Hi folks,

I'm hoping someone here can answer a legal question for me, as I can't 
find the answer online. A friend told me recently that if you have a 
lawnmower, and pay someone to use it, it must be fitted with an operator 
presence control. That is, one of those levers you have to hold onto, 
and if you let go of it the engine stops. Personally I find them an 
annoyance. Does anyone know if this is true?

Many thanks,

Chris

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:34:06 +0000, Christopher Tidy
 wrote:

>Hi folks,
>
>I'm hoping someone here can answer a legal question for me, as I can't 
>find the answer online. A friend told me recently that if you have a 
>lawnmower, and pay someone to use it, it must be fitted with an operator 
>presence control. That is, one of those levers you have to hold onto, 
>and if you let go of it the engine stops. Personally I find them an 
>annoyance. Does anyone know if this is true?
>
>Many thanks,
>
I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
mowers.

BS EN 836:1997 states that "For pedestrian controlled machines the
control handle should automatically stop blade rotation when the
operator's hands are removed. " - but that's currently just a
standard.

I suspect if you're paying someone to mow your lawn then you're
employing them - and in the event of an accident you might find
yourself liable for allsorts.
http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/ManLosesToesInLawnmowerAccident.htm

I guess you might get some pertinent advice from a mower specialist,
such as the one below  ( who mention Hand-Arm & Body Vibration Risk
Assesment (sic), of all things ).

http://www.psmlawnmowers.co.uk/

Personally I tend to 'semi-deactivate' the "dead man's handle" with a
strip of aluminium bent over the handle in a figure of 9 fashion. It
can be flicked off quickly and easily yet still enables the mower to
be left running while I empty the grassbox.

Regards,



-- 
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Stephen Howard wrote:

> I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
> devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
> mowers.

I think electric mowers have always been designed this way, as you can 
stop and start them with a switch. But with a petrol mower it's much 
more of a nuisance because of the extra effort required to start the 
engine again.

> BS EN 836:1997 states that "For pedestrian controlled machines the
> control handle should automatically stop blade rotation when the
> operator's hands are removed. " - but that's currently just a
> standard.

Indeed. So machine built since 1997 must have this feature. But that 
alone doesn't mean that older machines are illegal to use.

> I suspect if you're paying someone to mow your lawn then you're
> employing them - and in the event of an accident you might find
> yourself liable for allsorts.
> http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/ManLosesToesInLawnmowerAccident.htm
> 
> I guess you might get some pertinent advice from a mower specialist,
> such as the one below  ( who mention Hand-Arm & Body Vibration Risk
> Assesment (sic), of all things ).
> 
> http://www.psmlawnmowers.co.uk/
> 
> Personally I tend to 'semi-deactivate' the "dead man's handle" with a
> strip of aluminium bent over the handle in a figure of 9 fashion. It
> can be flicked off quickly and easily yet still enables the mower to
> be left running while I empty the grassbox.

For the time being, it is just a matter of curiousity, as we cut the 
grass ourselves. But I'm interested to know if it's true, as I was told 
that it was the reason for many older machines being retired from local 
authorities and cricket clubs, etc.

In some ways, it would seem odd if it was a legal requirement. After 
all, there's no such device on a tractor, which could potentially cause 
much more damage if it went astray.

Personally I find it annoying having to hold onto that lever.

Best wishes,

Chris

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:33:35 +0000, Christopher Tidy
 wrote:

>Stephen Howard wrote:
>
>> I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
>> devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
>> mowers.
>
>I think electric mowers have always been designed this way, as you can 
>stop and start them with a switch. But with a petrol mower it's much 
>more of a nuisance because of the extra effort required to start the 
>engine again.
>
>> BS EN 836:1997 states that "For pedestrian controlled machines the
>> control handle should automatically stop blade rotation when the
>> operator's hands are removed. " - but that's currently just a
>> standard.
>
>Indeed. So machine built since 1997 must have this feature. But that 
>alone doesn't mean that older machines are illegal to use.

Is it a 'must' or a 'should'? I thought it was only applicable if you
wanted to conform to the standard - I'm not sure it's a requirement?
>
<snip>
>> 
>> Personally I tend to 'semi-deactivate' the "dead man's handle" with a
>> strip of aluminium bent over the handle in a figure of 9 fashion. It
>> can be flicked off quickly and easily yet still enables the mower to
>> be left running while I empty the grassbox.
>
>For the time being, it is just a matter of curiousity, as we cut the 
>grass ourselves. But I'm interested to know if it's true, as I was told 
>that it was the reason for many older machines being retired from local 
>authorities and cricket clubs, etc.
>
>In some ways, it would seem odd if it was a legal requirement. After 
>all, there's no such device on a tractor, which could potentially cause 
>much more damage if it went astray.

I'm inclined to think it's more about which bored bureaucrat could be
bothered to do any 'work' on any given day.
>
>Personally I find it annoying having to hold onto that lever.

The better ones have a bar that sits above the handle - at least you
then have the weight of your hands in play.
Where I see models fitted with a dead man's handle at the local tip,
there's nearly always a plant tie attached to the handle - so I think
it's a fairly common annoyance.

Regards,



-- 
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"Christopher Tidy"  wrote in message 
news:48941BDF.3090907@cantabgold.net...
> Stephen Howard wrote:
>
>> I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
>> devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
>> mowers.
>
> I think electric mowers have always been designed this way, as you can 
> stop and start them with a switch. But with a petrol mower it's much more 
> of a nuisance because of the extra effort required to start the engine 
> again.
>
>> BS EN 836:1997 states that "For pedestrian controlled machines the
>> control handle should automatically stop blade rotation when the
>> operator's hands are removed. " - but that's currently just a
>> standard.
>
> Indeed. So machine built since 1997 must have this feature. But that alone 
> doesn't mean that older machines are illegal to use.
>
>> I suspect if you're paying someone to mow your lawn then you're
>> employing them - and in the event of an accident you might find
>> yourself liable for allsorts.
>> http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/ManLosesToesInLawnmowerAccident.htm
>>
>> I guess you might get some pertinent advice from a mower specialist,
>> such as the one below  ( who mention Hand-Arm & Body Vibration Risk
>> Assesment (sic), of all things ).
>>
>> http://www.psmlawnmowers.co.uk/
>>
>> Personally I tend to 'semi-deactivate' the "dead man's handle" with a
>> strip of aluminium bent over the handle in a figure of 9 fashion. It
>> can be flicked off quickly and easily yet still enables the mower to
>> be left running while I empty the grassbox.
>
> For the time being, it is just a matter of curiousity, as we cut the grass 
> ourselves. But I'm interested to know if it's true, as I was told that it 
> was the reason for many older machines being retired from local 
> authorities and cricket clubs, etc.
>
> In some ways, it would seem odd if it was a legal requirement. After all, 
> there's no such device on a tractor, which could potentially cause much 
> more damage if it went astray.
>
> Personally I find it annoying having to hold onto that lever.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Chris

It would all depend on whether the relevant standards/regulations are being 
applied retrospectively (ie. to machines built prior to the introduction of 
whatever the latest deskmonkey has thought up).

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.

moray

moray wrote:
> "Christopher Tidy"  wrote in message 
> news:48941BDF.3090907@cantabgold.net...
> 
>>Stephen Howard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
>>>devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
>>>mowers.
>>
>>I think electric mowers have always been designed this way, as you can 
>>stop and start them with a switch. But with a petrol mower it's much more 
>>of a nuisance because of the extra effort required to start the engine 
>>again.
>>
>>
>>>BS EN 836:1997 states that "For pedestrian controlled machines the
>>>control handle should automatically stop blade rotation when the
>>>operator's hands are removed. " - but that's currently just a
>>>standard.
>>
>>Indeed. So machine built since 1997 must have this feature. But that alone 
>>doesn't mean that older machines are illegal to use.
>>
>>
>>>I suspect if you're paying someone to mow your lawn then you're
>>>employing them - and in the event of an accident you might find
>>>yourself liable for allsorts.
>>>http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/ManLosesToesInLawnmowerAccident.htm
>>>
>>>I guess you might get some pertinent advice from a mower specialist,
>>>such as the one below  ( who mention Hand-Arm & Body Vibration Risk
>>>Assesment (sic), of all things ).
>>>
>>>http://www.psmlawnmowers.co.uk/
>>>
>>>Personally I tend to 'semi-deactivate' the "dead man's handle" with a
>>>strip of aluminium bent over the handle in a figure of 9 fashion. It
>>>can be flicked off quickly and easily yet still enables the mower to
>>>be left running while I empty the grassbox.
>>
>>For the time being, it is just a matter of curiousity, as we cut the grass 
>>ourselves. But I'm interested to know if it's true, as I was told that it 
>>was the reason for many older machines being retired from local 
>>authorities and cricket clubs, etc.
>>
>>In some ways, it would seem odd if it was a legal requirement. After all, 
>>there's no such device on a tractor, which could potentially cause much 
>>more damage if it went astray.
>>
>>Personally I find it annoying having to hold onto that lever.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Chris
> 
> 
> It would all depend on whether the relevant standards/regulations are being 
> applied retrospectively (ie. to machines built prior to the introduction of 
> whatever the latest deskmonkey has thought up).
> 
> 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.

I'll see if I can find a contact number and give them a call. If I find 
out the answer, I'll post it here.

Best wishes,

Chris

In article ,  
 Stephen Howard   in uk.rec.models.engineering
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:34:06 +0000, Christopher Tidy
> wrote:
>
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>I'm hoping someone here can answer a legal question for me, as I can't 
>>find the answer online. A friend told me recently that if you have a 
>>lawnmower, and pay someone to use it, it must be fitted with an operator 
>>presence control. That is, one of those levers you have to hold onto, 
>>and if you let go of it the engine stops. Personally I find them an 
>>annoyance. Does anyone know if this is true?
>>
>>Many thanks,
>>
>I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
>devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
>mowers.
>

Mine has that "improvement".

>BS EN 836:1997 states that "For pedestrian controlled machines the
>control handle should automatically stop blade rotation when the
>operator's hands are removed. " - but that's currently just a
>standard.
>
>I suspect if you're paying someone to mow your lawn then you're
>employing them - and in the event of an accident you might find
>yourself liable for allsorts.
>http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/ManLosesToesInLawnmowerAccident.htm
>
>I guess you might get some pertinent advice from a mower specialist,
>such as the one below  ( who mention Hand-Arm & Body Vibration Risk
>Assesment (sic), of all things ).
>
>http://www.psmlawnmowers.co.uk/
>
>Personally I tend to 'semi-deactivate' the "dead man's handle" with a
>strip of aluminium bent over the handle in a figure of 9 fashion. It
>can be flicked off quickly and easily yet still enables the mower to
>be left running while I empty the grassbox.
>

They makers of mine thoughtfully included a couple of tie wrap like
things that could be fitted around the push handle and hold the
cut-out bar in.   No way do I stop one of those things until the job
is done.  Can't understand why the pull start on the moped sized
engine takes more effort than on my 18hp Briggs and Stratton powered
hydraulic concrete breaker.  When the cord snaps the assembly will be
removed and a battery electric drill & socket used on the flywheel
nut.

Don't tell them about spring ejected chuck keys for the lathe.

Regards,

David P.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:34:06 +0000, Christopher Tidy
 wrote:

>Personally I find them an 
>annoyance. Does anyone know if this is true?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3428410.ece

"Christopher Tidy"  wrote in message 
news:4893D5AE.2000701@cantabgold.net...
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm hoping someone here can answer a legal question for me, as I can't 
> find the answer online. A friend told me recently that if you have a 
> lawnmower, and pay someone to use it, it must be fitted with an operator 
> presence control. That is, one of those levers you have to hold onto, and 
> if you let go of it the engine stops. Personally I find them an annoyance. 
> Does anyone know if this is true?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
>

Whether it is obligatory to have such a cut-out I don't know. What is fairly 
certain is that should you employ somebody to use that mower with the 
cut-out deliberately disabled, then you would be guilty of wilful neglect of 
that person's safety and therefore liable to pay compensation in the event 
of injury.

Like most people I regard it as a damn nuisance and tie it up with a plant 
tie. The one on my hedge trimmer is even worse because it incorporates a 
brake with a powerful spring, making it ridiulously heavy to hold up, and 
tiring on the fingers to clench both triggers.

Cliff Coggin.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:46:17 +0100, Peter Parry 
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:34:06 +0000, Christopher Tidy
> wrote:
>
>>Personally I find them an 
>>annoyance. Does anyone know if this is true?
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3428410.ece

Ouch.
I wonder if the mower was a Japanese model...would have made a great
headline...

Handa Hunda Honda.

Could have had almost a full house if he'd been a Hindu.

Regards,



-- 
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Cliff Coggin wrote:
> "Christopher Tidy"  wrote in message 
> news:4893D5AE.2000701@cantabgold.net...
> 
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>I'm hoping someone here can answer a legal question for me, as I can't 
>>find the answer online. A friend told me recently that if you have a 
>>lawnmower, and pay someone to use it, it must be fitted with an operator 
>>presence control. That is, one of those levers you have to hold onto, and 
>>if you let go of it the engine stops. Personally I find them an annoyance. 
>>Does anyone know if this is true?
>>
>>Many thanks,
>>
>>Chris
>>
> 
> 
> Whether it is obligatory to have such a cut-out I don't know. What is fairly 
> certain is that should you employ somebody to use that mower with the 
> cut-out deliberately disabled, then you would be guilty of wilful neglect of 
> that person's safety and therefore liable to pay compensation in the event 
> of injury.

What I was talking about is a mower which never had one in the first 
place. Anyway, it's just a matter of curiousity for the moment. It's 
hypothetical.

Best wishes,

Chris

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.

Presumably this means that it is not a legal requirement. It also 
suggests that professional groundsmen know that the feature is annoying!

Best wishes,

Chris

"Christopher Tidy"  wrote in message
news:48A37A14.5020605@cantabgold.net...
> 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.
>
> Presumably this means that it is not a legal requirement. It also
> suggests that professional groundsmen know that the feature is
annoying!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Chris
>

Difference may be intention for trained operators on the professional
kit, and the unwashed public on the cheaper stuff.

AWEM

On 14 Aug, 01:19, 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.
>
> Presumably this means that it is not a legal requirement. It also
> suggests that professional groundsmen know that the feature is annoying!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Chris

Has every zone, area & village now got a local friendly H & S office?
Just like catholic countries have local priests overseeing our every
move
So big brother does exist.
Alan

"Christopher Tidy"  wrote in message 
news:48A37A14.5020605@cantabgold.net...
> 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.
>
> Presumably this means that it is not a legal requirement. It also suggests 
> that professional groundsmen know that the feature is annoying!
>

I'm guessing the more expensive ones require you to pull a lever to engage 
the blade though...

It's not a requirement for the operator presence control to stop the engine. 
It just has to stop any cutting blades. You can buy Honda mowers that work 
by disengaging drive to the blade, but they are more expensive, as they 
obviously require a good few more components.

moray

Christopher Tidy wrote:
> Stephen Howard wrote:
> 
>> I know that all new electric mowers are now required to have such
>> devices, but I haven't heard anything similar pertaining to petrol
>> mowers.
> 
> I think electric mowers have always been designed this way, as you can 
> stop and start them with a switch. But with a petrol mower it's much 
> more of a nuisance because of the extra effort required to start the 
> engine again.

On cheaper mowers, releasing the device
stops the engine.

On better mowers, releasing the device
disengages the engine from the blade.

   BugBear

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

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

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

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

Lester Caine wrote:

<snip>

>> Just out of interest, what is the make and model of your mower?
> 
> MOWERLAND ML18SP SELF PROPELLED PETROL MOWER

Looks typical of so many modern mowers.

<snip>

>> 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 :)

Well, I certainly hope that will be the case. But it'll require buyers 
who demand better quality and manufacturers who have the skill to 
provide it.

Best wishes,

Chris

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