ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[ban-all-sheds]

The more damaging effect of prolonged shocks at the higher current levels was known for decades before the BS7671 committee decided to rule that all sockets should have 30mA protection in 2008. Why do think the 5mA level for GFCI protection here was chosen in the 1960's when the devices were being developed in the 1960's?

Why do you think that ignoring the advice in the Wiring Regulations and sticking with a now deprecated level of protection more likely to result in damaging effects counts as reasonable behaviour?

Yes, incremental improvements in safety. Just because you make something slightly safer, that doesn't mean that it was not reasonably safe before - By using what any reasonable person would understand by the term "reasonable," that is.

What's considered reasonable changes.

That's the way it works.

I've not said that people should not consider the new standards because the old ones were good enough.

I've never suggested that a 100mA RCD provides the same level of protection as a 30mA device. What I've said is that I would still consider the sockets so protected to be "reasonably safe."

I'm sure there are plenty of others, who while recognizing that 30mA protection provides an increased level of safety over 100mA, still regard 100mA as being reasonably safe.

But not you?

The fact that they've recommended 30mA for new installations does not, in itself, mean that they regard a lesser level of protection as unsafe.

You don't agree with them?

If it's considered safe enough for continued use without coding indicating some sort of remedial action required to remove potential danger (not just "recommend improvement") then it must be reasonably safe. If it's reasonably safe for continued use in an existing installation then it is equally safe if you installed it today.

I've said that it should be taken in perspective, and that in the cases of electrical work we're talking about, there is no obligation (legally speaking) to adopt the new standard if you're happy with the level of protection provided by the old one.

One's own happiness is irrelevant when things change.

That's the way it works.

In the case we're talking about, a decision which has been made by one particular committee of one particular organization, which is not legally binding on anybody, and for which even the committee responsible for the decision has indicated that it still doesn't consider work done to the old standard to be in any way dangerous.

In the case we are talking about they consider it too dangerous to be allowed to continue to be used in new instances.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Neither does your "unique" interpretation of what "reasonable" means actually make it illegal just because you say so. As you will produce nothing to support your interpretation, people can draw their own conclusions.

It means reasonable. Do you own a dictionary, and do you know how to use it?

1. A is not as safe as B.
   
2. An authoritative source tells you not to do A, but to B instead.
   
3. To do B would be reasonable.

Given those, choosing to ignore an authoritative direction and to deliberately do something less safe than something safer and reasonable to do is not reasonable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but 'change for the sake of change', or 'change because it is theoretically/technically possible' (regardless of 'need') are neither sensible nor appropriate. If changes are made, on behalf of society, in the name of reducing risks for everyone in that society, it behoves those making those changes to ascertain that society actually wants those changes to be made 'on their behalf', rather than their being content with the current level of safety.

Not necessarily.

In fact, far from necessarily.

We all know that a strictly-enforced blanket 20mph speed limit would result in a very marked reduction in road casualties, but we equally know that society does not want that.

Maybe not in that case, but there are situations where the position has to be "Well *^"*&%())*#@ you, society, that is what you are getting."

 

[PBC_1966]

If it's considered safe enough for continued use without coding indicating some sort of remedial action required to remove potential danger (not just "recommend improvement") then it must be reasonably safe. If it's reasonably safe for continued use in an existing installation then it is equally safe if you installed it today.

No, because things change.

That's the way it works.

So according to you, of two identical installations one could be considered reasonably safe because it was done yesterday, and the other isn't because it was done today. And what if you came upon one of those installations and - as would be likely to be the case - had no idea on which of those two days the work was done? How are you going to decide whether you consider it reasonably safe or not, according to your interpretation of the term?

Within the construct of BS7671 itself, no, that's fine. But that's not the issue. You're trying to claim that it's illegal

It is.

The law makes it so.

So you keep saying, but you won't provide any sort of citation to substantiate your claim.

If it is reasonable to do A, and you do something less safe then you have not been reasonable in your provision for safety. If you have no good reason for not doing A then your refusal to do it is unreasonable.

But now you're qualifying your statement with "if you have no good reason for not doing" whatever it is. What if I do have a good reason?

But that doesn't alter the fact that you seem to have no idea how the term "reasonable provision" would be applied in practice. Just because it might not be unreasonable to do A, when A offers a slightly increased level of safety over B, that doesn't automatically make it unreasonable to do B.

Why do you think that they contain rules which go so far above and beyond what is reasonably safe that you are morally justified in taking no notice of them and telling other people to take no notice of them?

Because in some cases they are rules which clearly have no measurable bearing on safety whatsoever, at least not unless we take into account the most outlandish situation of somebody who is so incompetent he shouldn't be touching electrical equipment in the first place. One very trivial example - Earth sleeving. Are you seriously going to suggest that if you install an accessory without putting sleeving on the earths that the result is not still reasonably safe?

Find me where BS 7671 recognises that new or special hazards introduced by using 30mA RCDs instead of 100mA ones require a warning notice to be displayed.

Obviously it doesn't, but that's not the point.

They [10mA RCD's] are easily obtainable, contrary to what you tried to claim earlier.

No they are not.

Then you present a Google shopping screenshot showing thousands of matches. Interesting way to try and argue that they can't be easily obtained.

As for the regulations not requiring them [10mA RCD's], what does that have to do with it if you're trying to argue about morals?

A great deal.

So you're getting on some moral crusade but then think that a set of regulations written by a committee of one particular organization overrides the moral principle you're trying to put forward?

30mA is what the regulations deem acceptable. To deliberately do something less safe, and to tell others to do something less safe is wrong.

And 10mA would be safer. As, contrary to what you claim, 10mA devices can be obtained very easily, what would be unreasonable about using them in preference to 30mA? You are therefore saying that it's all right to do something less safe by using 30mA because that's all the regulations demand, which is wrong.

Why do you think your argument applies when going from 100 to 30mA protection, but not from 30 to 10mA?

So that is what is authoritatively regarded as reasonably safe.

But by your argument, it can't be reasonable provision for safety if it would be reasonable to do something which provides an increased level of safety. You can't try and use your interpretation of what "reasonable" means in the one case and not the other.

I have backed it up.

No, you have stated your interpretation of what "reasonable provision for safety" means. You have not backed up your opinion with anything which supports it.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but 'change for the sake of change', or 'change because it is theoretically/technically possible' (regardless of 'need') are neither sensible nor appropriate. If changes are made, on behalf of society, in the name of reducing risks for everyone in that society, it behoves those making those changes to ascertain that society actually wants those changes to be made 'on their behalf', rather than their being content with the current level of safety.

Not necessarily. In fact, far from necessarily.

Perhaps not always necessarily, but I believe that one has to think very very carefully before just accepting the concept of 'control' imposed by government/ authorities/ whoever which allegedly is (i.e. 'they' believe to be) 'in the interests of society' but which 'society' does not actually want (or necessarily even approve of, or 'like'). That is, IMO, a potentially very slippery slope.

In context, the matter of 'vested interests' has already been mentioned. Can you really believe that (even if it were arguably a very 'reasonable' position to take) the IET+BSI would ever say something along the lines of "It is our opinion that we have reached a point at which compliance with the current version of BS7671 is achieving a level of electrical safety (i.e. number of electrically-related deaths/injuries) which is acceptable to society and which, if maintained, will be acceptable for many years to come. We therefore propose that, unless evidence emerges in the meantime of a marked increase in electrically-related casualties, or unless required because of the emergence of major conceptually-new technologies, will will not issue any further Amendments to, or new editions of, BS7671 for the next 20 (or 25, or whatever) years"??

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So according to you, of two identical installations one could be considered reasonably safe because it was done yesterday, and the other isn't because it was done today. And what if you came upon one of those installations and - as would be likely to be the case - had no idea on which of those two days the work was done? How are you going to decide whether you consider it reasonably safe or not, according to your interpretation of the term?

The question is, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise, is whether something is still considered reasonably safe, or safe enough, for it too be allowed to be continued to be installed.

Things change, that's the way it works.

So you keep saying, but you won't provide any sort of citation to substantiate your claim.

But now you're qualifying your statement with "if you have no good reason for not doing" whatever it is. What if I do have a good reason?

You don't.

Simply not liking the fact that things change is not a good reason. Things change, that's the way it works.

But that doesn't alter the fact that you seem to have no idea how the term "reasonable provision" would be applied in practice. Just because it might not be unreasonable to do A, when A offers a slightly increased level of safety over B, that doesn't automatically make it unreasonable to do B.

Of course it does.

Because in some cases they are rules which clearly have no measurable bearing on safety whatsoever, at least not unless we take into account the most outlandish situation of somebody who is so incompetent he shouldn't be touching electrical equipment in the first place. One very trivial example - Earth sleeving. Are you seriously going to suggest that if you install an accessory without putting sleeving on the earths that the result is not still reasonably safe?

Yes, I am.

There is no REASON to not sleeve the earths, and therefore your action in not sleeving them is WITHOUT REASON.

i.e. it is UNREASONABLE. So what you did does not constitute REASONABLE provision.

Obviously it doesn't, but that's not the point.

I'm afraid it very much is when you try to draw parallels with situations where a warning is required.

Then you present a Google shopping screenshot showing thousands of matches. Interesting way to try and argue that they can't be easily obtained.

There are fewer of them.

They are not therefore obtainable to the same extent as 30mA ones therefore it would be unreasonable to insist that they be used when the authoritative guidance is that they are not reasonably required.

But it is interesting to note how unprincipled you are. You aren't saying that I should be recommending 10mA protection because you think it's a good idea, you are just trying to score points. I am arguing for something I believe in - you are just arguing against things because you cannot stand the way they are.

So you're getting on some moral crusade but then think that a set of regulations written by a committee of one particular organization overrides the moral principle you're trying to put forward?

It's not a question of overriding anything - the real moral issue here is your lack of it.

And 10mA would be safer. As, contrary to what you claim, 10mA devices can be obtained very easily, what would be unreasonable about using them in preference to 30mA?

There are fewer of them.

They are not therefore obtainable to the same extent as 30mA ones therefore it would be unreasonable to insist that they be used when the authoritative guidance is that they are not reasonably required.

You are therefore saying that it's all right to do something less safe by using 30mA because that's all the regulations demand, which is wrong.

No it isn't.

What is wrong is you telling people to do things which are no longer considered reasonably safe to do.

Why do you think your argument applies when going from 100 to 30mA protection, but not from 30 to 10mA?

Because 100mA is no longer considered reasonably safe to do. 30mA is.

But by your argument, it can't be reasonable provision for safety if it would be reasonable to do something which provides an increased level of safety. You can't try and use your interpretation of what "reasonable" means in the one case and not the other.

I'm not.

There is authoritative guidance on what is reasonable. It is not reasonable, for no reasonable reason, to do what is no longer authoritatively regarded as reasonable and to not do what is.

you have stated your interpretation of what "reasonable provision for safety" means. You have not backed up your opinion with anything which supports it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Perhaps not always necessarily, but I believe that one has to think very very carefully before just accepting the concept of 'control' imposed by government/ authorities/ whoever which allegedly is (i.e. 'they' believe to be) 'in the interests of society' but which 'society' does not actually want (or necessarily even approve of, or 'like'). That is, IMO, a potentially very slippery slope.

And so is the other side of that coin - giving society what they want simply because they want it.

In context, the matter of 'vested interests' has already been mentioned. Can you really believe that (even if it were arguably a very 'reasonable' position to take) the IET+BSI would ever say something along the lines of "It is our opinion that we have reached a point at which compliance with the current version of BS7671 is achieving a level of electrical safety (i.e. number of electrically-related deaths/injuries) which is acceptable to society and which, if maintained, will be acceptable for many years to come. We therefore propose that, unless evidence emerges in the meantime of a marked increase in electrically-related casualties, or unless required because of the emergence of major conceptually-new technologies, will will not issue any further Amendments to, or new editions of, BS7671 for the next 20 (or 25, or whatever) years"??

Probably not.

I'd be interested to know from stillp if standards organisations do have, or can be made to have, a duty to justify new/changed provisions, and if not, why not, and how can society rectify that?

 

[JohnW2]

And so is the other side of that coin - giving society what they want simply because they want it.

It obviously depends upon one's personal viewpoint, but I personally feel that, if you regard both as 'evils', then the greater of the two evils is to have a regime impose upon an entire population various restrictions, requirements and regulations which (most of) the individuals making up that society do not want.

Probably not. I'd be interested to know from stillp if standards organisations do have, or can be made to have, a duty to justify new/changed provisions, and if not, why not, and how can society rectify that?

Yes, it would be interesting. I can guess what some of the 'getouts' may be - e.g. that there are 'public consultation' processes involved (even if, in practice, they are essentially ineffective in preventing change) and that (with a relatively small number of legislated exceptions) no-one is forced to comply with a Standard if they don't want to. However, the corresponding broader questions relate to legislation, rather than Standards.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It obviously depends upon one's personal viewpoint, but I personally feel that, if you regard both as 'evils', then the greater of the two evils is to have a regime impose upon an entire population various restrictions, requirements and regulations which (most of) the individuals making up that society do not want.

It also depends on the subject.

For example imposing some unwanted electrical regulations is one thing - reintroducing capital punishment because people want it is quite another.

 

[JohnW2]

It also depends on the subject. For example imposing some unwanted electrical regulations is one thing - reintroducing capital punishment because people want it is quite another.

I was waiting for that one - since it is the example always wheeled out in such discussions. I wonder, however, how those who do so would feel if it were the other way around - with the government wanting to reintroduce capital punishment (or public flogging for minor driving offences, or state-imposed eugenics or whatever) despite the fact that 'the people' didn't want it?

You may be able to think of, and possibly even justify, a few 'exceptions', but my general point remains in relation to the vast majority of "subjects".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Poll tax?

 

[stillp]

I'd be interested to know from stillp if standards organisations do have, or can be made to have, a duty to justify new/changed provisions, and if not, why not, and how can society rectify that?

At the International level (IEC) it is usual to list, in the Foreword of a new edition of a standard, a summary of the major technical changes with respect to the previous edition. No justification is required, but the Project Team / Working Group may provide an explanation if they feel it necessary.

In practice, standards are reviewed, usually on a 4-year cycle, and will be updated to reflect the current state of the art.

 

[JohnW2]

Poll tax?

Possibly! It's just conceivable that the upcoming 'EU Referendum' will prove to be a very rare example of a case in which the 'wishes' of the public prevail over what (a majority of) government believe would actually be best for them. However, the problem with that one is that most people (like me!) will be voting about something we don't really understand, so goodness know what will be the true basis of whatever 'wish' the electorate express!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

In practice, standards are reviewed, usually on a 4-year cycle, and will be updated to reflect the current state of the art.

If "the art" has changed significantly, that might be fair enough - but what we have really been discussing is a decision that something which was regarded as 'acceptably safe for society' in the past is no longer acceptably safe (for new installations) for them now - i.e. a change in view as to what degree of safety is 'acceptable to' (or 'required by') society, rather than anything to do with technological advances.

Quite apart from questions about what is 'reasonable', it seems to be an awful, and probably unfair and inappropriate, burden to put on the shoulders of a dozen or four people, mainly technical experts, to expect them to make a decision as to what level of safety (or additional safety) 60 odd million people want to have.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

That's not their job. Their job is to write a standard that adequately reflects the current state of technical progress in achieving a safe installation. The do not have to decide anything about what 'society' thinks is acceptable.

 

[PBC_1966]

And as I see it, the rate at which the overall level of safety has increased is not a linear progression but an exponential one where as time goes on the changes over a given period of time are having less and less real effect on improving safety. There was a far bigger improvement from, say, 1935 to 1955 than from 1955 to 1975, and in turn the improvement between 1975 & 1995 was significantly less than that from 1955 to 1975.

Irrelevant.

Things are still changing.

That's the way it still works.

I think it's very relevant once we reach the point of diminishing returns. As John has pointed out, when injuries and fatalities from electrical power in the home are at such extremely low rates (some of which, as he noted, might well be down to stupidity, simple neglect, or some other thing which no amount of regulation short of banning electrical power would eliminate), why can we not just say, "That's enough for the time being. We won't be adding any more requirements unless and until something comes along which suggests we need to," and do that?

What you feel is irrelevant. Your feelings are not considered in the regulations, nor do they give you or other people exemption from the law.

And your feelings and opinions about what you might like to be the law do not make it so, so from the point of view of others dong electrical work they are irrelevant.

That's rather different, and is essentially an arbitrary decision.

Arbitrary or not, it's a decision which has been made.

In this case, one which has been made by the committee representing one particular private organization to be added to a standard with which nobody is required to comply by law. You seem to keep deliberating forgetting that part.

Indeed, the figures are so low that I suspect the only way to reduce them any further would probably be to ban the use of electrical power in the home altogether!

Quite so - and even if one did that, the reduction in domestic 'casualties' would probably be more than cancelled by an increase in casualties related to the use of gas and oil etc.,

I'm certain that they would be, not to mention the other fatalities which could result from not having power available for other things, such as medical equipment.

Yes - maybe too close to what is 'theoretically/technologically possible', but nowhere near close enough to cost-benefit considerations (in the widest sense) and sociological 'needs'/'wishes'.

Yes, that's what I was suggesting. I do also wonder whether as time goes on the risk compensation factor plays a part which completely negates any slight increase in safety (to society overall) that the extra provision of RCD's provide. Some people really have been left with the idea that the RCD is some "magic" device which if present will prevent electrocution no matter what. Do some people then take more chances because of that erroneous belief?

Yes, but 'change for the sake of change', or 'change because it is theoretically/technically possible' (regardless of 'need') are neither sensible nor appropriate. If changes are made, on behalf of society, in the name of reducing risks for everyone in that society, it behoves those making those changes to ascertain that society actually wants those changes to be made 'on their behalf', rather than their being content with the current level of safety.

We all know that a strictly-enforced blanket 20mph speed limit would result in a very marked reduction in road casualties, but we equally know that society does not want that.

Indeed - Imposing a blanket 20mph speed limit and enforcing it rigorously would save many more lives than probably every single change in the Wiring Regs. in the last half century. You want to really do something about saving lives? Ban the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes and related products.