Has BS7671 lost its way?

[JohnW2]

Does your unhappiness lead you to regard the entirety of the regulations as worthless, to believe that only fools comply with them, and to be driven to mount a long-running campaign of disparagement?

I realise that's not directed at me, but I think that regulations which include 'stupid' bits do present a problem. Firstly (maybe as we've seen), it causes some pople to lose respect for the regulations in general. Secondly, if there are bits which most people regard as 'stupid' then, particularly when the 'regulations' are not mandatory, it leads to people 'picking and choosing' which parts of the regs to comply with - which is a not very satisfactory situation.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If they do that then it's because of their own cowboy instincts, not because of a professional and competent reaction to what they don't like.

ebee's proper course of action to deal with his unhappiness would be to not take advantage of what he sees as inadequate safety provisions, e.g. to always use steel conduit.

i.e. to find a way which complies with the regulations and addresses his concerns, not to say "I don't like this so the whole thing is bollerx and only to be followed by fools".

 

[holmslaw]

Does your unhappiness lead you to regard the entirety of the regulations as worthless, to believe that only fools comply with them, and to be driven to mount a long-running campaign of disparagement?

Why do you continually lie, I have critised some regs. I have never said the regs are worthless and I'm not on campaign.

 

[holmslaw]

ebee's proper course of action to deal with his unhappiness would be to not take advantage of what he sees as inadequate safety provisions, e.g. to always use steel conduit.

And how would he then compete with others, there's a simple solution ban the use of T&E cable.

"I don't like this so the whole thing is bollerx and only to be followed by fools".

More lies, the more you lie the more pointless you become - if thats possible.

Remember everyone whos been here for a while knows you're a liar, you proudly announced it.

And Ive asked before but you're too cowardly to answer. Try and be a man, why have you been baned from so many forums?

 

[JohnW2]

If they do that then it's because of their own cowboy instincts, not because of a professional and competent reaction to what they don't like.

That's all very well when (as with the 'safe zones') one regards the regs as being 'stupid' by not being demanding/safe enough - since, as you imply, one remains compliant if even one exceeds the requirements of the regs.

The problem arises if one feels that the regs are 'stupid' in being over-demanding. One then has to either grit one's teeth and comply with what one regards as a 'stupid' regulation, or else 'pick and choose' which bits of the regs one wishes to comply with.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

Does your unhappiness lead you to regard the entirety of the regulations as worthless, to believe that only fools comply with them, and to be driven to mount a long-running campaign of disparagement?

I realise that's not directed at me, but I think that regulations which include 'stupid' bits do present a problem. Firstly (maybe as we've seen), it causes some pople to lose respect for the regulations in general. Secondly, if there are bits which most people regard as 'stupid' then, particularly when the 'regulations' are not mandatory, it leads to people 'picking and choosing' which parts of the regs to comply with - which is a not very satisfactory situation.

Kind Regards, John.

That is exactly one of the major problems.

Mr Nasty doesn't understand because he lives in a under a rock.

 

[ebee]

Does your unhappiness lead you to regard the entirety of the regulations as worthless, to believe that only fools comply with them, and to be driven to mount a long-running campaign of disparagement?

It certainly does not.

The regs , to my mind, are the minimum we must strive to adhere to.
by having a personal dislike for some that I feel may not give quite the degree of the protection I would like then I simply avoid them if possible in this case and I am still complying and I would not intentionally not comply with the regs

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Why do you continually lie, I have critised some regs. I have never said the regs are worthless and I'm not on campaign.

Why this bollerx exists I don't know, but it is another nail in the coffin of the IET's ability to stipulate regulations.

What you have not said is socket-outlets are prohibited within a distance of 3 m horizontally from the boundary of zone 1.

These measured boundaries are bollerx, 600mm is ok 601mm is not ok, nonsense.

It's been a reg in one form or another since the 14th edition, and as with all bad laws it is ignored.

The real problem is that the clowns that now write the regs add more and more incomprehensible and illogical regulations, so I would'nt be surprised if the general consensus was to ignore all of the regs.

Examples:
Corner safe zones.
thin wire and ultra thin wire.

More bollerx from the big red bumper book of fun.

Just realised this a few moments ago. I think its more IET bollerx, but this is from the good book.

You should also appreciate that the IET or IEE are not very practically minded thats why they decided that the corners of rooms are safe zones to install cables, and that is certifiable bollerx.

I'm not a person that deals in IET bollerx, ie 200mm is ok 250mm you die.

Which makes it another piece of IET nonsense.

Another reg to be ignored due to contradictory nonsense and being totally ridiculous.

The reference to single pole devices is more IET nonsense

In fact they may as well do away with table 54.8 altogether because it's meaningless, more IET bollerx.

View media item 30417 it is nonsense to anyone with an ounce of common sense

 

[holmslaw]

Why do you continually lie, I have critised some regs. I have never said the regs are worthless and I'm not on campaign.

Why this bollerx exists I don't know, but it is another nail in the coffin of the IET's ability to stipulate regulations.

What you have not said is socket-outlets are prohibited within a distance of 3 m horizontally from the boundary of zone 1.

These measured boundaries are bollerx, 600mm is ok 601mm is not ok, nonsense.

It's been a reg in one form or another since the 14th edition, and as with all bad laws it is ignored.

The real problem is that the clowns that now write the regs add more and more incomprehensible and illogical regulations, so I would'nt be surprised if the general consensus was to ignore all of the regs.

Examples:
Corner safe zones.
thin wire and ultra thin wire.

More bollerx from the big red bumper book of fun.

Just realised this a few moments ago. I think its more IET bollerx, but this is from the good book.

You should also appreciate that the IET or IEE are not very practically minded thats why they decided that the corners of rooms are safe zones to install cables, and that is certifiable bollerx.

I'm not a person that deals in IET bollerx, ie 200mm is ok 250mm you die.

Which makes it another piece of IET nonsense.

Another reg to be ignored due to contradictory nonsense and being totally ridiculous.

The reference to single pole devices is more IET nonsense

In fact they may as well do away with table 54.8 altogether because it's meaningless, more IET bollerx.

View media item 30417 it is nonsense to anyone with an ounce of common sense

So thats about 7 regs that I have specifically criticised.

I reckon theres approx 8 regs per page spread over approx 300 pages, so that 8 x 300 = 2400 - 7 = 2393.

So theres approx 2393 regs that I haven't criticised.

Or put another way I have not criticised about 99.67% of the regs.

 

[ebee]

Try harder then, make it 100%

 

[JohnW2]

Try harder then, make it 100%

That seems to be a bit harsh (and unrealistic, for almost any regulations), given that you don't really score 100% yourself - although you called them your 'fads', I think the things you said about safe zones (which very many of us would agree with) count as 'criticisms'.

Very few, if any, regulations (or even laws) are so 'perfect' that they cannot be criticised at all.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

View media item 30385.

I would just point out that it is not 0.481, but 0.48 x Ib.

So, 'slightly less ridiculous' than you thought.

 

[holmslaw]

View media item 30385.

I would just point out that it is not 0.481, but 0.48 x Ib.

So, 'slightly less ridiculous' than you thought.

Oh yes, quite right, exactly one thousanth less ridiculous.

Should have gone to specsavers.

 

[Big Tone]

My 2p worth..

Having recently completed the 17th Ed, while I was on the course the general consensus from the veteran teachers I personally met was that it has largely been a money-making exercise more than anything else.

The relatively ‘little extras’ didn’t warrant or justify making the electrical molehill into a lightning mountain; it could have been done better, cheaper and easier...

That's my take and how they thought of it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Having recently completed the 17th Ed, while I was on the course the general consensus from the veteran teachers I personally met was that it has largely been a money-making exercise more than anything else.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

You have destroyed my faith in our wonderful leaders.
Next you'll be telling me they're corrupt.