What about toasters?
access to live terminals?
- Thread starter mattylad
- Start date
Sponsored Links
417.1 The protective measures of obstacles and placing out of reach provide basic protection only.
They are for application in installations,with or without fault protection, that are controlled or supervised by skilled persons.
Yes, I understand all that, and I'm sure that the relevant Standard(s) require live parts of appliances to be 'non-accessible'.
However, as you say, the cable between the appliance and the wall (if hard-wired) is within the scope of BS7671, so I would have thought that the terminations of that cable would also be within its scope (it would be odd if the scope of BS7671 stopped short of the end of the cable) - in addition to, the requirements of the Standard(s) applicable to the appliance.
Kind Regards, John
They are permitted as long as the elements are surrounded by earthed metal IIRC. Lampholders with the lamp missing are also permitted.
Sponsored Links
What is meant by 'surrounded'? With my toasters, if one were so inclined, it would certainly be possible to touch the element with, say, a piece of metal cutlery, without also touching any earthed metal
Kind Regards, John
I think it meant the opening where you put the bread, and it would take effort to touch it with your finger as it the tingly parts are under the opening. My toaster would not comply, as the elements aren't surrounded, it would be easy to touch them during normal use of the appliance. It makes great toast really fast though!
But as I've said before, if you are stupid enough to touch metal that is so hot it is glowing orange, you deserve an electric shock.
But as I've said before, if you are stupid enough to touch metal that is so hot it is glowing orange, you deserve an electric shock.
Indeed, but I'm not sure they've adequately thought that one through (at least, in relation to the matter of this thread). AS we recently discussed, a 'skilled person' is defined in BS7671 as:
"Person who possesses, as appropriate to the nature of the electrical work to be undertaken, adequate education, training and practical skills, and who is able to perceive risks and avoid hazards which electricity can create."
How does that definition work when there is no "electrical work to be undertaken" (the only {non-electrical} work being that of using, and maybe cleaning behind, a kitchen appliance)? Whilst I accept the spirit of what is presumably intended, and presumably the reason you brought that reg to our attention, this seems to be yet anbother example of them not paid enough attention to the choice of words - given their own definition of 'skilled person', they really should not have used that term in 417.1 if they wanted it to make sense in situations such as we have been discussing here.
Kind Regards, John
I've had to fashion some heat shields out of aluminium foil to use in my toaster to only do one side.
The sad thing is this 1930s toaster that only cooks one side at a time is much faster than my pathetic modern one that does both sides at the same time.
There is a design flaw with this one though, the stops that prevent the sides opening too far are too low, so the very hot metal at the top edge of the sides touches the table...
The OP said the issue is now resolved, but just for general info things like EN60355 are 'just' standards, which are not law. Standards are also generally not retrospective, so although that fantastic toaster and arc lamp would never comply with the standards of today, they probably were ok to sell at the time they were manufactured and could still legally be used by a resident in their own home at their own risk.
In another example, as a manufacture, you may choose to use the BS EN 61010 'Standard' to show you comply with what is commonly called the Low Voltage Directive which is actually the EU Directive 2014/35/EU. That is still a 'Directive' and not law. It is The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 that implement that Directive into UK law.
That all relates to appliances, however the OP mentioned managers so I'm assuming this is a place of work in the UK. In which case the Electricity at Work Regulations (1989) apply and that is directly implemented in law. This covers all aspects of the use of electricity within the workplace and places a duty of care on employers and employees to prevent danger.
Therefore the employer has a legal duty of care to prevent danger and further prove that they have taken reasonable measures to prevent danger. Using standards (such as BS7671) is a good way to demonstrate in court that you have taken such measures. There is nothing in law stopping a company ignoring all standards and doing all of their own, fully comprehensive testing from fundamental principals upwards to determine and prove that a product is safe. They then comply with the Regulations through their own comprehensive tests. However in reality this doesn't happen for 3 reasons:
In another example, as a manufacture, you may choose to use the BS EN 61010 'Standard' to show you comply with what is commonly called the Low Voltage Directive which is actually the EU Directive 2014/35/EU. That is still a 'Directive' and not law. It is The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 that implement that Directive into UK law.
That all relates to appliances, however the OP mentioned managers so I'm assuming this is a place of work in the UK. In which case the Electricity at Work Regulations (1989) apply and that is directly implemented in law. This covers all aspects of the use of electricity within the workplace and places a duty of care on employers and employees to prevent danger.
Therefore the employer has a legal duty of care to prevent danger and further prove that they have taken reasonable measures to prevent danger. Using standards (such as BS7671) is a good way to demonstrate in court that you have taken such measures. There is nothing in law stopping a company ignoring all standards and doing all of their own, fully comprehensive testing from fundamental principals upwards to determine and prove that a product is safe. They then comply with the Regulations through their own comprehensive tests. However in reality this doesn't happen for 3 reasons:
- Massive waste of time, why develop your own standards when peer reviewed, well established ones already exist
- Potential customers are likely to trust established standards rather than an unknown one
- If something was to go wrong and the company ended up in court, it would be extremely difficult and expensive to try to defend your own standard, that by virtue of ending up in court, has clearly been inadequate.
Last edited:
Maybe not, but often laws require the adherence to standards.
I don't have the legal knowledge to confirm or contest that statement, however I would be interested if you have some examples of where that is the case, i.e. where a law requires adherence to a standard, especially in an electrical / electronic context.
In my experience that's not usually the case, e.g. The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 as implemented in law says things like "The documentation must make it possible to assess the electrical equipment's conformity to the relevant requirements, and must include an adequate analysis and assessment of the risk(s)."
and
"a list of the harmonised standards applied in full or in part the references to which have been published in the Official Journal or international or national standards referred to in regulation 37 and, where those harmonised standards or international or national standards have not been applied, descriptions of the solutions adopted to meet the principal elements of the safety objectives"
It's basically saying you have to make something that's safe and be able to prove it's safe and standards are a great way to do that, but they are not the only way and therefore adhering to them is not a requirement, simply one way to achieve the safety objectives set out in the law.
Note I'm using the legal sense of "require" if you are just saying that often laws "make it a good idea to..." then I completly agree.
Last edited:
I would say that the situation with Part P of the Building Regs (the 'law') is exactly the same. Part P consists of just one sentence, essentially just saying that electrical work must be done safely - it certainly does not refer to any Standards or suchlike. However, Approved Document P (which is not 'law', but is meant to be guidance on compliance with Part P) makes it clear that compliance with BS7671 is one way of demonstrating compliance with Part P, but that it was not 'mandatory', nor 'the only way'.
Of course, in practice, compliance with BS7671 is effectively the only way that most people can expect to be able to demonstrate compliance with the law (Part P).
Kind Regards, John
AIUI, The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
