Anyone interested in old colour cable?

[SimonH2]

I know that if someone decides, in advance, that their whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then they cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

If you think that the law does not agree with that truth then your reading of the law is flawed.

If you think that the Secretary of State's advice does not agree with that truth then your reading of the advice is flawed.

We didn't accept your idea of "the truth" the first time you wrote it - merely repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it any truer now than it wasn't before.

You are approaching this whole topic with a belief that it is reasonable to unreasonably choose to deliberately make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

And you are approaching the whole topic with a belief that the current technical and legal framework in place is unsafe - whereas it seems everyone else believes that it is reasonably safe. There is a saying that if all the other soldiers on the parade ground are out of step with you, it just might be you that's out of step Once you reach a level of reasonably safe, then it's fairly moot whether one option is very slightly more or less safe than another if they are both reasonably safe. If you don't believe the current technical and legal framework is reasonably safe, then take it up with those who put that framework in place - I'd love to be a fly on the wall with that conversation

So far as I recall (and I'm not going back through 5 pages to double check), in this thread you have not answered the question of whether you believe an installation/work done on it is reasonably safe if it is done in accordance with the technical and legal framework in place (ie BS7671, Part P, et al). It's a simple yes/no answer which you seem reluctant to answer.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We didn't accept your idea of "the truth" the first time you wrote it

Because you too believe that it is reasonable to unreasonably choose to deliberately make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

And you too are wrong.

merely repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it any truer now than it wasn't before.

It is and always was true.

And you are approaching the whole topic with a belief that the current technical and legal framework in place is unsafe

No I'm not.

whereas it seems everyone else believes that it is reasonably safe.

It is. but the problem there is that they cannot or will not think through what "reasonable" means they have to do.

Once you reach a level of reasonably safe, then it's fairly moot whether one option is very slightly more or less safe than another if they are both reasonably safe.

It's not moot at all. If someone decides, in advance, that their whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then they cannot possibly have been reasonable in their provision for safety.

If you don't believe the current technical and legal framework is reasonably safe, then take it up with those who put that framework in place - I'd love to be a fly on the wall with that conversation

I've never said that it isn't safe.

So far as I recall (and I'm not going back through 5 pages to double check), in this thread you have not answered the question of whether you believe an installation/work done on it is reasonably safe if it is done in accordance with the technical and legal framework in place (ie BS7671, Part P, et al). It's a simple yes/no answer which you seem reluctant to answer.

You only think it is a simple yes/no answer because you think that it is reasonable to unreasonably choose to deliberately make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

As with driving a car, there is more at stake than just the arrival at the destination. If your choice of provision was unreasonable then you cannot have complied with a requirement to make reasonable provision.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Paul_C]

I could answer your questions,

Then please do. If you think the answers will show everyone that you are right and I'm wrong, let everyone see them.

You are approaching this whole topic with a belief that it is reasonable to unreasonably choose to deliberately make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

But you've already said that in your opinion extending an old circuit with new cable is perfectly legal if no matching old cable is immediately to hand.

Isn't that also making the installation more dangerous too?

If you think that the Secretary of State's advice does not agree with that truth then your reading of the advice is flawed.

Then cite the part of that advice you believe shows that my interpretation is wrong.

 

[Paul_C]

whereas it seems everyone else believes that it is reasonably safe.

It is. but the problem there is that they cannot or will not think through what "reasonable" means they have to do.

Hang on..... So now you're agreeing that the resulting installation will be reasonably safe. So where is the illegality?

Your acceptance of what "reasonably safe" means in that statement is now in contradiction to the interpretation you've been trying to insist should apply.

If you don't believe the current technical and legal framework is reasonably safe, then take it up with those who put that framework in place - I'd love to be a fly on the wall with that conversation

I've never said that it isn't safe.

Then how does it not meet the requirement of being reasonably safe?

 

[Robgers]

Can you liven this bollerx up a bit with some different fonts and more colours. I'm not very good at reeding but I like pretty colours.

Thank You

And gratuitous pictures of Liz Hurley please.

 

[SimonH2]

And you are approaching the whole topic with a belief that the current technical and legal framework in place is unsafe

No I'm not.

whereas it seems everyone else believes that it is reasonably safe.

It is. ...

To summarise then :

1) Extending/repairing an existing installation using new harmonised colour codes is considered safe - even you admit that.
2) It is what the current technical and legal framework expects.

So :
Option A is considered reasonably safe - you've admitted it.
Option B is considered reasonably safe - you've admitted it.

Yes for some reason, choosing one option over the other is not reasonable.

Next man goes on to prove that Black is White ... and gets killed on the next Zebra crossing

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1) Extending/repairing an existing installation using new harmonised colour codes is considered safe - even you admit that.
2) It is what the current technical and legal framework expects.

So :
Option A is considered reasonably safe - you've admitted it.
Option B is considered reasonably safe - you've admitted it.

Yes for some reason, choosing one option over the other is not reasonable.

You're getting there.

All you have to do now is to start thinking properly.

1) Extending/repairing an existing installation using new harmonised colour codes is considered safe - even you admit that.

If doing that is a perverse choice which reduces the safety of the installation then doing that is unreasonable.

The law requires you to make reasonable provision for safety. If you unreasonably make a provision to reduce safety then you have not complied with the law.

2) It is what the current technical and legal framework expects.

The current framework expects your provision for safety to be reasonable. There is no way that deliberately making an installation less safe than you otherwise reasonably could can be considered a reasonable act, and therefore no way that it can be considered as complying with the law.

Option A is considered reasonably safe - you've admitted it.
Option B is considered reasonably safe - you've admitted it.

You cannot look at them in isolation.
If one is less safe than the other and you choose it for no reason then you have, by definition, acted unreasonably.

And unreasonably choosing the more dangerous of two options cannot be making reasonable provision for safety.

 

[SimonH2]

There is no way that deliberately making an installation less safe than you otherwise reasonably could can be considered a reasonable act, and therefore no way that it can be considered as complying with the law.

So you still maintain that an option that is accepted to be reasonably safe is not safe ?

Of course, there is another logical explanation ... but you're not going to like it.

Perhaps you personally have a problem and believe that you cannot cope safely working on an installation with the two colour schemes in use. Because you can't cope with it, you assume that other electricians can't cope with it. Therefore you consider it unsafe.

So by adding your own disability to a perverse interpretation of both the law/technical standards and common understanding of English language, you arrive at the perverse statement you are trying to persuade others is some version of the truth.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Untitled

• mikhailfaradayski
• 16 Mar 2011
• 1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you still maintain that an option that is accepted to be reasonably safe is not safe ?

I maintain that the unreasonable choosing of an option which unnecessarily reduces safety does not constitute reasonable provision for safety.

Of course, there is another logical explanation ... but you're not going to like it.

Perhaps you personally have a problem and believe that you cannot cope safely working on an installation with the two colour schemes in use. Because you can't cope with it, you assume that other electricians can't cope with it. Therefore you consider it unsafe.

The IET also consider it less safe.

Many electricians consider it less safe, and have in the past predicted that fatalaties will result from it.

So by adding your own disability to a perverse interpretation of both the law/technical standards and common understanding of English language, you arrive at the perverse statement you are trying to persuade others is some version of the truth.

To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable. Or perverse.

You don't think it perverse to decide that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is?

You think that deliberately making it more dangerous than necessary, to the point that you are required to warn people about the hazards you've chosen to introduce when you had no need to qualifies as making reasonable provision for safety?

 

[Paul_C]

To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable.

If you applied that argument consistently, then it would be illegal to extend a red/black circuit using brown/blue at all, even if no red/black cable were available, since you would still be "deliberately choosing to make the installation more dangerous than it already is" by introducing mixed colors.

But you've already stated that you don't consider that to be illegal.

 

[SimonH2]

So you still maintain that an option that is accepted to be reasonably safe is not safe ?

I maintain that the unreasonable choosing of an option which unnecessarily reduces safety does not constitute reasonable provision for safety.

By your own admission, option A is reasonably safe, option B is reasonably safe - but it's not reasonable to employ one of those options.

I think you are the only one unable to see the absurdity in the statement that "this is reasonably safe to do but isn't reasonable provision of safety".

Luckily for the rest of the world, your rules don't apply outside your imagination.

 

[Paul_C]

I think you are the only one unable to see the absurdity in the statement that "this is reasonably safe to do but isn't reasonable provision of safety".

Not to mention the absurdity of saying that of two identical installations, one meets the legal requirement of reasonable provision for safety while the other does not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you applied that argument consistently, then it would be illegal to extend a red/black circuit using brown/blue at all, even if no red/black cable were available, since you would still be "deliberately choosing to make the installation more dangerous than it already is" by introducing mixed colors.

I wonder how many more times you'll show that you don't understand, at all, the concept of "reasonable".

In the scenario you describe it would not be unreasonable to use brown/blue cable - how could it be if that were all that was available?

Therefore the use of it would be reasonable, and (all other things being equal) your provision for safety would be reasonable.