Terminating unused electric cable

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps it should.

But until it does are you really going to claim that it is plausible that someone who worked on the installation in a house with a TN-C-S supply would by found by a court to have not made reasonable provision in the design and installation of it in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury if he had not installed such a device?

Really?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To take that example we've discussed before, I think you and I agree that if adding a cable drop and a new socket to an existing installation where there's no RCD protection on everything already there it's still what we would regard as reasonably safe, but we know that there are others who claim that anything which doesn't comply in full with the latest BS7671 requirements can't be regarded as such. My feelings are that certain people "in the trade" are too wrapped up in these sort of details to be able to look at the overall picture and decide what is "reasonably safe" for themselves. But clearly that demonstrates how different people's ideas of "reasonable" can be at considerable variance.

I still don't think you get the point that even though what you describe is reasonably safe, in situations where someone has to formally describe how they intend to make reasonable provision etc, they would have to be more perverse than a perverse thing which is very perverse to not say "by compliance with BS 7671".

I still don't think you get the point that a condition of membership of NICEIC/NAPIT/UTCAA is complying with BS 7671.

Why you don't get these things beats me.

But that's all about the converse. I fully accept that it's quite possible to do things which are reasonably safe but do not comply with BS 7671. What I cannot conceive is how one could do unsafe work which does comply.

 

[PBC_1966]

I still don't think you get the point that even though what you describe is reasonably safe, in situations where someone has to formally describe how they intend to make reasonable provision etc, they would have to be more perverse than a perverse thing which is very perverse to not say "by compliance with BS 7671".

How about by saying "by compliance with BS7671:2001" then, in this particular instance?

I still don't think you get the point that a condition of membership of NICEIC/NAPIT/UTCAA is complying with BS 7671.

Yes, I understand that and haven't said otherwise. But what I have said before is that it is totally unacceptable for somebody who is a member of such a scheme to tell a potential customer that he cannot do something which doesn't comply with every last detail of BS7671 "because it's the law."

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How about by saying "by compliance with BS7671:2001" then, in this particular instance?

Do withdrawn and obsolete British Standards have an official existence? It's a serious point - it may be that there is no longer any such thing as BS7671:2001.

You could try that, but I wonder how far you would be prepared to push it if they said "No - won't do"?

But what I have said before is that it is totally unacceptable for somebody who is a member of such a scheme to tell a potential customer that he cannot do something which doesn't comply with every last detail of BS7671 "because it's the law."

Indeed.

 

[JohnW2]

How about by saying "by compliance with BS7671:2001" then, in this particular instance?

Do withdrawn and obsolete British Standards have an official existence? It's a serious point - it may be that there is no longer any such thing as BS7671:2001.

Would that necessarily matter? One can presumably cite anything (even one's own arguments) in an attempt to describe how one intends to comply with Part P, can't one?

As for your point/question, as you know there was a time when the law cited the definition of a 'special location' in an obsolete version of BS7671 - so they must have thought that was a valid thing to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Adam_151]

You honestly think it would be possible to comply with BS 7671 and yet not have made reasonable provision for safety etc?

There's an interesting viewpoint in the following topic:

http://www.theiet.org/Forums/forum/textthread.cfm?catid=205&threadid=59627&filtmsgid=489883

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Would that necessarily matter?

It might.

One can presumably cite anything (even one's own arguments) in an attempt to describe how one intends to comply with Part P, can't one?

Ones own arguments exist. Maybe withdrawn standards do not.

As for your point/question, as you know there was a time when the law cited the definition of a 'special location' in an obsolete version of BS7671 - so they must have thought that was a valid thing to do.

That's a good point.

 

[JohnW2]

You honestly think it would be possible to comply with BS 7671 and yet not have made reasonable provision for safety etc?

There's an interesting viewpoint in the following topic:

The general point there is, indeed, interesting - indicating that at least some people, and maybe even some laws, might not regard compliance with BS7671 as necessarily providing an acceptable degree of safety.

I'm less convinced about the specific point being made in that discussion. Sure, the BS7671 (and wider) basis for RCD protection and touch voltages is such that even compliant installations could leave 5%, or whatever, of the population at risk of fatal shock - but what that means in absolute terms has to be balanced against the 'inconvenience' (to millions) which would result from 'tightening' the requirements. With the number of domestic electrocutions in the UK hovering around 20 or so a year, some of which deaths would probably not have been avoided by any feasible tightening of protection (certainly not in relation to RCDs), even if that 5% were reduced to, say, 2% or less, one would be hard-pressed to see any change in the annual number of domestic UK deaths from electrocution. The proportion of the population left 'unprotected' can never be reduced to zero, since there are always going to be some people walking around with hearts that are so electrically unstable that an electric shock of virtually any magnitude would be potentially fatal to them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

How about by saying "by compliance with BS7671:2001" then, in this particular instance?

A legitimate challenge to that would be to demand a technical justification for the deviation(s) from from the current edition.

 

[JohnW2]

How about by saying "by compliance with BS7671:2001" then, in this particular instance?

A legitimate challenge to that would be to demand a technical justification for the deviation(s) from from the current edition.

I'm sure some might try that - but don't forget that we are talking about ways of arguing that one has complied (or is going to comply) with a law which does not specifically require compliance with any edition of BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, the law doesn't, but if you choose to claim your installation is safe because it complies with a withdrawn standard, you have to be prepared to justify why you didn't use the current standard.

 

[JohnW2]

No, the law doesn't, but if you choose to claim your installation is safe because it complies with a withdrawn standard, you have to be prepared to justify why you didn't use the current standard.

Fair enough.

Particularly if (as suggested) one was wanting to rely on a relatively recent 'withdrawn standard', I suppose one of one's arguments would/could be that working to the 'withdrawn Standard' was considered to be safe less than a decade ago, and neither physics nor the susceptibility of buildings or human beings to damage have changed appreciably since then!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

No, but society's expectations of what is considered safe have changed.

 

[JohnW2]

No, but society's expectations of what is considered safe have changed.

Maybe - certainly the expectations of those who create regulations 'on behalf of society'.

One wonders how far this process (of 'increasing expectations', imposed 'on behalf of society') can/should go. Somewhat to my amazement, the number of domestic electrocutions in the UK is already incredibly low, and even serious injuries due to domestic electricity are probably also very uncommon (figures are very difficult to find). Hence, even if 'they' totally 'banned' LV electricity in domestic premises the 'benefit' would, in 'callous' terms, be very small.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

And of course, the number of deaths from fires attributed to electrical causes is somewhat higher than the number of electrocutions. Maybe we should require all electrical components to be non-combustible?

Oh, hang on a minute...