgate commissioned a new walkway. They paid a firm a huge amount of money to design it, another firm a huge amount of money to make it, then they paid Lloyds of London to inspect and certify it, and then it all fell down. Even though the port of Ramsgate had employed specialists in the field of this sort of thing to make it, and then had it tested and certified, they STILL got fined £200,000 How is that fair?????? But this is what happens [The fine for all of them came to £1,700,000]

So, install lights that are designed to go out suddenly, and I hope you got good insurers……[and a better legal team]

[SIZE=12pt]john……[/SIZE]

John,

Check out Regina Vs Octel, and look at the law used there.

This is a seminal case wrt the responsibility to select competent contractors, i.e. the "person ordering the work" must exercise due diligence in selecting those they choose to contract out work to, especially on their site.

They can't just say, oh we picked them coz they were cheap!

Also check out perhaps the Dancerama Footwear case.

Again a Regina Vs.

You might understand the law better than I.

 

[apprentice87]

Hi Paul,

A lot of it seems to be lawyers making work for themselves and no common sense...  Say i ran a mail order firm, and as part of this "undertaking" I posted something to your house using, say, parcel force. If the van driver crashes, it is just madness to say that i bear some responsibility myself as my undertaking involves posting things in a van, and, the operation of a van involves going at more than walking speed, and, any idiot knows that this involves some risk, therefore, it is my fault. It is just perverse..... Seems "too remote" to me.... Ok, it would be different if i posted things that were not packed in a suitable manner and this caused the accident. Say perhaps i posted a noxious chemical the fumes from which overcame the driver..

The thing with the Octel case though is this;

The judge stated;

"The tank was part of Octel's plant. The work formed part of a maintenance programme planned by Octel. The men who did the work, although employed by an independent contractor, were almost permanently integrated into Octel's larger operations. They worked under the permit to work system. Octel provided their safety equipment and lighting. None of these facts was disputed"

Basically then, it could be said that the chap who was injured could reasonably fairly for all practical purposes have been said to have worked for octel themselves.. I think that is what made the difference..

john..

 

[binky]

That, plus it's on their premises and they supplied the lighting.

Princess yachts based in plymouth have a death about every 5years, with very similar scenrios to the Octel case, usually some unfortunate young lad in a tank overcome with fumes, or the hold of  a boat fiberglassing. Can't think what the court case verdicts were, but I don't think princess yachts have ever challenged the court rulings.

 

[pewter]

http://www.wisecontrols.com/item.aspx?i=11931