Sticky Thread on 'Electrics Safety'

[JohnW2]

I have been reviewing the ‘sticky’ thread on “Electrics Safety”, most/all of which seems to offer very reasonable and sensible advice.

At least two of the posts (the first two) relate to isolation and ‘testing for dead’. Neither refer to double-pole isolation but I suspect that many, particularly DIYers, will probably isolate the circuit they are working on only by means of the (SP) circuit’s MCB or fuse. However, if ‘we’ were not happy with SP isolation, maybe that would need to be mentioned?

Anyway, remembering that background, both posts recommend undertaking a N-E ‘test for dead’. The first post (‘Safety Tips’) calls for always ‘testing neutral for live both before and after disconnecting or cutting them’ (adding that ‘borrowed neutrals are all too common’), whilst the second post (‘Safe Isolation’, attributed to securespark) advocates undertaking ‘tests for dead’ between L&N, L&E and N&E.

Do folk think that DIYers should be ‘warned’ that, if they are using a test lamp, and SP isolation, undertaking N-E tests is very likely to result in operation of any RCD protecting the circuit (with failure of the lamp to light – albeit that’s not a safety issue if an RCD has operated!).

Even if I wanted to, I obviously could not revise or ‘annotate’ these posts, because they are posts (attributed to user ‘FAQ’). Does someone still posses that identity?

Thoughts/comments?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

At least two of the posts (the first two) relate to isolation and ‘testing for dead’. Neither refer to double-pole isolation but I suspect that many, particularly DIYers, will probably isolate the circuit they are working on only by means of the (SP) circuit’s MCB or fuse. However, if ‘we’ were not happy with SP isolation, maybe that would need to be mentioned?

I suppose it is a matter of how deeply the subject is covered.
A link to Guidance Note 3, if it were possible, would be better.
Failing that I would think recommending opening the main switch would be advisable.

Anyway, remembering that background, both posts recommend undertaking a N-E ‘test for dead’. The first post (‘Safety Tips’) calls for always ‘testing neutral for live both before and after disconnecting or cutting them’ (adding that ‘borrowed neutrals are all too common’), whilst the second post (‘Safe Isolation’, attributed to securespark) advocates undertaking ‘tests for dead’ between L&N, L&E and N&E.

Are you saying confusion may follow because of 'testing for live' and/or 'testing for dead'?
I suppose, semantically, it depends on the outcome you require.

The tested dead borrowed neutral may become live if someone elsewhere flips a switch. Main Switch again?

Do folk think that DIYers should be ‘warned’ that, if they are using a test lamp, and SP isolation, undertaking N-E tests is very likely to result in operation of any RCD protecting the circuit (with failure of the lamp to light – albeit that’s not a safety issue if an RCD has operated!).

They could be warned but again, how far do you want to go?

(attributed to user ‘FAQ’). Does someone still posses that identity?

People often ask that.

 

[JohnW2]

At least two of the posts (the first two) relate to isolation and ‘testing for dead’. Neither refer to double-pole isolation but I suspect that many, particularly DIYers, will probably isolate the circuit they are working on only by means of the (SP) circuit’s MCB or fuse. However, if ‘we’ were not happy with SP isolation, maybe that would need to be mentioned?

I suppose it is a matter of how deeply the subject is covered. A link to Guidance Note 3, if it were possible, would be better. Failing that I would think recommending opening the main switch would be advisable.

I guess that's my point. Neither of those posts actually say what they mean by 'isolation' - i.e. whether just opening an MCB (or removing a fuse) is adequate, or whether it should be advising people, as you say, to use the main switch. I would personally have thought that if we are going to have such a 'sticky' about electrical safety (rather than not having it at all - or, as you say, have it just referring to GN3) that it should at least indicate what one should do to achieve 'safe isolation', shouldn't it?

Anyway, remembering that background, both posts recommend undertaking a N-E ‘test for dead’. The first post (‘Safety Tips’) calls for always ‘testing neutral for live both before and after disconnecting or cutting them’ (adding that ‘borrowed neutrals are all too common’), whilst the second post (‘Safe Isolation’, attributed to securespark) advocates undertaking ‘tests for dead’ between L&N, L&E and N&E.

Are you saying confusion may follow because of 'testing for live' and/or 'testing for dead'?

No I wasn't quibbling about that. In fact, I was not making any particular point in this paragraph at all - it's merely the preamble to the next paragraph

Do folk think that DIYers should be ‘warned’ that, if they are using a test lamp, and SP isolation, undertaking N-E tests is very likely to result in operation of any RCD protecting the circuit (with failure of the lamp to light – albeit that’s not a safety issue if an RCD has operated!).

They could be warned but again, how far do you want to go?

Indeed - but I would suggest that anyone who needs to read those posts (i.e. doesn't know it all already) probably wouldn't be expecting an RCD to trip when they 'obeyed the instructions' and undertook a N-E test with a test lamp - and so, as I said, perhaps should be 'warned'. Of course, if the advice were changed, as above, to 'always use the main switch', then the RCD-tripping issue would go away.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

There is a balance between saying too much so either the DIY guy does not read or if they do they don't under stand and too little so the DIY guy tries to work on a live circuit.

The start has to be is the supply TT or TN and I am not sure even I could be sure what type the supply is without testing never mind the DIY guy.

In real terms only one safe way is turn off main isolator. Even then found some shorted out.

We all have read the comment I am competent can you explain how! Clearly not competent or would not be asking the question.

When working as an electrical engineer I had to train workers in electrical safety and I needed to show not only had I explained what should be done but also they had understood what I had said. The method I used was a questionnaire which I put on the table before I started so they could fill it in as I went through the lecture I didn't want any one to fail. Yet I would get the odd one who would get it completely wrong.

I can't see how we can ever win so to me simple it best.

 

[JohnW2]

There is a balance between saying too much so either the DIY guy does not read or if they do they don't under stand and too little so the DIY guy tries to work on a live circuit.

Indeed. However, another issue is that the moment one starts offering advice on safety, one acquires certainly a moral, and possibly/probably also a legal, duty to give adequate advice - so it may sometimes be 'safer' to offer no such advice all than to offer a little, which could be possibly be regarded as 'inadequate'. It's like the snow on the pavement outside your house - leave it there, then if anyone falls over, it's "their problem". Sweep it up, but not 'adequately', and you could end up getting sued if they fall and injure themselves!

As I have already hinted, IMO it is questionable as to whether we should have 'Safety Tips' and a post about 'Safe Isolation' within the 'Electrics Safety' sticky, neither of which say anything about how that isolation should be achieved. As I wrote to EFLI, the level of knowledge of someone who feels they need to read such material is presumably such that they cannot be assumed to know anything.

The start has to be is the supply TT or TN and I am not sure even I could be sure what type the supply is without testing never mind the DIY guy. ... In real terms only one safe way is turn off main isolator.

There is certainly an argument for that. If there is a consensus (amongst electricians - I am theoretically not qualified to comment) that the 'sticky' should be modified to say that, we would need to find someone ('FAQ'!) able to edit those posts! However, those making the decision might have to consider how reasonable/realistic it is to believe that people would kill their whole installation (with main switch) to work on one circuit at a time of day/year when light was in short supply.

I can't see how we can ever win so to me simple it best.

Yes, simple - but, as I said at the start, if we don't think that we can offer 'safety advice' which is adequate/comprehensive enough, the the 'safest' approach (from the forum's/'our' viewpoint) might perhaps be not to offer any such advice at all. Offering 'adequate' safety advice is obviously the better of those options.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

However, those making the decision might have to consider how reasonable/realistic it is to believe that people would kill their whole installation (with main switch) to work on one circuit at a time of day/year when light was in short supply.

That's the point, though, isn't it.

It would then be up to them.

I can't see how we can ever win so to me simple it best.

Yes, simple - but, as I said at the start, if we don't think that we can offer 'safety advice' which is adequate/comprehensive enough, the the 'safest' approach (from the forum's/'our' viewpoint) might perhaps be not to offer any such advice at all. Offering 'adequate' safety advice is obviously the better of those options.

so, either - NO advice or - perhaps unrealistic 'may contain nuts' advice to avoid any blame.

 

[JohnW2]

However, those making the decision might have to consider how reasonable/realistic it is to believe that people would kill their whole installation (with main switch) to work on one circuit at a time of day/year when light was in short supply.

That's the point, though, isn't it. It would then be up to them.

Indeed, but I suspect/fear that you may well have misunderstood me! When I spoke of "those making the decision", I meant those making the decision as to what the forum's 'safety advice' ('sticky') should say (for those with minimal knowledge), not those undertaking the electrical work! I really don't think that it's reasonable or realistic to expect those who feel the need to read about basic electrical safety to be able to make their decision themselves, do you? It's difficult - I suppose that's an argument for Eric's 'conservative'/ 'cautious' approach of advising that one should isolate with the main switch.

so, either - NO advice or - perhaps unrealistic 'may contain nuts' advice to avoid any blame.

Yep, OR advice which one considers to be 'adequate' ('defensible') - which is clearly the best approach.

In terms of logistics/practicalities, I would be inclined to suggest that 'safety advice' would be best in the wiki (so that it was readily editable!), probably linked to from a one-post 'sticky' (for visibility), and that it probably could benefit from being written 'from scratch' in a properly structured fashion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Mod8]

If you wish to make any alterations to the sticky, please post an updated version of the original post on the end of the sticky thread with a note to explain this is what you've done, and I'll replace the original with the new version.

 

[JohnW2]

If you wish to make any alterations to the sticky, please post an updated version of the original post on the end of the sticky thread with a note to explain this is what you've done, and I'll replace the original with the new version.

Many thanks - if the consensus is that we should take that approach, I (or whoever) will do that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even if I wanted to, I obviously could not revise or ‘annotate’ these posts, because they are posts (attributed to user ‘FAQ’). Does someone still posses that identity?

It was Bahco

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=224734&start=0

Thoughts/comments?

Yes - write a Wiki article and ask the Mods to remove the sticky - none of them should be there.

 

[JohnW2]

We are not going to remove the stickys. They should be there.

If we were to decide that the posts in the 'Electrics Safety' sticky are 'inadequate' (or, even, 'potentially unsafe') and therefore decided to 'replace' them with new wiki page(s), would you then consider removing the posts (maybe with the exception of the one about the MCB recall) in the 'Electrics Safety' sticky and replacing them with just one, containing a link to the new wiki page? That would retain the 'visibility'of the safety information, but would get rid of what might (in that situation) have come to be regarded as inadequate/unsafe information.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Mod 8 - as we already have a problem with people not reading the reference material here, would you please give a logical and reasoned explanation of how that situation is helped by having multiple places to look?

 

[JohnW2]

Mod 8 - as we already have a problem with people not reading the reference material here, would you please give a logical and reasoned explanation of how that situation is helped by having multiple places to look?

As I've already said, I do see some merit in having a sticky entitled "Electrics Safety" (or a slightly more grammatically correct version thereof!) staring people in the face at the top of the message list every time they come to the forum. However, I do think there probably should be a single source of consistent safety information, logically in the wiki - but, as I've suggested, the sticky could then just contain a link to the wiki. That way, there would be two chances that people will get to the information in the wiki!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I've already said, I do see some merit in having a sticky entitled "Electrics Safety" (or a slightly more grammatically correct version thereof!) staring people in the face at the top of the message list every time they come to the forum.

Wiki: PLEASE SEE THE WIKI FOR USEFUL INFORMATION AND VITAL SAFETY ADVICE

• 
  
  

 

[JohnW2]

Wiki: PLEASE SEE THE WIKI FOR USEFUL INFORMATION AND VITAL SAFETY ADVICE

Maybe. I'll leave others to decided about the 'forum mechanics'!

Kind Regards, John