Anyone interested in old colour cable?

[ban-all-sheds]

Just because one of two options available might be a better choice does not automatically make it unreasonable to adopt the other option

Yes it does.

To deliberately choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is cannot possibly be anything but unreasonable.

So, as I said, red/black no longer complies with BS7671, which is what you asked. If the old cable still complied with the current edition of BS7671 there would be no need to note its use as a deviation, would there?

Deviations are permitted by BS 7671.

The question is whether reasonable provision has been made for safety, and the official interpretation is clearly that mixed colors satisfy that requirement. Whether you happen to have other materials around which you could have used is beside the point.

No it isn't.

If you decide, in advance, that your whole design philosophy is to take an existing installation and deliberately make it more dangerous than it already is then you cannot possibly have been reasonable in your provision for safety.

Let me ask again, and I'll use this phrasing deliberately: How can you consider it to be a reasonable interpretation of the regulations that of two identical installations one is legal and the other is not?

Because one would have been arrived at reasonably, and one would have been arrived at unreasonably, without reasoning, in an unreasoned manner.

In one the actions of the person would have been reasonable, in the other they would have not.

In one the person would have behaved reasonably, in the other he would have behaved unreasonably.

In one he would have done what he reasonably could to ensure safety, in the other he would not have done what he reasonably could.

If you believe that the Secretary of State's view coincides with yours on this point, then why does the official guidance contradict that?

It doesn't, unless you either have no understanding of what reasonable means, or perversely pretend that you have no understanding of what reasonable means, or are simply beyond reasoning with.

The Approved Document refers to compliance with BS7671 as being deemed to be compliance with Part P. It doesn't say anything about such compliance being conditional upon what other materials you may or may not have laying around which you could have used instead. BS7671 itself doesn't either.

The approved document is not the law, it is guidance on a way that you might comply with it.

The existence of AD P does not magically make it reasonable to set out to make an installation more dangerous than it already is.

Who is going to decide whether or not it is available?

Someone reasonable. So, I guess, not you.

Someone capable of reasoning. So, I guess, not you.

Someone who has reasons for doing what he does, rather than someone so out of control that he makes things more dangerous than they already are for no reason whatsoever. So, I guess, not you.

What if it's sitting in my workshop, but I have plans to use it for something else?

I would normally expect to ask if the decision to use it for something else was a reasonable one, but I can't think of anyone to ask. You are clearly incapable of doing, or thinking, anything that might be regarded as reasonable.

And all of this is pretty academic anyway, since after the brown/blue cable has been installed, who is ever going to know whether suitable red/black cable was sitting around the house anyway?

Nobody, but that's not the point.

We know that building inspectors like to make up their own rules as they go along, but can you cite one instance of any installation being rejected on the grounds of your argument?

No, but that's not the point. I can't cite one instance of anybody being prosecuted for not notifying when they should either, but that doesn't mean that the law doesn't require it.

Again then - Explain why the official guidance notes do not say that, and in fact completely contradict it.

The guidance does not contradict it.

And, if you want to take a reasonable view of 134.1.1 in the context of safety the guidance notes do say that.

But I can confidently predict that you don't want to take a reasonable view of anything, especially safety. Of that I am convinced, since you have made it quite clear that given the choice you would see nothing wrong with setting out on a deliberate path of reducing the safety of an installation.

So do you think that when a building inspector refuses to accept, say, insulation which falls below what he considers meets the requirements of the appropriate part of the building regs., you could simply claim that buying more would be unreasonable because of the cost?

That would depend on whether you were being reasonable. So discussing the point with you is utterly pointless, because you are utterly unreasonable.

Again, do you think that difficulty of installation would be accepted as an excuse for failing to comply with other requirements of the building regulations?

If it was a requirement involving tests of reasonableness it could be.

But I quite understand how that causes you such confusion, and how you are struggling to make sense of anything that's going on - it's because you do not have any capacity for reasoned thought, and therefore no concept of reasoned actions and therefore no ability to recognise situations where the concept of what is reasonable applies.

As above.

As above - the concept of what is reasonable is important, but as that makes so little sense to you that you don't understand how it can even exist you are completely out of your depth.

Given the dubious specifications for U.K. ring circuits which, even though considered unlikely, could result in overloaded cables whereas compliant radials cannot, that's unlikely.

It would be valid to ask "unlikely or unreasonable".

But in your case it would be pointless.

Again, where does cost factor into being excused complying with any other parts of the building regs?

In any where reasonableness of costs was recognised.

In the case of being involved in a collision versus not being involved in a collision, the end result is not the same. But in the case of using brown/blue to extend a red/black installation, the end result is the same, regardless of whether you had no red/black cable around or had it but chose not to use it.

You've completely twisted that round, which should be no surprise, considering that you are to reason what double-entry book keeping is to philosophy.

However, to continue with your driving analogy, if you were driving at 50 mph on a road and were unfortunate enough to be in some sort of accident, would you want any accusations of driving without due care and attention to be judged on the basis of your speed being reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, or or would you be happy with a judgment that clearly you could have driven at 40 mph which would have been safer, and that therefore driving at 50 mph was unreasonable behavior because you chose the less safe option?

That's not the same thing at all, as any reasonable person could tell you.

Not that you would have a clue what they meant.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[Paul_C]

Deviations are permitted by BS 7671.

And are recorded on an EIC as "departures from BS7671." It's rather contradictory to say that deviations are permitted by BS7671 but then to say that they need to be recorded as deviations from BS7671. Anything which is permitted by BS7671 cannot, logically, be a deviation from BS7671, taken as a whole. But that's really a side issue, since there is absolutely no question that the use of brown/blue to extend from red/black does comply fully with BS7671, so long as the warning notice is added. You've already acknowledged that.

The question is whether reasonable provision has been made for safety, and the official interpretation is clearly that mixed colors satisfy that requirement. Whether you happen to have other materials around which you could have used is beside the point.

No it isn't.

Then quote any regulation or any officially issued guidance note to the regulations where it says that compliance or otherwise depends upon whether you have certain materials to hand or not. For any part of the building regulations, not just Part P. And I don't mean just a reference to "reasonable provision" as you are interpreting it, I mean where anything issued officially supports your view.

Because one would have been arrived at reasonably, and one would have been arrived at unreasonably, without reasoning, in an unreasoned manner.

What if I have my own particular reasons for not wanting to use the red/black cable which is laying around on this particular project? Then the decision to use brown/blue would not have been arrived at without reasoning, in an unreasoned manner, would it? Just as the case in the other thread of fitting non-U.K. socket outlets - There is bound to be some reason for wanting to do it.

If you believe that the Secretary of State's view coincides with yours on this point, then why does the official guidance contradict that?

It doesn't {.....}

Doesn't it?

0.1 In the Secretary of State's view, the requirements will be met by adherence to the 'Fundamental Principles' for achieving safety given in BS7671:2001 Chapter 13.

{.....}

0.2 A way of satisfying the fundamental principles would be to follow:

a. the technical rules described in the body of BS7671:2001 as amended {.....}

b. guidance given in installation manuals that are consistent with BS7671:2001, such as:

i. the IEE (Institution of Electrical Engineers) On-Site Guide;

ii. the series of IEE Publications, Guidance Notes Nos. 1 to 7.

And yes, we know that Approved Documents are not the law, and they say as much themselves. But when the officially issued guidance says that compliance with BS7671 is deemed to have satisfied the "reasonable provision" requirement of Part P, then your view does not coincide with the published view of the Secretary of State.

Again then - Explain why the official guidance notes do not say that, and in fact completely contradict it.

The guidance does not contradict it.

See above. Now tell me where there is an exception for if you happen to have old cable laying around.

Again, where does cost factor into being excused complying with any other parts of the building regs?

In any where reasonableness of costs was recognised.

And do you think that you would be excused from failing to meet what LABC considers to be the minimum acceptable standards on the grounds of cost?

However, to continue with your driving analogy, if you were driving at 50 mph on a road and were unfortunate enough to be in some sort of accident, would you want any accusations of driving without due care and attention to be judged on the basis of your speed being reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, or or would you be happy with a judgment that clearly you could have driven at 40 mph which would have been safer, and that therefore driving at 50 mph was unreasonable behavior because you chose the less safe option?

That's not the same thing at all, as any reasonable person could tell you.

Not that you would have a clue what they meant.

It is exactly the same principle, by your argument. You are arguing that of two options, it is unreasonable to adopt the one which is regarded as less safe.

You have the option of driving at 40 mph instead of 50 mph. As the slower speed offers greater safer, then according to your logic, driving at the faster speed must be considered unreasonable since you have chosen to choose the less safe option.

 

[ricicle]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Paul_C - you keep saying the same things over and over again, and I keep telling you over and over again that you are wrong.

It really is breathtakingly simple.

If you set out to make an installation less safe than it already is then you cannot be said to be acting reasonably.

What the absolute level of safety is after you have done is of absolutely no relevance. You have taken an installation, and deliberately changed it to make it less safe than you could otherwise reasonably have done.

That is not a reasonable action.

It is unreasonable.

Therefore the provision for safety you have made is unreasonable.

Therefore you have not made reasonable provision for safety.

I know that you think that doing something for no reason is a reasonable act, even though it cannot be, but that is because you are incapable of reason.

Some of the stuff you've written above is laughable. 40mph vs 50mph? There are very real differences in those. Installing cable of one colour vs another when there is NO difference in the quality, NO difference in the cost, NO difference in the time taken, NO difference in the ease of use, NO difference in the availability is not a valid comparison.

But since all you have done throughout all of this is to demonstrate that you are incapable of reason I guess we should not be surprised.

And do you think that you would be excused from failing to meet what LABC considers to be the minimum acceptable standards on the grounds of cost?

Again you ignore the factor of reasonableness which I postulated Again you show that you think that if you pretend that the word "reasonable" cannot appear in regulations that somehow the ones which do will vanish.

For any part of the building regulations, not just Part P.

Part P is what we are discussing


Anyway - I hereby give up trying to get you to see reason, to understand reason, to use reason, to recognise reason, to accept that the word "reasonable" exits, to accept that there is a concept of reasonableness etc.

You are wrong now, just as you were wrong the last time you tried this nonsensical and illogical attempt to claim that unreasonable behaviour was the same as reasonable behaviour if you deemed it so for no reason.

Will I be surprised if you try again in this topic? No.

Will I be surprised if you try again in the future? No.

Will you ever be right? No.

 

[holmslaw]

 

[holmslaw]

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I'm really quite concerned for the mental welfare of sheddy, he doesn't seem to be the chirpy, happy-go-lucky chap we have all come to love

too much caffeine, not nearly enough Zaponex ?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Sometimes it seems a shame that the forum doesn't support polls. This would be a fun topic to have a poll on!

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

a little while ago, the forum did have a thumbs up/down rating system. The mods pulled it as it seems one person was getting a lot of (according to him/her alone) unfair or unjustifiable thumbs down and was ruining the forum with gratuitous protests and random stabs at being offensive to 'whoever it may concern'

I only recall seeing one person with a lot of these thumbs down and only one person moaning about the system

 

[SimonH2]

Paul_C - you keep saying the same things over and over again, and I keep telling you over and over again that you are wrong.

It really is breathtakingly simple.

BAS - you keep saying the same things over and over again, and Paul_C keeps telling you over and over again that you are wrong.

It really is breathtakingly simple.

There. fixed that for you

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[RF Lighting]

He'd probably just type it out long hand if you did that anyway

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS - you keep saying the same things over and over again, and Paul_C keeps telling you over and over again that you are wrong.

It really is breathtakingly simple.

There. fixed that for you

Oh look - another **** who thinks that it is reasonable to deliberately and perversely choose to make an installation more dangerous than it already is.