In message
<64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB0261EAA6@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>,
dated Thu, 7 Jun 2012, "Kunde, Brian" <[email protected]> writes:
The LVD is only 10 pages long and says things like, “adequate
protection against the danger of physical injury”. Done. Then let the
standards give the details of how these requirements are met.
But the Machinery Directive is 63 pages long and the Guide is over 400
pages long. Annex 1 reads like a poorly written standard but lacking
the necessary details to properly implement the requirements without a
standard.
This is because the LVD is a New Approach Directive, but the Machinery
Directive (like the Automotive Directive) is not. For me, the reasons
why the New Approach was rejected are unconvincing.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Instead of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too
much, too early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into
total confusion.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
