Europlug sockets

[ban-all-sheds]

How many unskilled users of domestic installations are familiar with BS7671 then?

They aren't, but any DIY manuals they consult will assume that as the basis for the installation, so one which matches a foreign standard will end up less safe for them to work on.

Who would be installing to any other standard for no reason? There's bound to be some reason for wanting to adopt that standard: The German guy presumably wanted Shucko sockets to use German appliances he brought with him; I would install NEMA outlets because of the amount of 120V equipment I have, and so on.

Those would be reasons, i.e. based on logic.

If you have no reason then you would be acting unreasonably.

But how would anyone else know your reasons? What does it matter?

It matters because if you are acting without reason then your actions are unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

The issue is whether your installation standard meets the requirements of the Building Regs., not whether you could have installed to some other standard, or whether anyone else considers your reason good enough or not.

If a court were to decide that you had not acted reasonably then you would find that their opinion mattered a great deal.

Please show me any official documentation which says that you must install to BS7671 unless you have some good reason (however that may be defined) to do otherwise.

There is no official documentation which says that you have to install to any standard.

But if you decide that you will work to a standard, and without reason you choose one which is less safe than another one you could have chosen then you have not acted reasonably.

 

[Paul_C]

They aren't, but any DIY manuals they consult will assume that as the basis for the installation, so one which matches a foreign standard will end up less safe for them to work on.

I've seen many DIY books which also make assumptions about the specific way that an installation has been wired to BS7671 (loop-in light switching, for example), and which often completely omit any mention of what were pretty standard arrangements 40 to 50 years ago, even though such wiring is still in use in many homes.

That aside, if we are talking about what is a reasonable course of action, if somebody does not understand an installation sufficiently to work on it, then he should not do the work. That is no different from an installation in full compliance with the latest edition of BS7671.

Those would be reasons, i.e. based on logic.

If you have no reason then you would be acting unreasonably.

So what are you arguing about? There is going to be some reason for adopting a particular standard, and now you're saying that's fine.

If a court were to decide that you had not acted reasonably then you would find that their opinion mattered a great deal.

We're talking about the Building Regulations. The question is not about whether your actions in choosing one standard or another were in themselves reasonable, but about whether the final installation meets the legal requirements of Part P, in that it makes reasonable provision for safety etc.

The judicial system might have lost most of its senses in some respects, but how could a court seriously decide that you followed, say, NF C 15-100 in full, but that you did not make reasonable provision for safety when the government's own guidelines specifically state that following NF C 15-100 is a method of compliance?

There is no official documentation which says that you have to install to any standard.

Precisely.

But if you decide that you will work to a standard, and without reason you choose one which is less safe than another one you could have chosen then you have not acted reasonably.

Who defines which is less safe? Is NF C 15-100 less safe than BS7671, for example? That could be quite hard to quantify. Different standards might have specific features which one could consider safer than another, but how can you make an overall assessment?

You would argue, I'm fairly certain, that BS1363 sockets are safer than regular NEMA outlets because of the shutters. That's a fair point. But I could point out that, say, the NEC doesn't allow rings with undersized conductors which can be overloaded in certain situations, and thus is considerably safer than BS7671 in that respect. Swings & roundabouts.....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This is pointless - I can't work out whether you are genuinely unable to understand what reasonable means or just pretending not to.

 

[anjunabeats83]

This is pointless - I can't work out whether you are genuinely unable to understand what reasonable means or just pretending not to.

There's no need to be rude BAS. Why do you have to be so disagreeable?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm being neither - I really cannot work out whether he is genuinely unable to understand what reasonable means or just pretending not to,

 

[Paul_C]

I understand perfectly well what "reasonable" means. If you are so certain that answering the five questions I posed earlier will expose the "idiocy of my position," then please go ahead and answer them, and let's see what conclusion others draw.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Let's try a step-by-step approach:

1. Do you agree that the legal requirement to satisfy the Building Regs. Part P is to make "reasonable provision" for safety?

2. Do you agree that Part P itself says nothing about having to follow BS7671, or indeed any other specific standard?

3. Do you agree that while Approved Documents are not law in themselves, both central government and the local authorities take it that if you comply with the guidelines in those Approved Documents then you have satisfied the legal requirements of the Buiding Regs?

4. Do you agree that the Approved Document for Part P indicates that compliance with BS7671 would be one method of showing compliance with the Building Regs?

5. Do you agree that the Approved Document for Part P also indicates that following an "equivalent standard approved by a member of the EEA" would be another way of complying with the Building Regs?

6. Do you agree that if you have no reason to do work to a lower standard of safety than a reasonable alternative that it would be unreasonable to do so?

 

[BS3036]

6. Do you agree that if you have no reason to do work to a lower standard of safety than a reasonable alternative that it would be unreasonable to do so?

How about accepting that it's not a 'lower' standard, but a 'different' standard in which some things are better defined and others worse?

After all, the 'ring finals' compromise bodge should have been consigned to the recycle bin a long time ago.

 

[securespark]

Who says it's a lower standard?

For example, AFAICT, all EU wiring standards rely heavily on 30mA RCD protection.

So, in that respect, all installations have the same level of protection.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is less safe to unskilled people trying to alter or maintain it because it is less familiar and harder to find out about, and sooner or later somebody will make an incorrect move.

It is less safe for people to use because the plugs on their appliances won't fit the sockets, and sooner or later somebody will do a bodge.

It's no more use saying "oh well they shouldn't do these things so I'm going to assume they won't" than it would be to build motorways without armco down the middle because people shouldn't do anything which gets them onto the wrong side.

Look at the mess people get into with nominally BS 7671 compliant (or inspired) systems which they can learn all about in widely available DIY manuals.

Making it even less likely that they will be familiar with it and harder to find out about is not a reasonable provision for their safety.

 

[Paul_C]

It is less safe to unskilled people trying to alter or maintain it because it is less familiar and harder to find out about, and sooner or later somebody will make an incorrect move.

People have been known to make an incorrect move of knocking out a load-bearing internal wall. Does that mean all internal walls should be non load-bearing to protect against somebody who doesn't know what he's doing and can't be bothered to find out?

It is less safe for people to use because the plugs on their appliances won't fit the sockets, and sooner or later somebody will do a bodge.

And people bodge things anyway. The BS1363 plugs provided on new appliances now won't fit BS546 sockets either, but you could still wire a house with BS546 exclusively and be in full compliance with BS7671.

Are you going to argue that using BS546 throughout if you wanted to would fall foul of the building regs. too, even though it meets BS7671?

Look at the mess people get into with nominally BS 7671 compliant (or inspired) systems which they can learn all about in widely available DIY manuals.

So there might be an argument that having a system which doesn't match up with those guides could actually deter people from "having a go" when they really don't have sufficient knowledge. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as the saying goes.

Making it even less likely that they will be familiar with it and harder to find out about is not a reasonable provision for their safety.

Let's try once more to see if you'll answer a few simple questions.

If you believe that the official interpretation of Part P would mean that a VDE-100, NF C15-100 etc. installation falls foul of the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement, why do you think the official guidelines clearly state that compliance with one of those standards would be considered compliance with Part P?

If you believe that following BS7671 is the only way to achieve compliance since anything else is unfamiliar to many people in the U.K., then why do think that Part P was not written simply to say that BS7671 must be followed?

And why are you contradicting yourself by saying it's somehow unreasonable to follow an alternate standard, while at the same time saying that it would be acceptable if you have a reason for so doing?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

People have been known to make an incorrect move of knocking out a load-bearing internal wall. Does that mean all internal walls should be non load-bearing to protect against somebody who doesn't know what he's doing and can't be bothered to find out?

No, because that would be an unreasonable requirement.

And people bodge things anyway. The BS1363 plugs provided on new appliances now won't fit BS546 sockets either, but you could still wire a house with BS546 exclusively and be in full compliance with BS7671.

You could not be in full compliance with BS 7671 with that design unless you could show that it was necessary to install BS 546 sockets, because of 132.1(ii).

So if there was a need to do that then your actions would be reasonable. If not then not only would you have behaved unreasonably but you would also not be in compliance with BS 7671.

Are you going to argue that using BS546 throughout if you wanted to would fall foul of the building regs. too, even though it meets BS7671?

I would argue that installing BS 546 sockets on a whim, in a domestic environment, in contravention of the preference expressed in 553.1.4 and the requirement for the installation to function properly would not meet BS 7671.

So there might be an argument that having a system which doesn't match up with those guides could actually deter people from "having a go" when they really don't have sufficient knowledge. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as the saying goes.

And there might be an argument that having no crash barriers on motorways could actually deter people from going too fast and not paying attention.

But it would be just as fatuous.

If you believe that the official interpretation of Part P would mean that a VDE-100, NF C15-100 etc. installation falls foul of the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement, why do you think the official guidelines clearly state that compliance with one of those standards would be considered compliance with Part P?

Because they would provide compliance if it was reasonable to work to them.

If you believe that following BS7671 is the only way to achieve compliance since anything else is unfamiliar to many people in the U.K., then why do think that Part P was not written simply to say that BS7671 must be followed?

Because it's all part of an international socialist conspiracy, enthusiastically supported by both Labour and Conservative governments (as they are both socialist parties), to bring about a European-wide socialist dictatorship.

I thought you knew that?

And why are you contradicting yourself by saying it's somehow unreasonable to follow an alternate standard, while at the same time saying that it would be acceptable if you have a reason for so doing?

I'm not contradicting myself. I have consistently drawn the distinction between doing something for a reason and doing it for no reason.

 

[Stoday]

Admit it BAS.

Paul_C has hoisted you by your own petard.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - not at all - looks as though you too can't grasp the idea of the difference between having a reason to do something and not having a reason to do it, but still doing it.

You can do A or B.

A is less safe than B.

You have no reason to prefer A over B.

In what way is choosing A a reasonable way to ensure people's safety?

 

[ColJack]

No - not at all - looks as though you too can't grasp the idea of the difference between having a reason to do something and not having a reason to do it, but still doing it.

You can do A or B.

A is less safe than B.

Ok, but A is not in and of itself Un-safe..

You have no reason to prefer A over B.

unlless you require or want to fit parts to specification A

In what way is choosing A a reasonable way to ensure people's safety?

as said.. as long as A is not un-safe, then choosing it over a higher standard is reasonable..

you yourself are an advocate of arc fault interupters as used in american systems, does that mean that you put them on every install you do?
it's safer so by your logic they should be installed..