Your article 鈥淓xperts warn of risk from unsafe glass鈥� (18 June, page 17) states that the 好色先生TV Regulations offer insufficient protection to the public from floor-to-ceiling windows and that architects are free to specify non-laminate glass.

Although this is correct, I would suggest that the contributors to the design safety group Designers Initiative on Health and Safety consult not only 好色先生TV Regulation Part K, but also Part N.

Part N may permit glazing to be other than laminated, but it would still need to meet the other requirements 鈥� that is, to be safe and to be seen. Floor-to-ceiling glazing would constitute glazing in 鈥渃ritical locations鈥� and as such would be required not only to break safely 鈥� so as not to cause injury 鈥� or to resist impact without breaking, but also to have a permanent manifestation that would alert people to its presence.

The article infers that any person coming into contact with non-laminated glazing would be at risk of injury. If a person could be injured as a consequence of the type of glass installed, then clearly the glazing would also be in contravention of Regulation Seven 鈥� Materials and Workmanship.

Additionally, Part M requires that, in horizontal and vertical circulation, glass doors and glazed screens should be clearly differentiated from adjacent walls, floors and so on.

Postscript

PJ Martin, Wolverhampton, via email

Topics