Amd3 Transitional Period

[westie101]

"DLRs" ????

DayLight Running lights.
Though of course those are a statutory requirement whereas BS 7671 is ......

 

[EFLImpudence]

I didn't realise they were compulsory.
Daytime Running Lights.

I think they are a stupid idea and have never understood why Volvo didn't disconnect them over here.

What is the reasoning behind the compulsion?

 

[JohnW2]

I didn't realise they were compulsory. Daytime Running Lights. I think they are a stupid idea and have never understood why Volvo didn't disconnect them over here. What is the reasoning behind the compulsion?

Indeed - I'd also love to know the reasoning, since I agree that they do not seem to be a particularly useful idea!

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

Fred Drift

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html

Benefits

Those in favour of daytime running lights claimed they significantly reduce road deaths and serious injuries, while those against objected to the constant glare of headlights and voiced concern that motorcycle riders may become less conspicuous. There was some concern about increased fuel costs too.

In 2006 the European Commission published the results of research into the effectiveness, costs and benefits of introducing Daytime Running Lights (DRL).

A European Commission study in 2006 suggested that a substantial number of casualties could be prevented across the EU with a positive benefit-to-cost ratio when the costs of fitting lamps and the environmental cost of running them was taken into account.

A later UK Department for Transport (DfT) study confirmed the Commission's findings that there would be a net reduction in accidents, but cast doubts about whether the benefit would outweigh the costs.

The UK study also concluded that dedicated Daytime Running Lights could improve the visibility of cars in dim light without reducing the conspicuity of motorcyclists.

Perhaps the authors of BS7671 should show us the same cost benefit analysis for their document

 

[EFLImpudence]

The UK study also concluded that dedicated Daytime Running Lights could improve the visibility of cars in dim light without reducing the conspicuity of motorcyclists.

Yes, came across another article with the same quote.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html

I think the answer to my question is simply bureaucracy causing bureaucracy.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps the authors of BS7671 should show us the same cost benefit analysis for their document

If it achieves as much as the DfTs comment (sounds a little less than a formal 'cost-benefit analysis') appears to have achieved in relation to compulsory DRLs, there probably wouldn't be any point.

The progressive tightening of safety-related regulation throughout the electrical industry over the past few decades seems to have had so little effect on 'benefits' (related to mortality and morbidity) that I seriously doubt that any of it could be justified by cost-benefit analyses. The cost of acquiring and installing all the millions of RCDs out there would, alone, have required a very substantial amount of consequential 'benefit' (the evidence for which is pretty lacking) to make it rational on a dispassionate cost-benefit basis.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

Now that the regs have been sent out, it is safe to consider the transition period. I would say the follwoing applies.

For an EICR, the situation is clear - you work to the regs in force when you carry out the inspection. It is irrelevant if a circuit will become non-compliant in July.

For installation work, either version can be used now.

When changing an existing installation, it is okay to work on a circuit which is compliant now (even if it will be non-compliant in July). When adding a new circuit, either version of the regs can be used. This is up to the customer. I find it unusual to work on a circuit one day and be called back some time later to work on the same circuit.

For a new installation, where the job has already started, the current regs apply regardless of the finishing date. In the commercial/industrial arena jobs can take years (think of the Olympic Village).

If a job starts now, it would be sensible to work to the July regs (but legal to do so).

 

[JohnW2]

Now that the regs have been sent out, it is safe to consider the transition period. I would say the follwoing applies.

Many thanks. Four pages into this thread and this is really the first real answer to the question I posed in my OP!

For an EICR, the situation is clear - you work to the regs in force when you carry out the inspection. It is irrelevant if a circuit will become non-compliant in July.

Agreed - although, in at least some circumstances, one might feel it appropriate to indicate things that would become non-compliant in July. By analogy, if it were know that the regulations regarding tyre wear were going to be tightened in a few weeks time, I would expect an 'advisory' note with an MOT certificate indicating that, although compliant ('pass') at the time of the MOT test, it would cease to be compliant (in that case, ceaseto be legal) within a few weeks.

For installation work, either version can be used now.

That's interesting, and was one of the things I had in my mind. We are, of course, most use to changes which represent 'tightening' of regulations, but sometimes they go the other way. Are you saying that, for example, even now it would be acceptable to work to the somewhat relaxed Amd3 regulation in relation to Manufacturers' Instructions?

When changing an existing installation, it is okay to work on a circuit which is compliant now (even if it will be non-compliant in July). When adding a new circuit, either version of the regs can be used. This is up to the customer.

I think that last point is important, and there has been some discussion (and disagreement) about it in this thread. I personally feel that customer should be made aware of the upcoming changes and hence be able to make a decision as to how they want it to be done. As I said, I would be pretty annoyed if I discovered (without having been previously informed, and offered a choice) that work I had just had done was going to be non-compliant with the then-current regulations in six months' time. However, some people did not seem to feel the need to give this information (and choice) to customers.

For a new installation, where the job has already started, the current regs apply regardless of the finishing date. In the commercial/industrial arena jobs can take years (think of the Olympic Village).

Indeed, that makes sense - although (as below) if it is known, or even just suspected, that certain changes in regs are going to occur before the job is finished, it might sometimes be sensible to anticipate those changes.

If a job starts now, it would be sensible to work to the July regs (but legal to do so).

That was a point that I made - and, as above, it would probably often be 'sensible' in relation to work which fell far short of a 'complete new installation'. Of course, as others have pointed out, some customers might elect to go with the pre-July regs ('whilst they can'), if that made the work cheaper - but I again think that the important thing is that they should be properly informed, and offered the choice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

For an EICR, the situation is clear - you work to the regs in force when you carry out the inspection. It is irrelevant if a circuit will become non-compliant in July.

Agreed - although, in at least some circumstances, one might feel it appropriate to indicate things that would become non-compliant in July. By analogy, if it were know that the regulations regarding tyre wear were going to be tightened in a few weeks time, I would expect an 'advisory' note with an MOT certificate indicating that, although compliant ('pass') at the time of the MOT test, it would cease to be compliant (in that case, ceaseto be legal) within a few weeks.

Kind Regards, John

We don't work to the same standards as an MOT centre. We date the report and apply the regs in force on that date. What would be the point telling a customer their installation has passed, but would fail in July?

 

[JohnW2]

We don't work to the same standards as an MOT centre. We date the report and apply the regs in force on that date.

So do MOT test centres. They have no choice but to work to the regulations (laws) in force on the date of the test - regardless of what changes may be due to happen 'tomorrow'. However, if imminent changes to the law meant that some aspect of the vehicle would soon become an 'MOT fail' (or even illegal), I would hope/expect that I would be advised about that, wouldn't you?

What would be the point telling a customer their installation has passed, but would fail in July?

I agree that there is not a lot of point in the case of an EICR, although some customers would probably like to know if that were the case. Of course, unlike the situation with MOTs, that would rarely arise with EICRs, since the regs are not 'retrospective' - so that it would rarely be the case that an installation which 'passed' an EICR today would 'fail' an EICR when new regs came into force.

The more important point is that which I made later, that in relation to work undertaken during the transition period, some customers would want it undertaken in compliance with the 'upcoming' (but not yet actually 'required') regs - and therefore should be given the information, and choice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

The regs are not retrospective, but a compliant circuit today may not be compliant after July.

You are missing my point about installation. If you only work on domestic installations, the time between quote and commission is measured in weeks. In commercial/industrial this can be years. ESP is not a requirement for design.

We can apply either version, but can't mix and match. We can't relax the MI requirements but ignore Cmin (for example)

 

[JohnW2]

The regs are not retrospective, but a compliant circuit today may not be compliant after July.

I realise that, but if it's compliant now (and nothing changes!), it's pretty unlikely that it would 'fail' (C1s or C2s) an EICR after July.

You are missing my point about installation. If you only work on domestic installations, the time between quote and commission is measured in weeks. In commercial/industrial this can be years. ESP is not a requirement for design.

I understand that, but it doesn't really alter what I have said. I have agreed that it's neither sensible nor practical to 'change regs' mid-way through a lengthy job .

We can apply either version, but can't mix and match. We can't relax the MI requirements but ignore Cmin (for example)

That's interesting, and I hadn't thought of that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Had my old boss trying to mix and match in 2008 when the 17th edition came out. He wanted to not install supplementary bonding as per the 17th edition, but not RCD circuits as per the 16th edition.

 

[JohnW2]

Had my old boss trying to mix and match in 2008 when the 17th edition came out. He wanted to not install supplementary bonding as per the 17th edition, but not RCD circuits as per the 16th edition.

Oh dear!!!! ... but that was surely just silly?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

No, he was deadly serious. He said new regs don't require bonding so don't install it. Then questioned our order for RCBOs as we only needed to protect the sockets. Having said that the guys an idiot.