New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

Thanks Graham and Ian.
A sticky thread on this site without comments allowed, linking "new rules adopted" and the relevant appendices would be useful.

I still can't get in to my head why people want to take kit that will "just pass" kit check. Not aimed at you AI but a general observation

Ian - You inserted the word "just" into "just pass"
Maybe you are seeing words that are not implied in what people say?

I used the phrase "other than common sense dictates" for example in bad weather I always carry a spare pair of gloves and balaclava in the bottom of a pack. So easy to lose a glove or a hat.

Thanks for posting the document link: I note that document does not self stand It for example refers an appendix on "hypothermia" which is not contained, and the link to it does not work. I assume all the above will be put on the website FRA links ASAP.

A worrying observation:
It is all a bit woolly in legal terms as to what obligations "must" fall on which parties, and what their actions or responses should be, in many places. It would give one of those worms of a claims lawyers a field day in twisting words to blame all and sundry. Not a discussion I want to open, except in as far as some issues impact me.

I wanted to know what the rules now define as "waterproof" in order to check the kit I have. The document is not prescriptive beyond stating "marketed as waterproof"

An observation I have already made, which should ring alarm bells:
The much maligned mistlite 130 are still in category "waterproof" on peteblands site - just click through to mens waterproof lower clothing - , so are therefore "marketed as waterproof" , and therefore apparently meet FRA rules as they are laid down.
See here.
http://www.peteblandsports.co.uk/trolleyed/5/6/121/130/


Precise wording is important, in the event of later problems. The document should probably say "marketed by the manufacturer as waterproof" but that in itself does not cure the problem, since most people rely on the information given on the retailers site (indeed they are the ones consumers have recourse against) and if you cannot trust peteblands who can you? I would urge PB to put them in a different section, if they are no longer applicable.