Has Part P gone too far?

[chapeau]

Part P is helping but it's not working fully, we're not out to rip folks off, just make a living by doing a proper SAFE and accountable job.

Just out of interest, what do you consider to be a decent living for a competent electrician?

 

[bernardgreen]

Current 60/70mph speed limit reduced to 20mph, current 40/50 to 10mph, current 30 and below to 5mph.
Driving forbidden during conditions of fog, ice, snow.

Some countries combine these and have two speed limits posted on roads. One for clear weather and the other lower one for rain, snow and other conditions.

In the UK driving can be and more frequently is banned on roads affected by adverse weather as in " The Humber Bridge is closed to high sided vehicles. " Still a perceivable risk to other vehicles but the highest risk is removed.


My point is that no one can force the house occupier to re-wire the house if it has suspect wiring.

So rather than walk away and leave it dangerous would it not be better if the electrician was allowed to add at least a modicon of protection to reduce the risk of the old wiring suffering a catastrophic failure without a dis-connection occuring.

Leaving it as is with poor and maybe in-effective "protection" by wired fuses and no earth fault protection is ( in my opinion ) the worse option.

Just fitting MCBs and earth leakage would not make the wiring safe but would reduce the risk of serious damage if or when the wiring went int oa fault state.

MCBs in place of wire fuses would prevent over size wire being used in the fuse.

An RCD in line with poor wiring may not trip as quickly as it should but if it trips on an earth fault it does reduce risk.

For example power breaker RCD equiped plugs do not come with a requirement to measure the earth path between the tool being used and the main protective earth point. "" Before using any appliance in this power breaker the user must measure the resistance of the path(s) that earth leakage current will take and ensure the resistance is low enough that the RCD will trip within half a second "" Should they be banned because the average user cannot measure and certify the protective earth path that will if needed trip the RCD.

The RCD fitted plug does reduce risk but cannot eliminate it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Current 60/70mph speed limit reduced to 20mph, current 40/50 to 10mph, current 30 and below to 5mph.
Driving forbidden during conditions of fog, ice, snow.

Some countries combine these and have two speed limits posted on roads. One for clear weather and the other lower one for rain, snow and other conditions.

I'm not talking about that - my suggestion was that even in perfect conditions the limit on motorways and dual-carriageways should be 20mph, and that in built-up areas it should always be 5mph. Everywhere else 10mph.

You stated categorically that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk, so you must be wholeheartedly in favour of such speed limits.

In the UK driving can be and more frequently is banned on roads affected by adverse weather as in " The Humber Bridge is closed to high sided vehicles. " Still a perceivable risk to other vehicles but the highest risk is removed.

I'm not talking about that - my suggestion was to close all roads to all traffic during adverse weather.

You stated categorically that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk, so you must be wholeheartedly in favour of such a measure.

I note that you've still not addressed my other suggestions:

• Complete ban on the possession and use of motorcycles.
• Raising minimum age for driving to 30.
• Banning the sale, possession and use of ladders and steps.
• Banning garden ponds.

All of these measures would save lives and injuries, so as you stated categorically that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk, so you must be wholeheartedly in favour of them.

My point is that no one can force the house occupier to re-wire the house if it has suspect wiring.

Then it's about time we could, isn't it? It would reduce risk.

 

[JonoPashley]

Untitled

• JonoPashley
• 22 Mar 2009
• 1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Probably.

But OTOH maybe, just maybe, the realisation will penetrate bernardgreen's skull that it is complete nonsense to assert that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk.

 

[bernardgreen]

Probably.

But OTOH maybe, just maybe, the realisation will penetrate bernardgreen's skull that it is complete nonsense to assert that anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk.

OK lets get sensible shall we, keep on subject and do not use ridiculous and invalid analogies to divert from the specific topic.

Fitting an RCD to old or sub-standard wiring can prevent fatal electrocution that may happen if the same accident happened without the RCD fitted.

And since old or sub-standard wiring is more likely to be involved in potentially fatal accidents the use of an RCD should be a minimum and possibly enforcable immediate up-grade.

Forget the wide world where banning all DIY driving would certainly reduce accidents on the roads. In the present world that is not a vote catching idea and the risk of government losing the following election would be too higher a risk to accept.

So back to topic

As I recall it I said that replacing a consumer unit and adding earth leakage detection and disconnect (RCD) to a system where the wiring was not to a high standard would reduce the consequential damage and/or dangers of any faults in the system.

To say that a safety device cannot be fitted to old, sub standard wiring is short sighted and to be blunt stupid.

Please do not quote Zs and RCD and breaker reaction times being out of spec. The specs are for the IDEAL situation. The person getting an electric shock does NOT have a pre-measured Z value so the reaction time of the RCD there cannot be predicted. But in 99% of the cases it operates and often it operates fast enough to prevent irreversable stopping of the heart.

So fitting an RCD to OLD wiring can still save a life that may not be saved if the accident happened without the RCD fitted.

To use your analogy If a car is known to have poor brakes then the car should be fitted with an effective speed limiter if it is ESSENTIAL the car is used. ( as in it is essentail that occupied houses have electrical services ). Only you would take the car off the road and leave the house without power, lights.

 

[bernardgreen]

Untitled

• JonoPashley
• 22 Mar 2009
• 1

Was that donkey was electrocuted by sub standard wiring ? It that was how death occured then possibly the donkey would be alive today had there been an RCD on the system.

 

[JonoPashley]

no its the dead horse you beat to death and are still continuing to beat..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK lets get sensible shall we, keep on subject and do not use ridiculous and invalid analogies to divert from the specific topic.

There is absolutely no way that I'm going to let you wriggle out of this nonsense:

anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk.

as easily as that.

Forget the wide world where banning all DIY driving would certainly reduce accidents on the roads. In the present world that is not a vote catching idea and the risk of government losing the following election would be too higher a risk to accept.

I'm not asking the Govt if they think it's a good idea, I'm asking you.

After all, you said "anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk".

To use your analogy If a car is known to have poor brakes then the car should be fitted with an effective speed limiter if it is ESSENTIAL the car is used. ( as in it is essentail that occupied houses have electrical services ). Only you would take the car off the road and leave the house without power, lights.

And you'd allow such a car on the roads?

How does that fit with your assertion that "anything that can reduce risk is worth doing even if it only results in a minor reduction in the risk"? If you think that minor risk reductions are worth doing with no regard whatsoever to the cost of them then why would you limit yourself to minor ones when you could go for major ones?

 

[Stoday]

FFS bernardgreen admit you made an error. Grovel before BAS — otherwise we'll be subjected to yet another six pages of trumpeting...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't want him to grovel, FGS, or even admit here that he's wrong, just come to realise that he's wrong.

It's because of engineers with no understanding of cost-benefit analysis that we've got some of the daft new regs in the 17th.

It's because of civil servants with no understanding of cost-benefit analysis that we've got Part P.

The idea that any safety improvement is worthwhile with no regard to cost is dangerous.

 

[bernardgreen]

FFS bernardgreen admit you made an error. Grovel before BAS — otherwise we'll be subjected to yet another six pages of trumpeting...

The error I made was to not make it explicity clear that the comment was valid specifically for the context of domestic wiring that was considered to present a high risk of danger to people or property due to age, workmanship or other reasons.

I did not realise that the logical process of fitting better protective devices to such wiring would be seen as wrong. It is logical to fit them because at some time those protective devices will be fitted but only after the wiring has been replaced when the majority of risks have been removed.


Some qualified electricians do recognise the logic of putting protective devices prior to a full re-wire. They know that it may save a life or prevent a fire to do it. The system cannot be signed off as being safe due to the condition of the wiring but the consequential risks have been reduced at the near zero cost of changing the order of installation to fit the consumer unit ( temporarily to the old wiring ) before re-wiring instead of fitting it after re-wiring.

BAS

And you'd allow such a car on the roads?

There are commercial aircraft flying with known design defects. To avoid any of these defects becoming critical in flight the operating flight parameters for the aircraft have been changed until the defect can be removed.

 

[scousespark]

This post is full of meanderings.

Going back to the OP. The instance quoted was an electrician wanting to do a PIR before a board change. This is not really a Part P issue.

If an electrician changes a board, he or she will have to test the circuits before they can be connected. IMO it's better to do this before the old board is ripped out. If a customer won't accept a PIR before a board change, I walk away.

In the OP, the quote was
<Personally, I think this is cr*p (to put it politely). If they fit the consumer unit correctly, then the house is far safer, even if the circuits reconnected are a bit flakey. >
It is correct to test as part of commissioning. If an injury occurs, the
electrician ends up in court. It is more than his job's worth to energise an unsafe installation.