Kitchen Wiring Assistance

[JohnW2]

In the absence of a more precise definition in the standard, then one uses the Oxford dictionary definition, i.e. "able to be accessed". Whether such accessibility is sufficiently "easy" surely depends on the judgement of the person who is competent to have that access?

Thank goodness!! That is precisely (and all) I have been trying to say - but I bet you won't be shot at for saying it in the same way that I've been

In your example, that would be the electrician performing the EICR, or the LABC, who are the persons responsible for the advice/instruction being given, so it is their interpretation that counts, not yours, or mine, or that of a householder/member of the general public.

Exactly - but therein lies the potential 'lottery' which (choosing my words a bit more carefully this time!) some members of the public might not regard as being very fair.

I do agree that this seems to be a problem for a number of people, so let me ask again if anyone thought it enough of a problem to make a comment on the DPC?

It's comforting to seeing you agreeing, because, as you will have seen, I am being told that I am the only person who sees any problem. I would be pretty surprised if you find anyone in this forum who commented on the DPC (did you?) - and even more surprised if the comments from members of the public, or even individual practising electricians, would actually make any difference to anything - although I accept that's not a reason for not commenting.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Well, the question of "what is accessible" had come up in several previous threads, and I don't think they all involved you.

Life is not always entirely fair, and sometimes there is a bit of a lottery, but if everything was prescribed in a standard there would be no opportunity for a competent person to be flexible in his/her interpretation, and the standard would have to be several times as long.

Since you asked, I did make several comments on the DPC. I am assured that all comments are treated equally, and that every comment received was considered, even those from the flat earth society who think electricity is evil and should be banned. (Yes, there were some of that nature). The only difference in the treatment of comments is that members of the public cannot see the response to their comments, whereas members of contributing organisations can.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, the question of "what is accessible" had come up in several previous threads, and I don't think they all involved you.

I know. Some threads involved me, some didn't, and a good few 'pre-dated' me. That's why I was surprised at being told that I was the only person who saw any problem.

Life is not always entirely fair, and sometimes there is a bit of a lottery, but if everything was prescribed in a standard there would be no opportunity for a competent person to be flexible in his/her interpretation, and the standard would have to be several times as long.

Indeed. Although in some fields (particularly highly safety-critical ones) they do try, in general it is totally impractical to even attempt to have totally exhaustive Standards or sets of regulations - and that certainly would apply to the issue of 'accessible locations'. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be all that difficult (and not need many words or paper) for BS7671 to give at least some guidance in relation to some of the more commonly encountered situations. Not only would that guidance be useful in itself, but it might also serve as an aid to those who have to make judgments about other situations which were not explicitly mentioned in the Standard.

Since you asked, I did make several comments on the DPC. I am assured that all comments are treated equally, and that every comment received was considered, even those from the flat earth society who think electricity is evil and should be banned. (Yes, there were some of that nature). The only difference in the treatment of comments is that members of the public cannot see the response to their comments, whereas members of contributing organisations can.

Who knows. In various fields, far divorced from anything electrical, I frequently make (or are called upon to make) comments on Drafts for Comment/Consultation, whether issued for public comment/consultation or in a more restricted sense. One is, of course, always reassured that all comments are treated equally but knowledge of human nature (and, indeed, common sense) sometimes makes one wonder. In some of these cases, one gets to see the responses to all comments, and there is usually a very big difference between responses to comments I make as an individual (often just "noted", or something like that) and the responses when I comment in the name of, or on behalf of, a large organisation!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[scousespark]

In the absence of a more precise definition in the standard, then one uses the Oxford dictionary definition, i.e. "able to be accessed". Whether such accessibility is sufficiently "easy" surely depends on the judgement of the person who is competent to have that access? In your example, that would be the electrician performing the EICR, or the LABC, who are the persons responsible for the advice/instruction being given, so it is their interpretation that counts, not yours, or mine, or that of a householder/member of the general public.

I do agree that this seems to be a problem for a number of people, so let me ask again if anyone thought it enough of a problem to make a comment on the DPC?

Why do you think the regs need to further define a standard English term?
Most people in here have no problem with this and I don't think the LABC
is interested in whether a joint is accessible.

 

[stillp]

Why do you think the regs need to further define a standard English term?
Most people in here have no problem with this and I don't think the LABC
is interested in whether a joint is accessible.

I don't. However there have been a number of threads on here in which the subject of how accessible a JB needs to be has been discussed, and a few posters seem unable or unwilling to use their judgement. I was simply wondering if anybody had taken the opportunity to express their views to BSI or IET.
I didn't comment on that subject, since I have a perfectly good dictionary.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think the LABC is interested in whether a joint is accessible.

That's worth knowing. Are you saying that if I notify some work which I then undertake by putting conventional JBs under my floorboards and nailing them down, that the LABC will have no problem with that?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I don't think the LABC is interested in whether a joint is accessible.

That's worth knowing. Are you saying that if I notify some work which I then undertake by putting conventional JBs under my floorboards and nailing them down, that the LABC will have no problem with that?

Kind Regards, John.

I doubt that is what he means. IMO, they want a declaration from a competent person that the job has been done correctly. Whether they want safety for homeowners or simply a risk transfer mechanism should something go up in flames for CYA purposes is open for (long winded?) debate.

 

[JohnW2]

I doubt that is what he means.

Needless to say, so do I - but it sounded as if that's what he was saying.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RF Lighting]

Muuuuum he's doing it again.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I doubt that is what he means.

Needless to say, so do I - but it sounded as if that's what he was saying.

Kind Regards, John.

hi john,
(posting from phone, so ill be brief)
two points,
1, what do you think to the rest of the post which you partially quoted here?
2, why did you bother to suggest scousespark said something he didn't say if you didn't think he mean't that anyway?

 

[JohnW2]

1, what do you think to the rest of the post which you partially quoted here?

I agree with it - and I see no point in a debate, long-winded or otherwise, since we don't (and can't) know what goes on in the minds of LABC folk.

2, why did you bother to suggest scousespark said something he didn't say if you didn't think he mean't that anyway?

Were you someone else, I might ask whether you were familiar with the concept of rhetorical questions - but since it's you, I really have no need to ask

Kind Regards, John.

 

[securespark]

Muuuuum he's doing it again.

Mum's in bed, now stop squabbling boys, please! If I hear another peep out of you, I'll take away your pocket money.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you look, you'll see that my comments were a response to a general comment about accessibility, not specifically in relation to the particular appliance in question.

If you look you'll see that mine weren't.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I doubt that is what he means.

Needless to say, so do I - but it sounded as if that's what he was saying.

Kind Regards, John.

Oh thats ok then, its just that your question sounded direct as opposed to rhetorical.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

1, what do you think to the rest of the post which you partially quoted here?

I agree with it - and I see no point in a debate, long-winded

Blimey, are you feeling ok?

since we don't (and can't) know what goes on in the minds of LABC folk.

What, not even if one of the readers of this thread happens to work in BC?

2, why did you bother to suggest scousespark said something he didn't say if you didn't think he mean't that anyway?

Were you someone else, I might ask whether you were familiar with the concept of rhetorical questions - but since it's you, I really have no need to ask

Its nice to see you giving credit to others here. Well done, I approve.