On 07/05/15 21:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 07/05/2015 21:05, GB wrote:


So, you can guarantee that no child will ever enter a particular house?

I can be sure that no child is ever likely to enter my house while I am
alive.

I can be sure that no child will be unsupervised in my house beyond
their ability. I've had "egg hunts" in my garden with piles of wood with
rusty nails sticking out. Solution: assess the risk, put all the
dangerous crap over one side (it mostly was anyway) and lay my bright
yellow hose down with the rule "no going beyond the yellow hose".


I might rant like someone who thinks natural selection is a good idea,
but I'm not really (execpt in jest). I

I don't like being treated like an idiot and told I will have the cotton
wool option because some other people are too irresponsible to use their
heads.



And that house will never be sold to someone with kids or grandkids?

Child proofing a house is the responsibility of the person doing the
buying, not the one doing the selling. There would be a lot more than
just blind chains to worry about if somebody bought my house and wanted
to child proof it, like the original 1930s balustrades, which are far
enough apart that a small child could easily fall between them.

Totally agree. There's a difference between this silliness and good
building regs which might say "bannisters and barriers shall not pass a
100mm ball or whatever the test is" because that deals with a very
common case for not much inconvenience and certainly dies not make the
result non functional.



Surely, what is needed is a breakaway version that works correctly. That
can't be impossible to design.

Probably is, as the two requirements seem to be mutually exclusive.
However, a version that can be converted from one to the other quickly
and easily ought to be possible.