The lines from the person to the roof are presumably intended to provide some reduction in fall risk. They are also trip hazards adding to fall risk. Is there any chance they do anything useful or anything sufficiently useful to overcome the trip hazards?
I tried some LED light bulbs for a utility vehicle. They are in a golf cart. The results were the opposite of what was promised!
You might be thinking of an upgrade like me for safety for an all terrain vehicle like a side-by-side, quad bike, golf cart, etc. Think again! Compare the results rather than just fitting them and driving away expecting to be safer.
Promise: “Drawing only 55 watts each, these LEDs use less power than halogen bulbs yet produce more lumens for brighter lighting performance.”
Result: Not true!
The existing bulbs are 35W halogen H1 fitting.
The LED were advertised as 55W although the bulb itself had no marking.
I changed one and was not dazzled at all. In fact it looked less bright. I did some measurements.
The LED versus produced less light while rated as using higher power!
The cart was parked facing a roller door about on the centreline of a join in the concrete. The distance was about 2.7m No other lights were on. The lenses left and right are the same. Neither was cleaned. I took one bulb out and fitted the replacement.
Halogen was in the left side and LED in the right side.
Brightest position was a lot different to the eye and measured accordingly. The readings in the vertical plane were 140lux versus 37 lux in favor of the halogen.
There is no particular reason to think the LED dispersion was better as the bulbs were in the same lens type. Some checks were made. Off the brightest position the figures were comparable to each other when moving up and down (LED minimally better). Moving to the side the halogen retained a large advantage.
| Position | 35W Halogen | 55W LED |
| Brightest position (about 350mm off centerline and 400mm high) | 140lux | 37lux |
| Below brightest position (0mm height) | 17lux | 19lux |
| Above brightest position (600mm high) | 34lux | 35lux |
| To the side of brightest position (600mm total offset) | 66lux | 33lux |
The Government says that small electrical, plumbing and construction firms will save up to $1,600 per year if the taxpayer pays for access to selected standards (1). (The government calls them “free” standards however the correct expression is “taxpayer funded”).
Anyway, onto the rubbery figures.
There are 41,000 electrical contracting businesses (2), 31,000 plumbing businesses (3) and 463,000 construction businesses (4). This comes to a total of 535,000 relevant businesses.
If they each save $1,600 that comes to $856 million per year.
However the annual revenue of Standards Australia per year (other than investment income) is $53M per year (4).
Volunteers write all the standards and Standards Australia does the administration work. Another organization called Intertek Inform does very little as far as I can tell but scoops money off the top. But I do not know by how much to elevate the $53M.
Let’s work on $53M. Even if we were talking about all the standards (which we are not), the average saving has to be more like $100 not $1,600 (53,000,000/535,000).
Given we are talking about only a fraction of standards affected by this policy, the actual number might be more like $10. Let’s call it $16 for convenience compared to $1,600.
At that rate the government has exaggerated the saving by about 100 times or 10,000%.
(1) https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/download/bp1_2026-27.pdf
(2) https://www.ibisworld.com/australia/number-of-businesses/electrical-services/325/
(3) https://www.ibisworld.com/australia/number-of-businesses/plumbing-services/324/
(4) https://masterbuilders.com.au/about-us/our-industry/
(5) https://www.standards.org.au/about/governance/annual-reviews
The rocks made it this far. Must be good load restraint? Or are some missing? How did they make it this far? Or is this where they were loaded?
The soles on two pairs of safety boots have disintegrated. The brands are Oliver and Blundstone. They were not worn very much as can be seen. The failure seems to have been theproduced simply by time. Not wear, or sun or getting wet, etc. Just time. It is fairly annoying that barely used footwear self-destructs. But at least I noticed. What is the potential for this material failure to be hidden? There could be an expectation of resistance to heat, nails, electricity, etc. This protection may not be there when required.
I contacted both Blundstone and Oliver.
Blundstone provided a potential explanation. The potential cause was said to be hydrolisis. Some more notes on this are below. Blundstone also provided a new pair of boots as a goodwill gesture. This was very welcome and above and beyond expectations since the boots were quite old (despite being not very worn).
Oliver provided no feeback.
Hydrolisis:
There are plenty of articles to read about the topic of hydrolysis such as the following:
https://redbackboots.co.uk/blogs/redback-boots-blog-uk/what-is-hydrolysis-and-how-can-i-prevent-it
https://aitkenssaddlery.com/blogs/news/why-unworn-boots-crumble-and-how-to-prevent-it
https://www.lowaboots.com.au/pages/hydrolysis
https://www.safetyjogger.com/en/eu/technical/hydrolysis
Use by date:
A policy issue to address is whether safety boots should have a use by date?
This is the case about the question “what is a 2m fall risk”?
There are various issues which could be studied.
The one I was interested in firstly was to what extent the stairs factored into the thinking about the risk of a 2m fall.
Rascovic was on the porch on a makeshift stand about 0.4m high doing some work. He lost control of his balance and fell down the stairs somewhat. But where he fell was not the subject of the study.
The key seemed to be about the potential to fall. The porch was more than 2m above the surroundings.
Where I am stuck is whether this elevation was rated as a 2m fall risk because of the presence of the opening to stairs or because of the potential to fall over the rail?
The rail was 1.2m high; higher than often is the case. But its height was lessened by the approximate 0.4m makeshift stand to something lower than is often the case. Perhaps the reasoning about the risk of a fall of 2m being present was about the balcony rail in combination with the makeshift stand. I do not get a clear picture as to whether that was the case. If it was, it would be something for people to keep in mind and is probably manageable.
If it was about the presence of the stairs then what follows becomes more challenging. After all, routine stairs in buildings involve a change in elevation of more than 2m and almost never have gates or fences at the opening. Whether the stairs were relevant in the considerations is a point that I cannot figure out.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2025/1554.html
There must be no golfers in Victoria Police command.
Golf balls are routinely found in the 30 seconds after you give up looking.
I do not know why this happens but it is very commonly my experience. Other golfers I know agree that it is real.
Possibly it is something about stress, anxiety, etc blocking the vision, perception, cognition, recognition, discrimination, etc? Once the stress is released these processes return to normal functionality?
Anyway, it happens.
Very few of these turbo-charged police activities seem to achieve anything. Mostly they are not as extensive as the Dezi Freeman inquiry. But picture say the searching of bushland for Karen Ristevski. It was probably a tenth the size of the current endeavor but still large involving a team of police and SES volunteers for two days. They achieved nothing. She was found some time later by a bush weed control workers.
I think Dezi Freeman would have been found faster by just doing things normally, low-key. Eventually he would have had to emerge. And it would have been more likely to involve innocuous circumstances than the war-type scenario that police have adopted.
A bit like the golf ball search, it could be possible that the overload of intensity among police hampers rather than aids the process.
I do not agree with much of what the government does. But this is the government not doing something.
I agree! The endless fiddling with the Building Code is excessive.
As a matter of interest the last regulations I referred to were the Uniform Building Regulations 1959 (Victoria). I am not impressed that much of dramatic consequence has been improved. Particularly if weighing whatever that might be with the disadvantages of complexity and cost.
The height of passenger vehicles and interactions with pedestrians is getting some attention.
Thankfully the even larger vehicle shown below is not such a problem.
While the driver could not see or do anything about a giant white box crossing its path, the driver would have been easily able to see a small child running across in front and stop. That’s why these vehicles do not present the same problem as “Big Utes”.
safedesign 