# Forum Home Renovation Pools, Spa & Water Features  Pool regulation

## chrisp

> And what about pool fencing, how many kids drown because parents think the pool is now safe!

  Is the installation of pool fencing restricted to a particular trade or can the homeowner install their own pool fence? 
I'm all for things being done to standard, but I'm not for unnecessary restrictions on who can do the work.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Is the installation of pool fencing restricted to a particular trade or can the homeowner install their own pool fence?.

  
You can install your own, as long as it passes inspection 
At least in QLD....dunno about other states.   
[EDIT]
Last time I checked, anyaway.
It may have changed as the pool fencing requirements and rules seem to change every 6 months

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> My point was that legislation can result in death as well, that otherwise may not have occurred.

  
As in ....the parents don't watch the kids who manage to get in to the pool area despite the fence?

----------


## r3nov8or

> And what about pool fencing, how many kids drown because parents think the pool is now safe!

  In VIC you can install your own. The building permit for the pool and inspection is more about the fence than the pool. But there are a lot of old pools with pretty crap fencing, or none at all*. Pool fencing is supposed to be brought up to the latest standards each time the home is sold, but somehow that never happens. 
*old standards allowed the house door and gate handles at certain heights with auto closers

----------


## chrisp

> My point was that legislation can result in death as well, that otherwise may not have occurred.

  I now see what you mean. Peolple think that because the pool fence meets regulation that they no longer need to be vigilant - meanwhile the children are using the garden furniture to reach up and open the childproof gate latch. 
Good point! 
Many years ago I used to notice that people that drove a particular European brand car that was famous for its safety features, seemed to take extra risks on the road - probably thinking that the car will keep them safe - but couldn't give a damn about anyone else on the road.

----------


## phild01

> As in ....the parents don't watch the kids who manage to get in to the pool area despite the fence?

  Yes, as well as the fence meeting code on the day of inspection only.  Gates can lose their proper closing function without concern!  Some parents seem to think a fence absolves their duty of care too.
Also, because other children are in the pool, it is considered a safe place and parents can carry on yacking.  A patrolled beach is monitored for people getting into difficulty, maybe pools should be as well !

----------


## r3nov8or

> Yes, as well as the fence meeting code on the day of inspection only.  ...

  They've tried to implement pool registration and regular inspections...

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> They've tried to implement pool registration and regular inspections...

  Wouldn't be a bad thing.
Some of the things I've seen......

----------


## Bros

> They've tried to implement pool registration and regular inspections...

  I think you will find that now is compulsory in Queensland

----------


## r3nov8or

> I think you will find that now is compulsory in Queensland

  That's a good start then. Ironically Victoria will probably be last.

----------


## Bros

> That's a good start then. Ironically Victoria will probably be last.

  Pool safety | Department of Housing and Public Works

----------


## pharmaboy2

NSW too. 
while off topic - how about the stupidity of the pool laws - I'm putting in a boundary fence for a pool, in order to comply I must have 1.8m I think it is non climable fence on the inside of the pool - in order to do that I have to put the timber slats on my side of the fence, making the other side now climable.  So it's easier for kids to get in, but near impossible for them to get back out. 
whats the thinking?   Well, they reckon I have no control over their side of the fence, so the rules have to apply to my side?   
I mean how how lost can a beaurocrat get from the point of what they are doing - same thing exists in plenty of the electrical regs as well.  Regulation for the sake of regulation.

----------


## cyclic

> I think you will find that now is compulsory in Queensland

  Compulsory since June 2015 for memory, but since that date there has been no follow up in any way or form, whether from the useless Qld Labour Govt that instigated the rules, or from Councils tasked with enforcing the rules.
My neighbours pool is not even approved, let alone fenced correctly.

----------


## r3nov8or

> NSW too. 
> while off topic - how about the stupidity of the pool laws - I'm putting in a boundary fence for a pool, in order to comply I must have 1.8m I think it is non climable fence on the inside of the pool - in order to do that I have to put the timber slats on my side of the fence, making the other side now climable.  So it's easier for kids to get in, but near impossible for them to get back out. 
> whats the thinking?   Well, they reckon I have no control over their side of the fence, so the rules have to apply to my side?   
> I mean how how lost can a beaurocrat get from the point of what they are doing - same thing exists in plenty of the electrical regs as well.  Regulation for the sake of regulation.

  The kids that can climb the outside and then happily jump down 6 feet to use your pool are not the ones the regs are trying to save from drowning.

----------


## Whitey66

If the powers that be want to help prevent pool deaths, the public should be advised on how all of these deaths or near misses have actually occurred. 
Taking the "Lessons Learned" approach goes a long way to educating people I think.

----------


## Tools

> I'm putting in a boundary fence for a pool, in order to comply I must have 1.8m I think it is non climable fence on the inside of the pool - in order to do that I have to put the timber slats on my side of the fence

  You don't need to put the palings/pickets on the inside. All you need is a 60 degree fillet on the top of any rails within 900 from the top of the fence. 
Tools

----------


## r3nov8or

> You don't need to put the palings/pickets on the inside. All you need is a 60 degree fillet on the top of any rails within 900 from the top of the fence. 
> Tools

  This is true  :Smilie:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You don't need to put the palings/pickets on the inside. All you need is a 60 degree fillet on the top of any rails within 900 from the top of the fence. 
> Tools

  Thx, I was just using as an example of how stupid regulations get - in spite of the neighbors side being approx 2.4m of unclimbable wall, it has to be even higher than that to comply on the pool side - the very idea that an unclimbable fence over 2m high is non compliant because it's on the neighbours side is patently rediculous. 
also had a friend had to rebuild a pool fence at significant cost for the same regulation - they made it less safe as a result 
when rules become too onerous people start to ignore them

----------


## r3nov8or

> Thx, I was just using as an example of how stupid regulations get - in spite of the neighbors side being approx 2.4m of unclimbable wall, it has to be even higher than that to comply on the pool side - the very idea that an unclimbable fence over 2m high is non compliant because it's on the neighbours side is patently rediculous. 
> also had a friend had to rebuild a pool fence at significant cost for the same regulation - they made it less safe as a result 
> when rules become too onerous people start to ignore them

  You are arguing nonsense in this case. Your neighbour, now or in the future, has no obligation to maintain a non climeable fence. They may be a painter or builder who leans every ladder he owns against that fence and you are powerless to stop him. Protect you own side and be done with it for heavens sake.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You are arguing nonsense in this case. Your neighbour, now or in the future, has no obligation to maintain a non climeable fence. They may be a painter or builder who leans every ladder he owns against that fence and you are powerless to stop him. Protect you own side and be done with it for heavens sake.

  Perhaps you are unaware, but pool fences are supposed to keep children out, not in.  All regulations up until a few years ago were content with this admirable aim.  However it was decided that you can't look after a neighbours side, and that working within the dividing fences act, you could work up to 1.8m.   
Now, I could understand that if the neighbours side was climable or did have climable aspects to it, and the next best thing is some sort of precipitous drop that one hopes (!) that a child who can't swim and is in danger of drowning will be too cared to jump/ fall down.  BUT, if the neighbours fence is the non climable type anyway, you still have to make your side 1.8m high. 
so you build a pool and your neighbour gets to cop a 2.5m high fence for zero increased safety 
if you think a toddler who has just climbed to the top of a dividing fence is somehow going to make a decision not to go over because they are in perilous danger of a 1.8m fall to either concrete or swimming pool, you are giving said toddler way too much decision making capability.  In the 2 situations I know of (personal and friend ), both pools are more accessible than they were because of this rule, not less

----------


## r3nov8or

> Perhaps you are unaware, but pool fences are supposed to keep children out, not in.  All regulations up until a few years ago were content with this admirable aim.  However it was decided that you can't look after a neighbours side, and that working within the dividing fences act, you could work up to 1.8m.   
> Now, I could understand that if the neighbours side was climable or did have climable aspects to it, and the next best thing is some sort of precipitous drop that one hopes (!) that a child who can't swim and is in danger of drowning will be too cared to jump/ fall down.  BUT, if the neighbours fence is the non climable type anyway, you still have to make your side 1.8m high. 
> so you build a pool and your neighbour gets to cop a 2.5m high fence for zero increased safety 
> if you think a toddler who has just climbed to the top of a dividing fence is somehow going to make a decision not to go over because they are in perilous danger of a 1.8m fall to either concrete or swimming pool, you are giving said toddler way too much decision making capability.  In the 2 situations I know of (personal and friend ), both pools are more accessible than they were because of this rule, not less

  You are still missing the point that no neighbours side can be guaranteed non climbable.  
If the neighbour doesn't want a, say, 2.5m fence, they could insist you redesign your pool plans to allow for a separate safety barrier on your side at least 900mm from the boundary fence.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You are still missing the point that no neighbours side can be guaranteed non climbable.  
> If the neighbour doesn't want a, say, 2.5m fence, they could insist you redesign your pool plans to allow for a separate safety barrier on your side at least 900mm from the boundary fence.

  Actually, the neighbour can't insist anything on an approved pool siting. 
im not missing the point at all - I'm well aware as to why it's been done, just that the application of the rule can and does make pools less safe not more safe.  I've, it's simply impractical .A sensible inspector would realise this and apply appropriately, but a letter of the law man wouldn't see the common sense 
in reality, I suspect the people who wrote the change hadn't properly considered the situation where there is a retaining wall between properties,

----------


## r3nov8or

> Actually, the neighbour can't insist anything on an approved pool siting.

  Great way to get on with your neighbours  :Smilie:

----------


## r3nov8or

> ...
> in reality, I suspect the people who wrote the change hadn't properly considered the situation where there is a retaining wall between properties,

  Have you read the standard? It is quite explicit about retaining walls, on the pool side of the wall

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Have you read the standard? It is quite explicit about retaining walls, on the pool side of the wall

  Yes, but when the retaining wall forms a property boundary, which takes precedence? 
btw, regards neighbours - you have no choice but to comply, that is why the neighbours can't insist.  One of the reasons I've looked into this stupid law is to have the best outcome for the neighbours , ie not the 2.5m wall.  I'm going to argue that the fence isn't a boundary fence because it will be entirely on my property - by 1mm

----------


## r3nov8or

> Yes, but when the retaining wall forms a property boundary, which takes precedence? 
> btw, regards neighbours - you have no choice but to comply, that is why  the neighbours can't insist.  One of the reasons I've looked into this  stupid law is to have the best outcome for the neighbours , ie not the  2.5m wall.  I'm going to argue that the fence isn't a boundary fence  because it will be entirely on my property - by 1mm

   Hmmm, you may want to consider how clever that will feel if someone dies 
Anyway, your (theoretical) "1 mm inside boundary" fence needs to be 1.2 anyway, so what's another 600mm? I reckon if I was the neighbour, the least chance of being 'obliged' to return pool balls etc, and otherwise be exposed to your fun, the better

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Aah....that new thread smell....    :Rofl5:

----------


## chrisp

The moderator has been busy.  I thought he said that he was 'over it'???   :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

Posts moved from electrical, seems I inadvertently got this one going.

----------


## phild01

> The moderator has been busy.  I thought said that he was 'over it'???

  ..different mod!

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> ..different mod!

  
You boys in blue all look the same to us

----------


## chrisp

> ..different mod!

  Oops, I assumed the wrong mod!  It must be a busy day behind the scenes untangling all the off-topic threads?

----------


## lazydays

RULE ONE: All pool fencing must be a minimum of 1200mm high
RULE TWO: The 900mm Non Climbable Zone MUST be on the OUTSIDE
RULE THREE: If you have decided to use the neighbours boundary fence as your pool barrier then 1200mm will still pass if the NCZ is on the neighbours side
RULE FOUR; You cannot tell the neighbor what to do so if a BBQ is built against the fence then YOU fail
RULE FIVE: Pool safety Council realises you have no control so you can have a fence that is 1800mm high and you can pick the inside OR the outside for your 900mm NCZ so it's best to make sure the 900mm NCZ is on your side so you can future-proof your compliance from your neighbours action. 
If your pool is within 1500mm of the boundary then it has to be a 1800mm splash proof fence anyway. 
Personally the best neighbour you can have is a 1800mm solid fence.

----------


## r3nov8or

Just for everyone outside QLD, Rule 3 above is in the Queensland Development Code Mandatory Part 3.4, but not in the relevant AS 
Edit: Could also be in other states, but I'm not gonna check  :Smilie:

----------


## Spottiswoode

Our local council was(is) inspecting all pool areas for compliance. Cost $150, and is valid for 3 years. Then only needs to have a valid compliance certificate again if the house is sold. I had to fix up nearly every section to make it compliant. Had to lift an AC unit up the wall (I didn't realise until a visiting kid used it to hop the fence to retrieve a ball - ours wouldn't have thought of it), move another section away from the gas meter, replace the hinges and latches, move one section on top of the sleeper retaining wall as the wall was a step to climb with which I did, and it passed.  
Just spent 3 days after Christmas in the heat replacing our boundary/pool fence. It had passed the inspection at a smidge under 1.2 high, but didn't really get checked as it adjoins the neighbours pool area. Fortunately it wasn't checked as over the next few strong wind days we lost a few rusted out panels, it was barely standing at the time of inspection. Now it is 1.8 high on our side, plus up to 400mm retaining on their side. The extra height gives us earlier afternoon shade as a bonus, and doesn't really affect them as their unkept garden is nearly that high anyway.

----------


## dabba

I have a similar issue with a boundary fence being used as a pool fence.
We made some landscape modifications to our pool area. 
Along two sides of the pool there was a 600mm gap from the pool to the fence. The fence boundary height is a standard 1.8m. The gap area between pool and fence was degrading and in need of a facelift. The gap was replaced with a raised flower bed, retaining wall installed and a decorative wall built inside the pool area.
Due to the distance from the now raised flower bed on my side of the boundary fence being approx a metre, which is classified as in the pool area, my understanding is that I need to extend the height of the fence to get a distance of 1.8m on my side of the fence??? 
Might post a photo to help explain...  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## dabba

> I have a similar issue with a boundary fence being used as a pool fence.
> We made some landscape modifications to our pool area. 
> Along two sides of the pool there was a 600mm gap from the pool to the fence. The fence boundary height is a standard 1.8m. The gap area between pool and fence was degrading and in need of a facelift. The gap was replaced with a raised flower bed, retaining wall installed and a decorative wall built inside the pool area.
> Due to the distance from the now raised flower bed on my side of the boundary fence being approx a metre, which is classified as in the pool area, my understanding is that I need to extend the height of the fence to get a distance of 1.8m on my side of the fence??? 
> Might post a photo to help explain...  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  See attached photos: 
Note - the pool is located on a sloping plot and the boundary fence is 1.8m high, however, from the photo you will see that I don't have 1.8m clearance from the garden bed area to the top of the fence.
At its worst, the distance between the bottom of the garden bed and top of the boundary fence is 1m, as the fence slips towards the rear of the property.    
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## r3nov8or

I agree that to comply you need to reinstate the 1.8m on your side, somehow...

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Golden cane palms around the pool? 
You'll enjoy picking up fronds and seeds for the next eternity.
Bats love them too.

----------


## dabba

> I agree that to comply you need to reinstate the 1.8m on your side, somehow...

  Thanks 
I'm aware you can get extensions that attach to the top of the fence, but I believe the max would be 600mm, that would get the 1.6m clearance. Are there products out there that can cater for 800mm?
In terms of being 20cm short of the requirement, is there possibility of an exemption (based on a so far is a reasonably practical argument) against a certain regulation but everything else is compliant?
Or is it a case of all or nothing? 
In terms of the neighbours, they are very reasonable people and I believe would welcome more privacy. After all, the height of the actual swimming pool hasn't changed since being built. 
Excavating the garden bed area to achieve the minimum clearance is an extremely undesirable option (not practical).  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## pharmaboy2

Best of luck - you probably need to get a pool certifier around to find out what he will sign off on - no point in fixing it to the degree you think it should and have it fail, or be beyond what the certifier thinks.  Maybe ring up a local pool fencing company and ask if they have favourite certifiers who use common sense and the aim of the act rather than the letter of the legislation which has a tendency to reduce safety in some circumstances not enhance it. 
with a bit of luck, your pool level is just far enough away to simply install a new colorbond fence on top of the retaining wall, so it's only 1/2 a metre taller than current, which may look better for both you and the neighbour (given their attempts at a privacy screen).   You will have to pay for the fence of course

----------


## dabba

> Best of luck - you probably need to get a pool certifier around to find out what he will sign off on - no point in fixing it to the degree you think it should and have it fail, or be beyond what the certifier thinks.  Maybe ring up a local pool fencing company and ask if they have favourite certifiers who use common sense and the aim of the act rather than the letter of the legislation which has a tendency to reduce safety in some circumstances not enhance it. 
> with a bit of luck, your pool level is just far enough away to simply install a new colorbond fence on top of the retaining wall, so it's only 1/2 a metre taller than current, which may look better for both you and the neighbour (given their attempts at a privacy screen).   You will have to pay for the fence of course

  Thanks 
We've got a certifier coming out next week, just hope like you said he's practical minded and not a revaluation enforcer but the safety is not necessarily improved. 
Regards the retaining wall, you can't see it from the photos, but it consists of a timber log frame using. So unsure how the fence would attach to it. 
See what the certifier says...  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## dabba

> Thanks 
> We've got a certifier coming out next week, just hope like you said he's practical minded and not a revaluation enforcer but the safety is not necessarily improved. 
> Regards the retaining wall, you can't see it from the photos, but it consists of a timber log frame using. So unsure how the fence would attach to it. 
> See what the certifier says...  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  'Yes, if you hold your finger down on an iPhone'  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## r3nov8or

> 'Regulation'  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

   Can you edit your posts with Tapatalk?  :Smilie:

----------


## Tools

Keep in mind that not only does a boundary fence need to be 1.8 on the pool side it also has to have a 900mm no climb zone from the top of the fence. So you will need to be mindful of what you choose to extend the fence and how you attach it, plus the plants that you have near the fence. That trellis looks to be non-compliant.  
Tools

----------


## dabba

> Keep in mind that not only does a boundary fence need to be 1.8 on the pool side it also has to have a 900mm no climb zone from the top of the fence. So you will need to be mindful of what you choose to extend the fence and how you attach it, plus the plants that you have near the fence. That trellis looks to be non-compliant.  
> Tools

  Yes I've been reading up on the NCZ...
Do plants qualify as obstructing the no climb zone? 
The trellis work is next door, nothing to do with me, I don't think will be considered as part of the certification assessment. 
I've seen this website for extensions to fence heights and privacy screens that you can attach to an existing fence. Any requirements against such an idea to achieve the 1.8m clearance?  http://latticefactory.com.au/    
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## r3nov8or

A lot of those extensions won't comply as they provide foot and hand holds 
You are right, your neighbours screen has nothing to do with you, but is a good example of why your side of the fence needs to deter little ones from climbing over (by being 1.8m high with 0.9m NCZ), even though they may be able to climb their screen

----------


## dabba

> A lot of those extensions won't comply as they provide foot and hand holds 
> You are right, your neighbours screen has nothing to do with you, but is a good example of why your side of the fence needs to deter little ones from climbing over (by being 1.8m high with 0.9m NCZ), even though they may be able to climb their screen

  Thanks I'll look into further   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## lazydays

If the neighbors side is 1800mm with a 900mm NCZ then it will pass. It will even pass if it's only 1200mm and the 900mm NCZ is OK (QLD...check your own state). If the the fence as I understand it was originally built as 1800mm and the NCZ is on YOUR side then it will fail.
I would also be concerned about the intersecting chainlink fence at the corner of your property, looks a fail to me.
The lattice looks? ok to me as it's in the upper 900mm NCZ but there is no footholds to access this zone. Think of a palm tree or a trre with only one branch in the upper zone. It would pass because it has a 900mm NCZ below it. Think of a tree with multiple branches or just one in the lower 900mm NCZ then it would fail.

----------


## r3nov8or

> If the neighbors side is 1800mm with a 900mm NCZ then it will pass. ...

  I don't think so. This will fail as you have no control over the neighbour maintaining this on your behalf

----------


## pharmaboy2

Hopefully tomorrow I'll also get some input from the certifier to see if we should build a wall with the intent of the law to make it safer for children trying to enter into he pool area or make it less safe but follow the letter of the legislation - the non Qld version that has been written by an idiot (sorry to all idiots out there).

----------


## Tools

I had the building rejector out today to inspect the basement shotcrete walls and also to discuss the pool fence which is not a part of the building permit. His interpretation (and I am sure he is wrong) is that we don't need 1.8m high fence on our side for a boundary fence. The fence abutts a side street and is 3m tall on the street side and he said it only needed to be 1.8 on the street side, with the NCZ on the street side. He has it all @@@@ about but I am happy to stand behind him on this as making the boundary wall compliant will be difficult. 
Stay tuned for his about face. 
Tools

----------


## r3nov8or

> Hopefully tomorrow I'll also get some input from the certifier to see if we should build a wall with the intent of the law to make it safer for children trying to enter into he pool area or make it less safe but follow the letter of the legislation - the non Qld version that has been written by an idiot (sorry to all idiots out there).

   What's the verdict?

----------


## pharmaboy2

Haha, he is a bit unsure if the retaining wall is a valid point of view.  - didn't reject it out of hand though 
Wait it till I tell him that he has to choose between that or approving contrary to the DA and the dividing fences act. 
im sure certifiers are hewn from the same material that they make highway patrol officers out of

----------


## r3nov8or

What do ya mean? They enforce the law!? No way! Get outta here!

----------


## pharmaboy2

> What do ya mean? They enforce the law!? No way! Get outta here!

  I know this is complicated for ya, but the law isn't always correct.  In this case the diving fences act and the pool safety act most certainly aren't always aligned. 
the law is also an ass in the pool safety act, because it makes a property owner choose less safety over greater in order to comply, which is why qld actually allows for some sommon sense.

----------


## r3nov8or

> I know this is complicated for ya, but the law isn't always correct.  In this case the diving fences act and the pool safety act most certainly aren't always aligned. 
> the law is also an ass in the pool safety act, because it makes a property owner choose less safety over greater in order to comply, which is why qld actually allows for some sommon sense.

  And all you need is one bunny to put their career on the line to support you.  :Smilie:  
'diving' typo: ironic

----------


## r3nov8or

After reading your ongoing campaign against safe building practices here https://www.renovateforum.com/f84/ba...0/#post1049372 I must ask again how (badly) you got on with your pool fence crusade ...?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> After reading your ongoing campaign against safe building practices here https://www.renovateforum.com/f84/ba...0/#post1049372 I must ask again how (badly) you got on with your pool fence crusade ...?

  It's no campaign - Stoopid is stoopid, I don't have the inclination to change the law. 
the whole point about safety is that I wanted to build a safer fence, and the rules say I should build a less safer fence.  I haven't had a meeting with the certifier, the builder has and just wants to complete with the minimum of fuss and fix it afterwards. 
The door one is inane - people might fall collapse in a toilet in a nursing home and require urgent attention, but it just doesn't happen in a home. 
as someone with an interest in architecture and design, the building regulators are wrecking design in Australia, mainly due to an inability to think, but an excellent ability to contemplate the worst case scenario and write unending rules to satisfy their own fears and insecurities.

----------


## ringtail

> as someone with an interest in architecture and design, the building regulators are wrecking design in Australia, mainly due to an inability to think, but an excellent ability to contemplate the worst case scenario and write unending rules to satisfy their own fears and insecurities.

  I'd agree 100% with that. I believe it's impossible to build a real, climate appropriate house in Australia these days. And of course the problem stems from all levels of government that seem to have forgotten ( or we have let them get away with it) that they are here to serve us, not rule over us.

----------


## joynz

> It's no campaign - Stoopid is stoopid, I don't have the inclination to change the law. 
> The door one is inane - people might fall collapse in a toilet in a nursing home and require urgent attention, but it just doesn't happen in a home. 
> as someone with an interest in architecture and design, the building regulators are wrecking design in Australia, mainly due to an inability to think, but an excellent ability to contemplate the worst case scenario and write unending rules to satisfy their own fears and insecurities.

  Might not be common, but a friend's relative did collapse in the toilet at home and did block the door so people couldn't get in to help.  I agree,  it's probably rare though. 
Regarding your comment about building regulators wrecking design - are there specific design examples you are thinking of? 
I would have thought that a decent designer could still do great design since part of the skill set is dealing with constraints  - be they financial, environmental etc...

----------


## r3nov8or

Of course collapsing behind the door happens. Like pool fencing, it's worth it if it saves one life.  
And re design being hampered by safety considerations, what a cop out, and frankly, load of crap.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Might not be common, but a friend's relative did collapse in the toilet at home and did block the door so people couldn't get in to help.  I agree,  it's probably rare though. 
> Regarding your comment about building regulators wrecking design - are there specific design examples you are thinking of? 
> I would have thought that a decent designer could still do great design since part of the skill set is dealing with constraints  - be they financial, environmental etc...

  examples. - shading devices for windows by a set of rules with no regard to type of glass, whether it's shaded by a tree, or if the eave is 450 , 900 or 1200. Balustrades for stairs, minimum gap requirements between treads, windows with restricted openings in anything that could possibly become a bedroom - nsw storm water requirements, basix almost forces air conditioning into design rather than passive design ( insulation, restriction of cross ventilation by window safety), infinity edge pools, simple glass balustrades requiring handrails and connection pane to pane.  Electrical restrictions are a whole subject on their own. 
thats a smattering of the obvious ones off the top of my head.  
Ive got about 20 years worth of architecture mags in my house, and you look through and see great architecture that you can date because of the changes in regulation - it's especially obvious for international architecture where large amounts of lauded design simply can't be done in Australia.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Of course collapsing behind the door happens. Like pool fencing, it's worth it if it saves one life.  
> And re design being hampered by safety considerations, what a cop out, and frankly, load of crap.

  But where do you draw the line?  Should we fence off every waterway?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Of course collapsing behind the door happens. Like pool fencing, it's worth it if it saves one life.  
> And re design being hampered by safety considerations, what a cop out, and frankly, load of crap.

  right, so if the community spends a billion dollars to fence a lake and it saves ones life, then it's worth it?  LOL 
Ignorance about design isn't uncommon, so it's no surprise

----------


## r3nov8or

> right, so if the community spends a billion dollars to fence a lake and it saves ones life, then it's worth it?  LOL 
> Ignorance about design isn't uncommon, so it's no surprise

  While lakes don't require fencing, I'm sure if it was your dead kid you'd think differently about a billion dollar investment.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> While lakes don't require fencing, I'm sure if it was your dead kid you'd think differently about a billion dollar investment.

  My kids get great value from using the lake, boating, picnics, swimming, exploring - life is risky, I wouldn't sacrifice that 
a life isn't priceless, it's valued highly, but not at cost no object

----------


## r3nov8or

> a life isn't priceless, it's valued highly, but not at cost no object

  What a lovely epitaph

----------


## Bigboboz

> While lakes don't require fencing, I'm sure if it was your dead kid you'd think differently about a billion dollar investment.

  Are you actually proposing we should be fencing the lot?

----------


## r3nov8or

> Are you actually proposing we should be fencing the lot?

  Of course not.

----------


## Bigboboz

So you actually agree with Pharmaboy that life isn't priceless, just very highly valued.

----------


## r3nov8or

> So you actually agree with Pharmaboy that life isn't priceless, just very highly valued.

  Get a room

----------


## Marc

Pool fences save lives, sure. So parents get completely complacent and kids find their way into the fenced pool and drown anyway. 
A bit like "gun laws" to reduce gun crime, or ban the sale of knives to kids under ... what is it? 15? What about "if you bought alcohol at aldi you must use check out number 5 ONLY !!!! Oh my ... And the brown bag to cover the shame of having a bottle of chardonnay?  Now that makes life a lot safer. 
Unfortunately rules and laws can not replace common sense and responsibility particularly parental.

----------

