Yes, it depends on which side of the matter - installer or user - the common sense should be.
Pendant and shade not suitable for bathrooms?
- Thread starter Glastoun
- Start date
Sponsored Links
True, but many regulations appear to be based on consideration of the fact that users may not exercise (or may to be able to exercise) an ideal amount of common sense. Indeed, if one were going to rely heavily on user common sense, one could perhaps argue that there is no need for bathroom Zones (or for the restriction in relation to sockets in bathrooms) at all.
Kind Regards, John
Or, conversely, that the zones should not end just 600mm. from the bath.
As for sockets - and Europe, there apparently is no need for the restriction. Not dropping like flies here.
As for sockets - and Europe, there apparently is no need for the restriction. Not dropping like flies here.
That, indeed, is a 'converse' point (and another would be that the zones might extend all the way up to, and including, the ceiling). However, as I said, if one was going to rely heavily on 'user common sense', one probably would not have 'zones' at all.
Quite so. Many of our electrical regs do seem to be designed to address incredibly small risks ... risks far smaller than those which exist (and generally are 'accepted') in relation to many other aspects of life.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Common scene does not account for unplanned or even planned accidents.
So because a risk is small, you are suggesting there is no need to reduce it further?
It depends whether you consider sticking your finger in a lamp-holder while having a bath a "risk".
It's equally not an "accident".
Are the regulations written to try and prevent crass stupidity?
It's equally not an "accident".
Are the regulations written to try and prevent crass stupidity?
Agreed, but what about inadvertently splashing water on a socket-outlet close to a bath?
Slightly off-topic, I once stayed in a hotel in Scotland where the washbasin was immediately next to the head of the bath, and above the washbasin was a consumer unit, so the only thing between the shower and CU was the shower curtain...
We've been over that ground many times before before. In the real world, there is (IMO) a limit to how far one can/should sensibly go in reducing risks which are already extremely small, particularly when there are far greater risks which would be more usefully addressed within the context of available resources.So because a risk is small, you are suggesting there is no need to reduce it further?
In any event, you seem to be 'looking for something to criticise', since the one sentence of mine you jumped on was part of a series of exchanges in which I was essentially 'justifying' the fact that regulations took account of the possible lack of 'user common sense', and actually suggested that the regs were surprisingly non-cautious in their definition of bathroom zones (i.e. they certainly could have reduced the {very small} risk further by using more demanding definitions).
Kind Regards, John
If that happened, how likely do you really think it is that any harm would come to anyone?
Kind Regards, John
I think the three metre rule is because hair driers, etc. come with two metre flex so the worry is not actually the socket being close to the bath per se.
Presumably Europeans must be more careful and not drop things.
Yet we are supposed to be harmonized and have the same regulations.
I do think the regulations (not just electrical) in Britain are getting to the stage of thinking up new things for job preservation.
As I have said before, the motion for the next Council meeting is:
Everything is satisfactory; the people don't need us any more.
Presumably Europeans must be more careful and not drop things.
Yet we are supposed to be harmonized and have the same regulations.
I do think the regulations (not just electrical) in Britain are getting to the stage of thinking up new things for job preservation.
As I have said before, the motion for the next Council meeting is:
Everything is satisfactory; the people don't need us any more.
That could well be part of it.
However, I also think that (is this a British thing?) the people who come up with these regulations are often of a similar mindset to stillp, and sincerely believe that it is 'right', and a laudable service to society, to make attempts to further reduce any risk, even if it is already incredibly small.
Kind Regards, John
In a way.
That nothing can be done to reduce road accident fatalities does not mean nothing should be done to reduce other dangers but it's like you have said before, the cost of everyone fitting RCDs has been generally, if not wasted, then unnecessary - unless it happens to be your loved one who(m?) was saved.
Bearing in mind the 15th edition and bonding windows, it begs the question "Do they know what they are doing?" and/or "Why hasn't the latest regulation been brought in until now?".
That nothing can be done to reduce road accident fatalities does not mean nothing should be done to reduce other dangers but it's like you have said before, the cost of everyone fitting RCDs has been generally, if not wasted, then unnecessary - unless it happens to be your loved one who(m?) was saved.
Bearing in mind the 15th edition and bonding windows, it begs the question "Do they know what they are doing?" and/or "Why hasn't the latest regulation been brought in until now?".
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- 453
- Country
who (subject of passive verb)
Didn't sound right.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
