Amd 3 and plastic wall plugs

[JohnW2]

Has anyone considered ...

... even if plastic cable clips/wall plugs/whatever are considered inadequate to satisfy the requirement to prevent cables 'falling down' in the event of a fire, I would imagine that the requirement could usually still be satisfied by using such things for the majority of the cable fixings, supplemented by just a few 'acceptable' (and probably more expensive) ones used in a few strategically chosen places.

Also, given the way they seem to think, I'm a little surprised that this reg appears to relate only to cable fixings. I'm sure that there are many DBs/CUs and other quite heavy bits of switchgear and electrical appliances which are 'held up' by the use of plastic wall plugs - not to mention lots of heavy non-electrical stuff which, although it poses no hazard of electric shock could do a person harm if it fell on them!

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

The adverts have already said 1 in 5 aprox, i think.
Note 3 to the reg 521.10.202 hints at this approach.
They seem more focused on people getting tangled in hanging wires, not being disrespectful to fire fighters but they must be trained to accept some risk in the job they do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

'non-combustible'? ... you'd better tell the CU manufacturers about that

I'm not sure that making CUs out of asbestos would be a winning idea....

 

[JohnW2]

The adverts have already said 1 in 5 aprox, i think. Note 3 to the reg 521.10.202 hints at this approach.

That sounds reasonable.

They seem more focused on people getting tangled in hanging wires, not being disrespectful to fire fighters but they must be trained to accept some risk in the job they do.

Indeed - although, if it's really a common/significant hazard (which I somewhat doubt, in the context of all the other hazards, I suppose it makes sense for them to do what they can to 'protect their own'. However, as I said, I'm surprised they are not equally concerned about wall cabinets or whatever (maybe even combi boilers, particularly if the soldered pipe joints melted) falling onto their firefighters.

Kind Regards, john

 

[John D v2.0]

lots of heavy non-electrical stuff which, although it poses no hazard of electric shock could do a person harm if it fell on them!

seems a bizarre argument, obviously it's not the weight that's the problem, it's the fact you can get your breathing apparatus tangled in it. And the extra weight probably means it's harder to get the heat to the plugs. Firefighters do sometimes get into difficulties and their partner will help and if necessary call for assistance from a second team, but even a firefighter who has been knocked out can be carried out. clearly, a cabinet is only really a hazard the moment it falls, cables can be a hazard any time after they fall and to both members of the team at the same time. Once someone is tangled, even with cutters you can't just go cutting willy nilly, and I'm sure everyone has enough trouble untangling their headphones from themselves without the added smoky environment and face masks etc.
and secondly, multiple firefighters on more than one occasion lost their life due to exactly this, so it's been proven to be a hazard.

fire fighters but they must be trained to accept some risk in the job they do.

Not really, I assume you worded that badly as that comment could apply to anything. We have as much responsibility to take care of firefighters' lives as any other person. You can't train to accept risk, you minimise it through a risk assessment. If there's a risk to firefighters the proper process would be to weigh up the mitigations and work out whether that would reduce the risk to an acceptable level. That's why there is a lot of training and equipment, not to mention regulations.
Of course I guess your point is that there can be a debate whether it's worth spending collectively tens of thousands of pounds a year on better fixings, for the sake of saving a few lives of firefighters (or the people inside buildings, if the firefighters can't get in) , but that's the purpose of a risk assessment.

 

[333rocky333]

Yes maybe worded wrong, the reg is what i meant is focused on the wire entanglement, the reason is even quoted in the 18th regs .

The rest was regarding johns comment regarding other fixings.
Anyone entering a burning building is obviously trained , maybe not to accept the risk, but obviously to be aware that things could come crashing down around them and how to deal with it, including poorly fixed Tvs and wall units, I quess that risk would be hard to totally eliminate, so there must be a level, where there risk assesment cuts off access to premises,but an acceptable risk allows them to carry on, that risk through training is likely more than normal people would consider safe.
Fire fixings have been around years, in places like London undergrround and some other projects, so if it can reduce injury to anybody then yes of course its a good thing

 

[JohnW2]

seems a bizarre argument, obviously it's not the weight that's the problem, it's the fact you can get your breathing apparatus tangled in it.

OK, so maybe not an ideal example - but there are things other than electrical cables that could get 'tangled in' (or at least interfere with) their breathing apparatus - curtain tracks, coving etc., maybe even some pipes (not to mention cables, like coax and Cat5/6 etc., which don't come within the scope of BS7671), which are fixed by methods which could fail in the presence of a fire.

It just seems a little strange that they have singled out for attention/action electrical cables (which are relatively uncommonly surfaced-installed, anyway) from all the things that present them with hazards they inevitably face when they enter a burning building.

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

But if you look at it another way you're equivalently saying "strange that they are doing something about something that has killed several firefighters rather than worrying about other things that might be dangerous". That's not how coroners work.
feel free to find some references to firefighters getting tangled in curtain tracks, coving, pipes. I will look at the coroner's report and see what recommendations they made to suitable bodies - maybe they were ignored or it wasn't picked up as a relevant factor.
It was they who wrote to the relevant organisations requiring that cables should be secured suitably. Obviously the IET weren't going to say "sorry, no because virgin media fitters might install coax otherwise", they updated BS7671 to cover that issue.

The coroner is basically a feedback loop where all other risk assessments etc have failed. They use their powers to make recommendations to bodies who may be in a position to prevent further fatalities in similar circumstances. I'm not clear which part of the process you think is not working.

 

[John D v2.0]

this might be a worthwhile read if you're still not convinced https://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=4478

 

[JohnW2]

But if you look at it another way you're equivalently saying "strange that they are doing something about something that has killed several firefighters rather than worrying about other things that might be dangerous".

It seems 'strange' to me since, although I may be wrong, I would not have thought that getting tangled in cables was anywhere near the top of the list of potentially addressable issues which have resulted in the deaths of firemen.

If I'm wrong and the fact is that falling electrical cables are at or near the top of the list of 'potentially addressable' causes of firefighters' deaths then, yes, of course, that particular issue should be addressed as a priority.

That's not how coroners work.

Although, for various reasons, I number several coroners amongst my fairly close friends, I'm afraid that they have a common tendency to 'knee jerk' in response to the actual case 'in front of them today' - saying that something needs to be done to prevent (exactly) the same thing happening again, without considering that 'the next' time it would be due to something slightly different (which wouldn't be prevented by what they are proposing).

Although (I think) nothing to do with coroners, I saw the same sort of pretty ill-conceived knee-jerking in relation to a notorious road fairly close to me. It's better now but, in the past, it saw a large number of 'accidents', injuries and deaths. It was a 'fast' but winding road, mainly two lane (one each way), with few places where one could safely overtake (and, being mainly 'rural' there were often frustrating slow vehicles that everyone wanted to overtake) - and that was true for much of the (long) length of the road. Injudicious overtaking was therefore the cause of most of the 'accidents'. On several occasions, the response of those in charge was to alter the road layout or markings, or to erect a physical barrier in the middle of the road, for a short stretch of road in the immediate vicinity of where the most recent incident had occurred. Needless to say, it was often not all that long before the next serious or fatal incident occurred a few hundred yards beyond the end of bit bit of road that has 'made safer'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Deleted member 18243]

DOES anybody know how this new regulation will apply to plastic dado trunking?

It seems that plastic dado trunking could fall foul in two ways: one) if it is fitted to the wall using plastic wallplugs and two) the fact that it is a plastic enclosure holding cables on a wall.

 

[JohnW2]

DOES anybody know how this new regulation will apply to plastic dado trunking? ... It seems that plastic dado trunking could fall foul in two ways: one) if it is fitted to the wall using plastic wallplugs and two) the fact that it is a plastic enclosure holding cables on a wall.

At least in common sense terms, one thing to bear in mind is that the majority of 'surface attached' cables (whether with clips, in trunking, surface mounted plastic trunking or whatever) will not 'fall down' even if all of the 'fixings' (whatever) fail - because the cable is physically constrained by termination in accessories, coming through holes in walls/floors/ceilings or whatever. In those situations, common sense says that the fixings don't need to be 'fire-resistant' - but I don't know whether or not it is intended that the regulation reflects that common sense.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Install a couple of bits of all round band in your dado trunking to remove the risk.

 

[SUNRAY]

DOES anybody know how this new regulation will apply to plastic dado trunking?

It seems that plastic dado trunking could fall foul in two ways: one) if it is fitted to the wall using plastic wallplugs and two) the fact that it is a plastic enclosure holding cables on a wall.

I have been involved with 'repairing' plastic trunking and dado rail several times where the lack of fixings has meant the weight of cables has ripped the trunking off the wall.
Sadly too many installers think a No8 CS screw, without a reinforcing washer, every metre is sufficient. One of these situations was where dado trunking went up and over a double door and the single fixing in the middle ripped through, leaving the cables hanging from one top corner to the light switches:

This was the main door (in fact only door with external unlocking ability at the time) into a village hall, which fortunately opened outwards.

 

[JohnW2]

I have been involved with 'repairing' plastic trunking and dado rail several times where the lack of fixings has meant the weight of cables has ripped the trunking off the wall. ...

Whilst I agree with the concept of what you say (that trunking etc. needs to be 'fixed properly'), it seems a little hard to see that the weight of 2 or 3 feet of cable (I presume 1.5mm² at the largest in your example, since it's going to a light switch) would be enough to pull anything off a wall. Even if it had been lead-sheathed cable, I still wouldn't have expected the weight of that, per se, to be enough.

Kind Regards, John