ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[PBC_1966]

Which "particular private organisation" is that?

The IET.

Have you told the NFPA that? I'm not sure if they'll be impressed.

No doubt, but I don't think that alters the idea both John and I are postulating. And certainly there seem to be many people here who feel that the code-making panels for the NFPA are being influenced by manufacturers who just want to sell more producs, e.g. the whole AFCI business.

 

[stillp]

The IET are not the publishers of BS7671, nor are they solely responsible for its content.

Yes, manufacturers want to sell more products. That's the way business works. To contribute to their business they will strive to develop better/safer products and take whatever actions are seen as necessary to sell them, such as amending standards. As long as there is a benefit to the users of those standards, that represents progress.

 

[PBC_1966]

That may well be relevant if deciding whether the regulations need changing.

But irrelevant to accepting that they have.

But relevant to somebody deciding whether he feels that it's worth the extra cost and/or trouble of complying with some new regulation for the small increase in protection it might provide, when that regulation is merely guidance and not a statutory requirement.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

And sometimes people are happy to do something which doesn't follow every last detail of those changes when they see that doing so involves a lot more work or expense for a very small increased level of protection.

That's the way it works too.

LABTYD.

Now why do you think it's reasonable behavior to just go with the 30mA protection specified by the current edition of BS7671 ignoring the fact that if you provided 10mA protection the result would be safer?

Authoritative guidance says it is reasonably safe.

The "authoritative guidance" in the very same publication also says that not having it is reasonably safe.

wrt being safe enough to be allowed to be continued to be installed you are wrong.

Either it's reasonably safe by whatever criteria one is using to judge what is reasonably safe, or it isn't. Whether it was installed today, yesterday, last year, or 30 years ago doesn't change that.

If you were asked to inspect an installation to determine if it's reasonably safe, you came upon an obvious addition to a circuit feeding an obviously later socket without 30mA protection but you couldn't tell whether it was done before or after the BS7671 changes of 2008, would "Sorry, but unless you can give me the date on which that addition was done I can't tell you whether I consider it to be reasonably safe or not," be your response?

Is democracy called mob rule?

As per the quotes above, if it's pure democracy in which 51% of the population can impose anything they like on the other 49%, then yes. That's why democracy has to be restricted by recognized inalienable rights.

X (10mA) is safer than Y (30mA), which is in turn safer than Z (100mA) - By your argument, if it's reasonable to do Y then it's unreasonable to do Z because Y is safer than Z. But you won't accept that if it's reasonable to do X then it must also be unreasonable to do Y, because X is safer than Y.

Authoritative guidance says Y is reasonably safe.

The same guidance also says that Z is reasonably safe.

But given that you are now claiming that even a missing piece of earth sleeving can mean that an installation is not reasonably safe, there really is no point in even trying to get you to see reason.

No - please pay attention.

I refer you to your earlier reply to the question:

Are you seriously going to suggest that if you install an accessory without putting sleeving on the earths that the result is not still reasonably safe?

Yes, I am.

The work you do means that your work is not reasonably safe because you have failed to add a safety feature which it is reasonable to add. For no good reason you have omitted it. Therefore your provision for safety has not been reasonable.

And when you are carrying out that inspection for somebody to determine if the installation is reasonably safe, how are you going to know why there is no earth sleeving present? Are you, again, somehow going to postpone determining whether the system is reasonably safe or not until you can ascertain the reason? That's ridiculous. Either what you have in front of you is reasonably safe or it isn't, by whatever criteria you are using to judge "reasonably safe."

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, manufacturers want to sell more products. That's the way business works. To contribute to their business they will strive to develop better/safer products and take whatever actions are seen as necessary to sell them, such as amending standards. ....

Would that sentence not still be true if you substituted something like "new" or "different" for "better/safer"?

As long as there is a benefit to the users of those standards, that represents progress.

Yes, if it is a benefit of reasonable magnitude, and the cost of implementing it is not disproportionate in relation to the magnitude of benefit. However, as PBC and I have been saying, the time can come (as it may have done with electrical installations) when there is so little scope left for appreciable "further improvements in safety" that the need for (or justifiability of) further 'progress' may come into question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

XYZ Borough Council.

Proposal:
Everything is fine; the people don't need us any more.

Passed. Yeah right!

 

[PBC_1966]

For example, nothing happened to suddenly make non-accessible screwed joints any less safe than they ever had been. They had been regarded as 'acceptably safe' for best part of a century, and hadn't become any less safe, so the decision to 'outlaw' them must have been based on what 'they' thought was "someone's" changed view of what degree of safety/risk was 'acceptable', not because the risk had changed.

Exactly. And I suspect that some years down the track when it's discovered that the so-called "maintenance free" replacements aren't actually any more reliable than the screw terminal junction boxes they're replacing (and in fact turn out to be far less reliable) they might then "outlaw" them in inaccessible places too. That doesn't mean that the problem with them suddenly developed on the day that change will be made or even over the preceeding few years; it was there all the time.

XYZ Borough Council.

Proposal: Everything is fine; the people don't need us any more.

Passed. Yeah right!

Or: Everything is fine, the people just want us to clean the streets, empty the bins regularly and do all the other things we're supposed to do, not keep finding ways to increase our tax take and expand our bureaucratic empire and own sense of self-importance.

Yeah, right!

 

[stillp]

For example, nothing happened to suddenly make non-accessible screwed joints any less safe than they ever had been. They had been regarded as 'acceptably safe' for best part of a century, and hadn't become any less safe, so the decision to 'outlaw' them must have been based on what 'they' thought was "someone's" changed view of what degree of safety/risk was 'acceptable', not because the risk had changed.

Exactly. And I suspect that some years down the track when it's discovered that the so-called "maintenance free" replacements aren't actually any more reliable than the screw terminal junction boxes they're replacing (and in fact turn out to be far less reliable) they might then "outlaw" them in inaccessible places too. That doesn't mean that the problem with them suddenly developed on the day that change will be made.

Presumably you are unaware of the extensive use of screwless terminals on industrial control gear for the last couple of decades?

 

[JohnW2]

And I suspect that some years down the track when it's discovered that the so-called "maintenance free" replacements aren't actually any more reliable than the screw terminal junction boxes they're replacing (and in fact turn out to be far less reliable) they might then "outlaw" them in inaccessible places too.

That could happen but, if it did, it would actually be rather different, since it would represent 'new (negative) information' about the safety/'satisfactoriness' of the type of connection.

In the case of screwed connections, I doubt very much indeed that the change in the regs resulted from any 'new information' indicating that they were any less 'safe' than they had been, or had been thought to have been, 50 years (and a good few editions of BS7671) earlier. As I said, I do not believe that the change resulted from any evidence of an altered level of risk but, rather, because someone thought that 'we' (whether the committee or the whole of society) now want/need a different level of risk/'safeness'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

That could happen but, if it did, it would actually be rather different, since it would represent 'new (negative) information' about the safety/'satisfactoriness' of the type of connection.

That's true - Bad comparison on my part.

But as you say, with the traditional screw-terminal junction box, was there some sudden "discovery" that inaccessible (however defined) joints were causing problems all over the place, or was it just something which "seemed like a good idea" to change? And if the latter, why not all inaccessible joints?

 

[PBC_1966]

Presumably you are unaware of the extensive use of screwless terminals on industrial control gear for the last couple of decades?

Not worked with it, but I know it's used. It's also been used extensively with telephone equipment for more than 30 years, and in my experience gives far more trouble than the old screw terminals ever did.

 

[stillp]

It's a shame your experience is so limited.
The screwless terminal used in telecomms usually are a completely different design, something like the doorbell terminals where the contact element is also the retaining spring. Good screwless terminals use a separate spring and contact.

 

[PBC_1966]

I don't doubt that some are better than others, and I'm not sure exactly what type you're referring to. I remember looking at some of the "maintenance free" junction box for regular wiring (can't remember which make) while still in England and not being at all impressed with them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But relevant to somebody deciding whether he feels that it's worth the extra cost and/or trouble of complying with some new regulation for the small increase in protection it might provide, when that regulation is merely guidance and not a statutory requirement.

It is not up to somebody to decide whether complying with the law is worth the extra cost and trouble.

Is there any relevant guidance in the form of equivalent wiring regulations in the EEA which allows 100mA protection to be installed for new sockets?

And sometimes people are happy to do something which doesn't follow every last detail of those changes when they see that doing so involves a lot more work or expense for a very small increased level of protection.

That is also not up to them. There are no exemptions because they don't want the bother of complying.

The "authoritative guidance" in the very same publication also says that not having it is reasonably safe.

Do you not realise what you have been doing here?

You have been telling me that I must be guided by the fact that the regulations do not require the pro-active improvement of no, or 100mA protection, but you do not have to be guided by the fact that they do not allow it for new installations or additions.

Either it's reasonably safe by whatever criteria one is using to judge what is reasonably safe, or it isn't.

OK fine. For existing sockets? It's reasonably safe enough not to enforce the upheaval of having it replaced.

For new sockets? It's not reasonably safe enough to allow its use to be extended.

Whether it was installed today, yesterday, last year, or 30 years ago doesn't change that.

It changes what is considered acceptable for new stuff.

That basic principle is seen over and over and over again in all sorts of rules and regulations and laws covering all sorts of things. The rules etc change, there is a cut-off date and things made/done/installed after that date are subject to the new rules, but we do not force the application of the new rules onto things which were made/done/installed before that date.

IT'S THE WAY THINGS WORK. And you need to accept that, get over it, and you need to stop telling people that they can ignore the new rules if they already have things which comply with the old ones.

If you were asked to inspect an installation to determine if it's reasonably safe, you came upon an obvious addition to a circuit feeding an obviously later socket without 30mA protection but you couldn't tell whether it was done before or after the BS7671 changes of 2008, would "Sorry, but unless you can give me the date on which that addition was done I can't tell you whether I consider it to be reasonably safe or not," be your response?

You just don't get it, do you.

What is considered safe to be allowed to be left installed is NOT, ANY LONGER, AS IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE REGULATIONS TO ANYBODY WHO IS PREPARED TO READ THEM, ALLOWED TO BE NEWLY INSTALLED.

I know you don't like that fact, but TFS.

I know that you would do anything to make it otherwise, but TFS.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Accept it, get over it, and stop telling people that they can ignore the new rules if they already have things which comply with the old ones.

The same guidance also says that Z is reasonably safe.

No it does not, not for newly installed stuff.

I refer you to your earlier reply to the question:

Are you seriously going to suggest that if you install an accessory without putting sleeving on the earths that the result is not still reasonably safe?

Yes, I am.

I refer you to your statement:

But given that you are now claiming that even a missing piece of earth sleeving can mean that an installation is not reasonably safe...

You originally asked about the new cables installed without sleeving, not the entire installation.

Please don't tell me that all along you have been mistakenly thinking that P1 makes requirements wrt the existing installation in its entirety, rather than just any new parts which someone adds?

That's why the guidance on what is considered safe enough to be left is of no relevance - P1 applies to what you add, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add], so the only guidance which is relevant it that which applies to what you add.

And when you are carrying out that inspection for somebody to determine if the installation is reasonably safe, how are you going to know why there is no earth sleeving present? Are you, again, somehow going to postpone determining whether the system is reasonably safe or not until you can ascertain the reason? That's ridiculous. Either what you have in front of you is reasonably safe or it isn't, by whatever criteria you are using to judge "reasonably safe."

I refer you to my earlier observation about you not getting it.

What's ridiculous is your refusal to see that the guidance/rules/regulations/laws/whatevers apply only to the work you are doing. The acceptability of it is based entirely on its own merits, and is not affected in any way by what is already there. When done, what is examined, and measured against the guidance/rules/regulations/laws/whatevers, is just what you did, not the entirety of the installation with your bit included.[/quote]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As per the quotes above, if it's pure democracy in which 51% of the population can impose anything they like on the other 49%, then yes. That's why democracy has to be restricted by recognized inalienable rights.

What about the situation where less than 25% of the electorate can impose on the other 75%, which is what is happening here, right now.

 

[PBC_1966]

It is not up to somebody to decide whether complying with the law is worth the extra cost and trouble.

It is only your opinion that to do the things we're debating specifically here would be against the law. You still have not provided any citation which backs up that claim.

Is there any relevant guidance in the form of equivalent wiring regulations in the EEA which allows 100mA protection to be installed for new sockets?

I don't know, although it would be interesting to find out, in the similar way that I asked earlier whether any of those standards have anything equivalent to the idea of prescribed zones for cabnles.

And sometimes people are happy to do something which doesn't follow every last detail of those changes when they see that doing so involves a lot more work or expense for a very small increased level of protection.

That is also not up to them. There are no exemptions because they don't want the bother of complying.

You do not need an exemption from complying with something you are not obliged to comply with in the first place, so yes, it is up to them, so long as the result is reasonably safe.

You have been telling me that I must be guided by the fact that the regulations do not require the pro-active improvement of no, or 100mA protection, but you do not have to be guided by the fact that they do not allow it for new installations or additions.

Again, that's the difference between what is regarded as reasonably safe and what they are suggesting as something more than that for new work. If they did not regard existing sockets without 30mA (or better) protection as reasonably safe, wouldn't you expect the guidance on inspections to demand a C2 or higher code?

That basic principle is seen over and over and over again in all sorts of rules and regulations and laws covering all sorts of things. The rules etc change, there is a cut-off date and things made/done/installed after that date are subject to the new rules, but we do not force the application of the new rules onto things which were made/done/installed before that date.

I don't dispute that. The Construction & Use Regulations for cars are full of items which say that such-and-such must be fitted to cars first used on after a certain date: Front seat belts for cars from 1965 onward, an exterior right-hand mirror from some date in 1978 onward, rear fog light from sometime in 1981 onward, etc.

Nor do I dispute that BS7671 and the IEE Wiring Regulations before it also have cut-off dates for newly installed things: New flex colors from April 1971, voltage-operated ELCB's no longer allowed from 1985, 30mA RCD protection for all sockets from 2008, etc.

But the difference is that the Construction & Use Regulations for vehicles are statutory requirements; BS7671 is not. There is an offense of, say, driving a 1980 car on a road without the required outside mirror. There is no offense of having sockets in your house, whenever it was built or rewired, without 30mA RCD protection.

Accept it, get over it, and stop telling people that they can ignore the new rules if they already have things which comply with the old ones.

But they can ignore rules which are not legally binding on them. Whether you think they should or not doesn't change that. Get over it, and stop trying to use ridiculous arguments to suggest that somebody would be breaking the law when he would not,

You originally asked about the new cables installed without sleeving, not the entire installation.

What does it matter whether it's one new socket without sleeving on the earth or the entire house? If it's reasonably in one socket, it's reasonably safe in all of them, regardless of how, when, or why it was done that way.

That's why the guidance on what is considered safe enough to be left is of no relevance - P1 applies to what you add, not to [what-is-already-there + what-you-add], so the only guidance which is relevant it that which applies to what you add.

Again, how can guidance about inspecting an existing installation for safety not be relevant? Either it's reasonably safe or it isn't, no matter when it was done.

What's ridiculous is your refusal to see that the guidance/rules/regulations/laws/whatevers apply only to the work you are doing. The acceptability of it is based entirely on its own merits, and is not affected in any way by what is already there. When done, what is examined, and measured against the guidance/rules/regulations/laws/whatevers, is just what you did, not the entirety of the installation with your bit included.

I'm not saying that it is affected by what's already there. I'm saying that it makes absolutely no sense to claim that no 30mA protection/cables not in safe zones/missing sleeving/whatever is not reasonably safe if done today when if exactly the same thing is present from some time in the past it is to be considered reasonably safe.

And on that note, I really am done, unless you will actually come up with anything which supports your opinion of what the law demands.