RCD protection going over the top a bit?

[CAWORK]

Looking at the new regulations and topics etc about RCD protection I think of it as a good idea to have all sockets protected and all bathroom circuits but again except the light if only in the middle of the room. But I think of it as a bit too far just for cables buried in a wall less than 50mm which means lighting as well.

What does everybody else say? This is basically saying all circuits needing RCD protection plus do the regs specify clearly how a cu should be set out?

 

[Taylortwocities]

Your comments and thoughts are shared by many but its too late now. The regs are written and in force from next Tuesday.

The regs do not state how a CU should be set out. It is up to the designer to design the installation to meet the regs.

To make it easier, most manufacturers of CUs provide units that generally comply with the regs.
here's a handy guide http://download.hager.com/hagergrou...rmation/ConsumerUnitGuideToThe17thEdition.pdf
Its up to you to decide if a standard layout meets your specific requirements.

 

[RF Lighting]

I'm all in favour of the additional use of RCDs as prescribed in the new regs.

Anything that makes electrical installations safer can only be a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Spark123]

Where did you get the idea that a light in the middle of the bathroom does not require RCD protection?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm all in favour of the additional use of RCDs as prescribed in the new regs.

Anything that makes electrical installations safer can only be a good thing in my opinion.

Even if regulations are brought in without any proper cost-benefit analysis being done? That kind of attitude is what got us Part P....

As far as I can tell, someone on the IET committee suddenly said "Hey - I know what we could do", and he and everyone else then abandoned basic engineering disciplines.

 

[JohnD]

Cost benefit for regulations is not done the way you might expect.

For example, Building Regulations and Rail safety impose enormous costs to save a single life - thousands of times more than is spent e.g. on emergency ambulances per life saved.

The reason is that the people setting the regulations do not bear the costs.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Cost benefit for regulations is not done the way you might expect.

What you mean is that it's not done they way it should be.

For example, Building Regulations and Rail safety impose enormous costs to save a single life - thousands of times more than is spent e.g. on emergency ambulances per life saved.

In other words they don't do a cost benefit analysis.

The reason is that the people setting the regulations do not bear the costs.

Somebody has to pay. Why should they be forced to pay for something ineffectual because the rule makers can't be @rsed to do their job properly when if they did then the same costs applied elsewhere would save more lives?

 

[Taylortwocities]

Here, here!

 

[CAWORK]

What I meant was good for all bathroom circuits except lighting, again over the top to protectsay a single light in the middle of the room well away from the bath,shower etc.

 

[Spark123]

Oh right, I read it the wrong way sorry!
Personally, I'd prefer to see lighting go SELV in a bathroom.