Hang on you just said right bath, left kitchen. B-)
Quite kitchen should be hot right as you'll be filling the kettle held in ones right hand (assuming no south paws) so to avoid having to cross arms the cold should be left (hence hot right).
In the bathroom the dominate right hand reaches for the right and thus the cold tap.
Not sure where these hotels these are, but can I have their details. I hate the ones which restrict the water temperature or flow as first thing I want after a long drive or flight is a good long VERY HOT soak.
Well there you are. Perfect sense.
< Snip babble >
Get a one lever tap.
You are mad.
Yup, I was told standard is right=hot left=cold (which ties in with what Christian says) so that's how the kitchen was done. However, here's where it gets interesting, our bath was parallel to the wall so the hot tap was put furthest away as a safety thing, the bathroom sink was done to match so upstairs and downstairs ended up opposite ways round.
All I can say in my parents' defence is that neither me nor my sister ever scalded ourselves on the hot taps so something must have worked OK. I would say though that I have a mixer tap on my kitchen sink and it's to the left of the bowl which means that as you swing the arm round to fill the sink you can't actually reach the tap itself without putting your arm directly under the spout, good job it isn't hot=right otherwise I'd be in the doo-doo. I wonder if any thought went into designing the setup like that. Anyone for front/back oriented taps?
Socialists like to control every element of your lives; it's for your own good you understand. If you resist you either evil or insane.
Me, I can't wait for them to ban those apple-filled pastries that scald your tongue after you've heated them up and waited in vain for five minutes for them to cool down.
Something must be done: oh, the humanity!
Andy.
Look, I've told you already: appealing to the good of humanity-in-general is *not* the approved route. The single incantation you need is: "if it saves [the precious tongue and mouth-roof lining of] just one child"...
What tripe. The Tories want to totally regulate planning. Well mainly to keep large landowners rich more than anything else.
Very sensible. I would willingly run put and pay $50 for a blending valve if I knew one child would not die.
Rthare than donate $50 to e.g. children in need to that about 50 children don't die.
Or indeed invest $50 in a succesful business to employ some mother who can then decide whather in fact buyng a $50 blenedr with her money is better than feeding her children at all.
Wht I LOVE about soialism is its inherent contradiction
(i) We are all equal. (ii) Only Phony Liar is good enough to run things (iii) and we know better than you and will force you to do whats good for you, because you are too stupid to do it if left to your pwn devices.
I throw out a challenge to you IMM.
If you would do as you say, then as you are presumably equal to everyone else, so will they, and there is no need to legislate is there?
What I love about it is its fairness and common sense approach.
< snip babble ; keep off the port >
...... and wastes huge amounts of resource in attempting to make things artificially fair rather than on dealing with the real issues.
This sketch came from a recent cabinet meeting.......
What tripe! "artificial". Land prices are artificial affecting every one of us. Markets (supposed to be free) can be manipulated and have been for eons..
Thatcher inserted a large middle management tier into the NHS to cost things. Tory MPs would spout in parliament that local hospitals cannot give them figures on how much each operations costs. The doctors said why cost things when they are free at point of delivery anyway. It has to be paid. Money that could have gone to the medical treatment was used to pay large salaries to 1000s of unnecessary people.
He considered himself to be a socialist in the personal sense in his early years but hated the practical embodiment of it in the form of socialist movements about which he wrote Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four in the years before his early death.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
He hated state control and also vested interest.
If it was that simple... But if you legislate that everyone *must* have one, will that save more lives than other things which may not be done because of lack of money due to the cost of such compulsories? I will guarantee that your life isn't as safe as you can make it, only as safe as you consider economic.
It is one point that can be easily addressed so it is. Two wrongs do not make a right. Kids are dying in Africa so we should do nothing to prevent harm here is a rather silly view.
Yes, it is, but that's not the issue here.
The issue, as with all of these "this will save lives" safety things, is: How many *additional* deaths will occur as a result of doing this, because of unintended consequences of doing it?
Like this: Say everyone must have a thermo valve. Many will buy one and as a result won't be able to afford a smoke alarm. Arguably this puts their kids at greater risk. Easy, you say- make smoke alarms compulsory. So they have to buy a thermo valve, and a smoke alarm. So as a result they can't afford a wiring check, greater risk of electrocution. So we'll make *that* compulsory Etc. Etc. Until *everything* which just might pose the slightest statistical possibility of a risk has a compulsory safeguard. Might not leave you with enough to buy food or shelter, but what the hell, at least we will be absolutely safe from the remotest possibility of a freak accident. This is, of course, impossible.
It would be better to spend some money on a publicity campaign to try to persuade people to take some responsibility for their own wellbeing and that of others, similar to some workplace safety campaigns.
There is a clear failure in this country to recognise that it is neccesary to stay awake and alert when going about ones daily buisness, because you really *can* die of stupidity.
Don't make it impossible to fill a bath with boiling water and step / fall into it, get it through to people: *Don't do this. It is stupid.* Do not allow people who can't grasp this concept to attempt such tasks.
It would also help to get rid of the increasing attitude of "I hurt myself. Must be somebody else's fault. Who can I sue?" encouraged by adverts on tv from various ambulance chasers, which only results in ludicrous liability insurance premiums. We need to get to: "I hurt myself. I was stupid. I will be more careful in future." and "If I am really stupid I will kill myself. Must be careful at all times not to do that."
This is very much On Topic here, because there is already plenty of evidence (CORGI etc) that the first reaction of the rubber room society brigade is to make it illegal to DIY in favour of everything to be done by "qualified professionals".
I think the points that are being missed here are:-
1) This requirement is mandatory only on new build and refurbishment. This means that it will take about a century for it to be effective, the reduction in accidents will be in the region of 8 per year at best(see(2). Enforcement costs >£20M/yr? It's another tax increase, paying for the inspectors. Council tax rise anyone? 2) The responsible elements of society would fit these anyway. The irresponsible, will simply fiddle the works when the tap doesn't work, to give them the easiest life possible and it will be unenforceable. More of the population branded as criminals and locked up? Build more prisons? 3) In council houses where the cost of upgrading falls on the taxpayers, what is the proposed rate of upgrading each year and for how many years? Rent/Council tax rise anyone? 3) All it required was for a recommendation that these be fitted. Sledgehammers and nuts comes to mind.There are now so many regulations, that no one can actually remember them let alone enforce them. Laws which are prolific are simply ignored.
Regards Capitol
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.