SPD's compulsory

[JohnW2]

...Likewise, several decades without rcd’s hasn’t impacted on my health and safety.

Nor would it have done on my health and safety if I had not had them. For the last several decades (about 40 years) during which I've been living with RCDs, I have never experienced a shock which caused an RCD to operate and nor can I recall any occasion on which something touchable becoming live has caused an RCD to operate (and for the period before that, when I didn't have RCDs, my experience was the same as yours.

Mind you, one has to be careful about such arguments about risks are very small, but not 'ridiculously small'. I've been wearing car set belts for over 50 years, but would not have suffered anything if I never had worn one. Again for about 50 years, I've always paid for Buildings Insurance on my home,but have never made a claim .... etc. etc.

IIRC they were brought in as a response to the mayhem of unregulated DIY in the 70’s and 80’s

I very much doubt that was the primary reason. For a start, as I've said, and surprising though it may be, even before we had RCDs there were (in UK) only a tiny number of deaths or serious injuries due to electric shocks (in DIYers or anyone else) - far less,for example, than the number of deaths and serious injuries (of DIYers or others) due to falls from ladders/roofs/whatever, and also probably also far less than those due to participation in ("healthy"!) sporting activities!

As I've said, I feel sure that the primary reason for the appearance of RCDs was that it became technologically possible to produce them, not to mention the fact that they represented an enormous financial opportunity for the industry. The concept (of detecting and clearing L-E faults) had, after all, been around for a long prior period, in the form of VOELCBs.

 

[JohnW2]

There don’t seem to be many or any who argue for risk appetite but plenty who focus on risk tolerance, or rather risk intolerance!

In all walks of life there is a wide spectrum of attitudes to risk, spanning from 'risk-taking' to 'risk-averse'.

Despite what you appear t o be saying, at one extreme there are certainly people whose attitude to life is highly 'risk-taking' since they deliberately choose to participate in what they know to be very hazardous activities - with that high level of risk (and, probably, the 'elation' resulting every time they 'get away with it') seemingly being one of the main attractions.

At the other extreme there are some (at least one example of which we have in this forum) who are extremely risk-averse, to the extent that they are concerned about theoretical but 'once in a blue moon' risks.

Very little in life is without some 'risk', so a sensible approach has to decide 'where to draw the line' - the alternative being to never walk out of one's front door and, even when in one's home, never use tools or kitchen utensils or go up/down stairs (let alone use step ladders), and probably wear a hard hat and other 'PPE' at all times whilst 'living' under the dining room table! ... and even then they would probably still be concerned about 'residual risks'!

What we often discuss here (as in this current discussion) is the fact that 'we' (society) has dramatically changed its attitude to risks over the decades. I could probably write more than one book about all the things which were considered perfectly reasonable and 'accepted' (albeit 'not without risk') back in, say, the 60s which would be considered to be totally 'unthinkable' today. Some of those 'advances in safety' are undoubtedly very sensible and worthwhile, but there are certainly some people who believe that we have, at least in some cases gone too far in allowing "Nanny" to take over!

I imply that 'we' ('society') are to 'blame' for some of the more questionable changes, but the true finger probably needs to be pointed at litigation and lawyers, the practices of who have seemingly progressively drifted across the Atlantic ocean to here!

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect most failures under surge conditions are down to "poor quality" electronics - everything built down to a price, no headroom in component specs, that sort of thing.

Maybe - but as I often say, I have always had an unusually large amount of electronic equipment, particularly back in the 60s and 70s, and in those days most (then 'modern') electronics was theoretically much more susceptible to 'surges' than the equipment of today (e.g. germanium semiconductors and ICs which died as a result of static discharges if one's finger got within a yard of them!) - yet I recall virtually no 'unexpected/unexplained failures' that I might suspect could have been used to power 'surges'.

...and, of course, in those pre-SMPSU days, any spikes/surges in the mains supply were probably far more likely to find their way to the 'delicate electronics'.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I do have experience with stuff getting fried - but SPDs as currently fitted would have done ... absolutely nothing at all to help.

Not an overhead supply, but many years ago, the local church tower, 100 yards away, was hit by a tremendous bolt of lightning. It took many phone lines out, in the street, blew my big-dish sat system, blew dial-up modems, plus other equipment.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Some of those 'advances in safety' are undoubtedly very sensible and worthwhile, but there are certainly some people who believe that we have, at least in some cases gone too far in allowing "Nanny" to take over!

I happily retired, as the nanny state, was taking over, it was becoming impossible to work effectively, following some of the ridiculous rules emerging. Mostly, I was able to work alone, generally able to ignore the rules, when the benefit was a reduced risk, than the alternative of following the rules. Sometimes following the rules, involves greater risk, than ignoring them, and working with proper care.

 

[JohnW2]

Not an overhead supply, but many years ago, the local church tower, 100 yards away, was hit by a tremendous bolt of lightning. It took many phone lines out, in the street, blew my big-dish sat system, blew dial-up modems, plus other equipment.

I think we have to accept that anything approaching a 'lightning strike' (and that includes a strike 'in the vicinity') is going to kill everything in sight, and that none of the type of Micky Mouse "SPDs" we're talking about (and where/how they are installed) can make the slightest difference to that, don't we?

 

[JohnW2]

I happily retired, as the nanny state, was taking over, it was becoming impossible to work effectively, following some of the ridiculous rules emerging. Mostly, I was able to work alone, generally able to ignore the rules, when the benefit was a reduced risk, than the alternative of following the rules. Sometimes following the rules, involves greater risk, than ignoring them, and working with proper care.

Unfortunately, a vey common story these days.

One of my neighbours has built up a very successful property maintenance/renovation business, dealing largely with large commercial customers (e.g.chains of shops), but is currently very seriously considering ditching all that and reverting to 'working alone', mainly in domestic properties (as he once did in the past), for the very reasons you describe.

I suppose is this case Nanny didn't actually 'do any harm', but I recently told the story of the man from our water supplier working on a drain in the middle of our garden, at least 20 metres from any building, who was wearing a hard hat because "he would be sacked if anyone discovered that he wasn't wearing it" - and I think that story rather sums up the type of nonsense we're talking about.

However, as I've said, I don't think one can blame HSE (who are generally 'sensible') for much of this. I think that much of the problem often derives from the lawyers of the big companies who choose to seriously over-interpret the actual H&S rules, in the name oof 'protecting their client's backside'

 

[SUNRAY]

I was working in a large building with large open plan offices galore, My job was changing control equipment in the numerous plant rooms then going all round the building changing temperature sensors.
Their own requirement was for me to be wearing PPE of boots (mine were brown), yellow hi viz vest & hard hat at all times. Habitually I used white or red hard hat but they used those colours for particular situations so they supplied an orange hat. Around the plant rooms I had no issue with it, in fact I also wore gloves and googles regularly too.
So I enter the office areas carrying a small toolkit in a leather case about A4 size and a clipboard with the drawings, test sheets etc and the obligatory H&S sheets I had to have with me, I look around for the sensor and change it while feeling like a prize prune amoungst the smart casual wear, and during the summer times fairly limited clothes.
It took me a while to realise many left the area while I was there and it happened regularly, it turns out the fire marshal also wore a yellow hi viz vest, orange hard hat and brown boots when in marshal mode and staff automatically headed out when he/she entered thinking it was a drill.
It felt like some common sense started creeping in when my mode of dress started being questioned by HR (where H&S resided in that company) while I was being 'interviewed', during which I questioned why I had to be 'protected' while working in areas where others didn't have to be 'protected'.
I was asked to return later after their 'investigation' concluded to receive the sensible suggestion that while in the normal areas of the building I no longer had to wear the ... wait for it... yellow hi viz, instead I was handed an orange version with full sleeves.

After several weeks I had to perform the task in a senior managers office, in fact being a senior managers office there were also sensors in the air grills in the ceiling so I spent more time in there than in an area for tens of staff, and he questioned in a sarcastic manner why I was so dressed; think about the effect of the nylon jacket in the heat of a hot summer and boots in the carpeted areas and cracked some joke about the ceiling falling on my head. Feeling somewhat pi$$ed off I opened the H&S leaflet and pointed to the paragraph and said something like 'No I don't know why either'.

Funny how rules can change sometimes.

 

[FrodoOne]

Speaking of which - is it practical to fit anti bird spikes on that cable outside my house?

I doubt you would be allowed to fit anything, on the cables,

In Australia, it is "common practice" (to deter possums from traveling to ones roof )
to slit one or more thin plastic "water bottle(s)" down one side and to the center of the base
and
fit that/those over the incoming overhead cable - well away from the entry point.

While a possum can grip the (insulated) cable, it may find it difficult to deal with the larger bottle(s) and the "swing" of them.

 

[blup]

In all walks of life there is a wide spectrum of attitudes to risk, spanning from 'risk-taking' to 'risk-averse'.

Despite what you appear t o be saying, at one extreme there are certainly people whose attitude to life is highly 'risk-taking' since they deliberately choose to participate in what they know to be very hazardous activities - with that high level of risk (and, probably, the 'elation' resulting every time they 'get away with it') seemingly being one of the main attractions.

At the other extreme there are some (at least one example of which we have in this forum) who are extremely risk-averse, to the extent that they are concerned about theoretical but 'once in a blue moon' risks.

Very little in life is without some 'risk', so a sensible approach has to decide 'where to draw the line' - the alternative being to never walk out of one's front door and, even when in one's home, never use tools or kitchen utensils or go up/down stairs (let alone use step ladders), and probably wear a hard hat and other 'PPE' at all times whilst 'living' under the dining room table! ... and even then they would probably still be concerned about 'residual risks'!

What we often discuss here (as in this current discussion) is the fact that 'we' (society) has dramatically changed its attitude to risks over the decades. I could probably write more than one book about all the things which were considered perfectly reasonable and 'accepted' (albeit 'not without risk') back in, say, the 60s which would be considered to be totally 'unthinkable' today. Some of those 'advances in safety' are undoubtedly very sensible and worthwhile, but there are certainly some people who believe that we have, at least in some cases gone too far in allowing "Nanny" to take over!

I imply that 'we' ('society') are to 'blame' for some of the more questionable changes, but the true finger probably needs to be pointed at litigation and lawyers, the practices of who have seemingly progressively drifted across the Atlantic ocean to here!

I was thinking of different attitudes to risk. A mountain climber might identify the need for a ladder to cope with the terrain. A public sector organisation might ban staff from using the bottom rung of a ladder. In the former case there is an appetite for risk, in the latter case there is only an appetite for risk avoidance which manifests itself as a complete ban.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

While a possum can grip the (insulated) cable, it may find it difficult to deal with the larger bottle(s) and the "swing" of them.

I've done something similar, to prevent squirrels, from climbing up the bird feeder pole - but such solutions, will not help with the OP's case of birds landing his overhead cables.

 

[ebee]

However, as I've said, I don't think one can blame HSE (who are generally 'sensible') for much of this. I think that much of the problem often derives from the lawyers of the big companies who choose to seriously over-interpret the actual H&S rules, in the name oof 'protecting their client's backside'

Agree

 

[ebee]

At the other extreme there are some (at least one example of which we have in this forum) who are extremely risk-averse, to the extent that they are concerned about theoretical but 'once in a blue moon' risks.

Does he mean me?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

At the other extreme there are some (at least one example of which we have in this forum) who are extremely risk-averse, to the extent that they are concerned about theoretical but 'once in a blue moon' risks.

I would call myself, extremely risk-averse, where it comes to subjecting others to the risks. Personally, I am not so risk-averse - I weigh up the risks, note the risks, and simply take extreme care when working.

 

[SUNRAY]

Does he mean me?

or me?