Black and red twin and earth

[bernardgreen]

I would ask you to put forward an intelligent and logical explanation of why the fact that rules change is a valid reason to ignore them, but I fear that that would be totally beyond your abilities.

There are instances where the reason for the change in the rules was not intended to improve safety, (*) but was to make compliance easier and / or less expensive. Ignoring these changes does not create a safety issue though some jobsworths and narrow minded people would insist on compliance with the new rules even if it meant safety was reduced. Rules that eliminate the application of common sense can create more hazards than the application of common sense would have created.

(*) harmonising colours did nothing to improve safety and may have created more hazards due to the confusion over which colour to use. Red Yellow Blue was obvious. Live Switched Neutral Brown Grey Black is not so obvious.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So are you saying that the fact that there was a change makes a valid reason to disregard the regulations? I don't mean that particular one - I mean all of them - I mean the attitude of PBC and other bandits of "DGAS about the basic principle of compliance", one justification offered being "because they change".

 

[bernardgreen]

So are you saying that the fact that there was a change makes a valid reason to disregard the regulations?

No I am not saying that. What I believe is that some changes are made to satisfy lobby groups and other people with agendas and influence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No I am not saying that.

Then it was a bit pointless in the context of me suggesting it would do no good to ask PBC to explain why the fact that regulations change is a justification for not bothering to comply with them.

What I believe is that some changes are made to satisfy lobby groups and other people with agendas and influence.

I being the person responsible for the design, construction, inspection & testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the design, construction, inspection & testing hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to 2015 except for regulations which have been changed to satisfy lobby groups and other people with agendas and influence, and other departures, if any, detailed as follows:

 

[PBC_1966]

What we are talking about is approaching with the deliberate intent to look for ways to do the work without complying, rather than with the intention of complying. What we are talking about is people saying "Oh - I can't comply with that" when what they really mean is "I simply don't want to."

No, we're often looking at a situation in which the practicalities are that either something is done which makes a vast improvement even though it might not comply with all the latest rules in BS7671, or it simply gets left as it is with no improvement, and in some cases potential danger. Which do you think is better?

I would ask you to put forward an intelligent and logical explanation of why the fact that rules change is a valid reason to ignore them, but I fear that that would be totally beyond your abilities.

The fact that they change is not the reason per se.

Would it do any good to go over, again, the context of that?

Exactly. You need to put it into context, like your suggestion to ignore a specific BS7671 rule about color coding and extend an existing red/black installation using red/black if you still have some available (with which I agree in sentiment, you may recall, even if I don't agree with your view that to not do so would be illegal).

So in the context of somebody who is faced with something less than ideal in an installation, is it better for him to spend a small amount of money now to make a significant improvement even if it doesn't comply with BS7671, or to wait a couple of years or more until he can afford to get it done in full compliance with BS7671?

 

[PBC_1966]

So are you saying that the fact that there was a change makes a valid reason to disregard the regulations? I don't mean that particular one - I mean all of them - I mean the attitude of PBC and other bandits

Please show me where I've ever said that all the regulations in BS7671 should be ignored.

When I say that I don't care whether an installation complies with the current edition of BS7671, I don't mean that I don't care if it breaks every rule in the book. I'm referring to it not complying with BS7671 as a whole because it does not comply with certain specific rules.

But I'm sure you already know that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, we're often looking at a situation in which the practicalities are that either something is done which makes a vast improvement even though it might not comply with all the latest rules in BS7671, or it simply gets left as it is with no improvement, and in some cases potential danger. Which do you think is better?

To improve and comply.

The fact that they change is not the reason per se.

You listed "Rules which are changing frequently anyway" in your post trying to justify non-compliance as a valid approach.

Exactly. You need to put it into context, like your suggestion to ignore a specific BS7671 rule about color coding and extend an existing red/black installation using red/black if you still have some available (with which I agree in sentiment, you may recall, even if I don't agree with your view that to not do so would be illegal).

The problem with what you have written there is that it was precisely and only because of what the law says that I took that position. It is not a position which you should support if you do not agree with that reason for it.

So in the context of somebody who is faced with something less than ideal in an installation, is it better for him to spend a small amount of money now to make a significant improvement even if it doesn't comply with BS7671, or to wait a couple of years or more until he can afford to get it done in full compliance with BS7671?

To improve and comply.

 

[PBC_1966]

To improve and comply.

And what if somebody cannot afford to do that?

You listed "Rules which are changing frequently anyway" in your post trying to justify non-compliance as a valid approach.

Because while some fundamentals remain pretty much constant over the years, there are many things which have changed and are of a much less important nature. There are even times when you could do something now to comply with a current BS7671 regulation and find that next year the requirement has been removed anyway (supplemental bonding in certain circumstances, for example).

The problem with what you have written there is that it was precisely and only because of what the law says that I took that position. It is not a position which you should support if you do not agree with that reason for it.

Hang on...... Let me see if I'm reading that correctly.

You're saying that since I don't agree with your argument that the wording in Part P requires by law the use of red/black to extend existing red/black if it's available, I should not agree with your argument that doing so is sensible since introducing brown/blue adds unnecessary potential for confusion?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And what if somebody cannot afford to do that?

And what if you cannot stop yourself proposing ludicrously unrealistic utterly nonsensical febrile inventions in order to support your rabid opposition to the idea that there should not be any regulations at all?

There are even times when you could do something now to comply with a current BS7671 regulation and find that next year the requirement has been removed anyway (supplemental bonding in certain circumstances, for example).

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Get over it.

Hang on...... Let me see if I'm reading that correctly.

You're saying that since I don't agree with your argument that the wording in Part P requires by law the use of red/black to extend existing red/black if it's available, I should not agree with your argument that doing so is sensible since introducing brown/blue adds unnecessary potential for confusion?

Of course.

If you do not believe that there is a higher authority (the law) which overrides the requirements of a non-statutory regulation, then you cannot agree that the regulation should be ignored. Unless, of course, your position that it should be ignored stems from a rabid opposition to the idea that there should not be any regulations at all.

 

[PBC_1966]

And what if you cannot stop yourself proposing ludicrously unrealistic utterly nonsensical febrile inventions in order to support your rabid opposition to the idea that there should not be any regulations at all?

Can you really not think of situations in which somebody might be able to spend a small amount to make a significant improvement but not be able afford to do everything which would be necessary to comply with every last regulation of BS7671 for new work?

Life in your ivory tower where you have so much time and money to spare that you never have to consider such possibilities must be very nice.

If you do not believe that there is a higher authority (the law) which overrides the requirements of a non-statutory regulation, then you cannot agree that the regulation should be ignored. Unless, of course, your position that it should be ignored stems from a rabid opposition to the idea that there should not be any regulations at all.

But your argument is that introducing brown/blue needlessly is not making reasonable provision for safety as required by Part P because it's introducing an unnecessary hazard which - even if to a small degree - affects the safety of the installation. Clearly it would have exactly the same impact on safety if Part P didn't exist, yet you now say that if that were the case one should deliberately make the installation less safe by following that particular requirement of BS7671 to use the new colors. So in the absence of Part P, you believe that following every last detail of BS7671 takes precedence over safety?

Then as Bernard said earlier:

There are instances where the reason for the change in the rules was not intended to improve safety, {.....} Ignoring these changes does not create a safety issue though some jobsworths and narrow minded people would insist on compliance with the new rules even if it meant safety was reduced. Rules that eliminate the application of common sense can create more hazards than the application of common sense would have created.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Can you really not think of situations in which somebody might be able to spend a small amount to make a significant improvement but not be able afford to do everything which would be necessary to comply with every last regulation of BS7671 for new work?

No.

 

[bernardgreen]

Can you really not think of situations in which somebody might be able to spend a small amount to make a significant improvement

No.

I suspect that No is because BAS does not want to think of such a situation.

Fitting an RCD between meter and and old consumer unit would be a small cost with a substantial mprovement to the installation.

Compliance BS7671 is not the only way to make a safe installation.

CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008,

It is a one line shorthand method of explaining why the installation is likely to be safe. It could be replaced by a list of technical facts about the installation design and methods which would, to the knowledgable person, prove the installation was safe in both design and method.

BS 7671 enables a person without any electrical knowledge to approve an installation that complies with BS 7671 as being safe without doing any analysis of the design or method.

Given time I could probably find some circumstances where total compliance with BS 7671 would be detrimental to the use of the installation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fitting an RCD between meter and and old consumer unit would be a small cost with a substantial mprovement to the installation.

Please remember that the suggestion here was to fit a 100mA Type S between the meter and the old consumer unit. That does not provide a substantial improvement.

 

[bernardgreen]

Please remember that the suggestion here was to fit a 100mA Type S between the meter and the old consumer unit. That does not provide a substantial improvement.

I am suggesting a 30 mA RCD between meter and a consumer unit that did not have an RCD would improve the situation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It was not such a suggestion that I said would be non-compliant.