Has BS7671 lost its way?

[holmslaw]

To be read as something providing wry amusement, not something to bring this topic back from the dead:

Is it OK to use the old coloured Twin core and earth? I have an old house so it will match the existing colours ?

It's fine - some people will tell you that you should sleeve it with the new colours at the terminations, but others (me included) will say that you should not, and that if it is reasonable for you to extend/modify an old-colour installation with old coloured cables then you should do so.

This an example of the lying hypocracy of Mr nasty.

He is deliberately telling people to ignore a regulation.

 

[Paul_C]

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

As we've done just recently: The issue regarding the switching (on a main isolator) of the neutral on TN vs. TT systems, for example. There are often things like this which seem inconsistent and make no sense.

Besides, if the regs. as a whole were so perfect, why are there countless amendments every couple of years?

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.

Or turn what could be a relatively easy job by selectively ignoring certain newer aspects of the regs. into a much longer, more difficult job by adhering to those precise requirements.

In the case of the safe zones, for example, I have cables I've run behind baseboards in a couple of places to add a new socket because it was by far the easiest way and, in my opinion, no more likely to be a problem than if those cables had been in the supposedly "safe" zones.

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.

That's certainly my take when it comes to that major change in the 17th edition of "throw an RCD at everything." It's money for the new edition of the regs., money to the manufacturers when inspections then start to suggest that improvement is needed, even though the installation was considered perfectly acceptable a couple of years before, and so on.

 

[RF Lighting]

Brilliant.

Your posts never cease to amuse me.

 

[Paul_C]

Well, I'm not sure what's so amusing.

My point with regard to these safe zones is they don't always make complete sense. What is so special about the 6-inch strip across the top of a wall which isn't just as applicable to a 6-inch strip along the bottom of the wall?

The average homeowner probably knows nothing about these supposed safe zones. While it might be unlikely that hooks for pictures or similar things will be driven into the wall less than 6 inches from the ceiling, is is really that unlikely that somebody might drill into that area to fix the top of a shelf bracket, or for the upper fixings of, say, a high-level cabinet?

Once a baseboard has been securely fixed in place across the bottom of the wall, it's probably unlikely to be disturbed for years, unless being replaced entirely for one of a different style.

So is a cable run behind the baseboard really any more likely to be damaged than one run in that supposedly "safe" 6-inch strip along the top of the wall? (Or the vertical strip down the end of the wall.)

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think these 'safe zones' have to be logical or even sensible.
They are designated areas where cables should be run.

As long as everyone knows and works to them then other people will be aware. Although as we know - 'everyone' doesn't know.

I have seen in some literature - mainly for other trades - that these zones are in fact called the 'danger zones' because there may be cables there.
The rest of the wall being the safe zone.

Consistency is not a requirement.

 

[Paul_C]

The rest of the wall being the safe zone.

And how often do these guides point out that this safe/danger-zone concept in the wiring regs. is not really that old, and that even if all new wiring installed since it was introduced complies, there are still millions of homes out there which were wired long before the idea was conceived?