ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not following your line of reasoning.

Yes you are.

If one is questioning the need for a particular regulation, or whether or not that regulation might be flawed in some way either in what it sets out to achieve or in what might happen in practice because of it, then surely that is questioning whether that regulation should exist, at least in its current form? If we are to question whether a regulation is actually needed or being effective in its aims, then naturally in the practical sense that equates to questioning whether it is really that important to observe that particular regulation.

You're not, you are just kicking off against the whole idea of there being regulations.

You would have to be either a mental pygmy or disgustingly mendacious to claim that as more and more people do follow the rules, and for a longer and longer period, that the instances of cables in the wrong places will not diminish and safety will not improve.

Not everybody stops for red traffic lights, and prudent road users do not just assume that an approaching driver will stop before entering his path. That does not mean that we should question whether there should be traffic lights, nor that people should not be advised to obey them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course it matters if we're discussing whether there was (a) any need for the regulation in the first place, (b) whether it might not actually achieve the aim it was intended to address, and (c) whether it might actually have adverse side effects.

All of those concerns will only be prolonged if people like you persist with their utterly shameful denigration of the regulations, not even caring if people die, just so long as they can promote their ideology.

And who says it shall be complied with? Not the law.

No, not the law.

Civilised and intelligent people do.

 

[JohnW2]

None of that matters though. The regulation exists and shall be complied with. Whether you agree with it or not.

Of course it matters if we're discussing whether there was (a) any need for the regulation in the first place, (b) whether it might not actually achieve the aim it was intended to address, and (c) whether it might actually have adverse side effects. And who says it shall be complied with? Not the law.

I'm afraid that I'm with BAS and stillp on this one. Discussing (a), (b) and (c) is fine, as would be attempting to get the regulations changed if that was felt appropriate or desirable. Some people might even think that they could successfully argue that they had complied with the law without complying with the BS7671 regulation in question (although I suspect that would be very difficult in this case) - which, again, would be fair enough for them. However, everyone else is stuck with the fact that the regs are as they are, and unless they really believed that they could argue their case successfully, the only lawful thing they can do (and thus the only thing they can be advised to do) is to comply with the regulation unless/until it is changed.

It's different from some of the other issues we discuss, in relation to which I would be happy to stand up in front of a Court or anyone else and argue that what I had done was safe, hence compliant with the law, despite having failed to comply strictly with some detail requirements of BS7671. In the case of safe zones, so long as many/most are respecting them, I think that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convince a court/whoever that it would be 'just as safe' to not comply.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

I think that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convince a court/whoever that it would be 'just as safe' to not comply.

Surely the question would be not whether it is "just as safe" but whether it is reasonably safe?

On the issue we've debated on RCD protecting one new cable drop when there are already dozens of other unprotected ones in the home, for example, would it be "just as safe" without the RCD protection as with it? No, since the RCD protection does add a degree of safety (how much is open to debate). But didn't we agree that in our opinions it would still meet the legal requirement of being reasonably safe?

 

[bernardgreen]

It is "safe" but is it "safe" from attack by something spcific or "safe" as an area to carry out some process ?

The court could ask " Is this zone safe to put nails in or safe to run cables in ? "

 

[stillp]

Back to the legalities; if you choose to claim that you have used BS7671 to demonstrate compliance with Part P, then you must conform to all its normative requirements. You cannot pick and choose, and still use BS7671 as your proof of compliance with the law.

 

[JohnW2]

Surely the question would be not whether it is "just as safe" but whether it is reasonably safe?

Maybe I should not have used those words, but, as I said, safe zones are very different, almost uniquely different, from everything else we have discussed. With all the other examples, the question of whether what one personally has done to one electrical installation is 'reasonably safe' (i.e. "if reasonable provisions have been made ..."). However, in the case of safe zones, how much the practice (by many people) of adhering to them improves safety (across all installations) is dependent upon how many individuals adhere to the regulation. For that reason, coupled with the fact that we are, by definition, talking about something 'hidden (cannot be determined by simple inspection) I might expect a court (or whoever) to take a different view of this issue than they would of most other issues.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Back to the legalities; if you choose to claim that you have used BS7671 to demonstrate compliance with Part P, then you must conform to all its normative requirements. You cannot pick and choose, and still use BS7671 as your proof of compliance with the law.

Whilst, as you know, I agree with your view here in general, I'm not so sure that point. I think one could use compliance with BS7671 as 'proof' of compliance with the law in relation to only one issue, which you were admitting as a deviation from BS7671, and then 'stand up in court' to present one's argument that one was compliant with the law in relation to that one 'deviating' issue. However, as I've said, I'm far from sure that, in the case of safe zones, one could produce a convincing argument - unlike many other issues of failure of 'full compliance with BS7671', I would certainly not want to be the person trying to argue that it was compliant with the law ('reasonably safe').

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Perhaps you could John, and it might convince some, but it would not convince a court. There is a legal precedent, that states IIRC "compliance with a standard means compliance with all its normative provisions".

I'm sure you can guess how I know!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would certainly not want to be the person trying to argue that it was compliant with the law ('reasonably safe').

You would first need to lose enough morality and decency to be prepared to see people die if it meant your ideological opposition to the whole concept of regulations prevailed.

 

[bernardgreen]

LAst night I was reminded of an instance where strict compliance with BS 7671 did result in damage to property. The metallic water supply pipe was bonded to the MET as per BS 7671. But it was a continuous metal service to a metallic main in the street. So far acceptable. It was when the neutral in the supply network failed and the bond to the water pipe took the neutral current back to the substation. In this particular incident the bonding cable got very hot and damaged other cables but did not ignite anything. ( other similar instances have resulted in fires ).

I agree these are a combination of two un-common events, metallic service pipes and a failed Neutral in the local network but the result is well known. I think BS 7671 should require that when a service pipe is known or suspected of being metallic and extremely low impedance to Ground ( or substation Neutral ) then the installation should NOT be PME but be a TT installation with a Ground electrode installed to ensure that the system continues to have an Earth should the metallic service pipe be replaced by non conducting pipe work.

Until then bonding metallic service pipes to the incoming Neutral should be considered as possibly negligent in view of the known danger of the bond being overloaded following loss of Neutral to the properties in the area. Loss of Neutral to that one property would go un-noticed as the bond cable CCC would ( if to BS 7671 ) be capable of safely carrying the neutral current of that one property.

 

[stillp]

Shouldn't there be 2 earth electrodes though, in case one of them fails?

 

[bernardgreen]

Shouldn't there be 2 earth electrodes though, in case one of them fails?

Possibly, I would, Or keep a bucket of water handy to "water the earth rod"

In most parts of the UK properly designed and installed rods should remain well below 1600 Ohms which is the maximum if the 30 mA RCD is going to trip before the CPC and the earth rod reaches 50 volts above Ground and becomes hazardous. Different matter in sandy dry soil or property built on solid rock.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps you could John, and it might convince some, but it would not convince a court. There is a legal precedent, that states IIRC "compliance with a standard means compliance with all its normative provisions".

That would make sense if (fairly unusually) the law required compliance with the Standard - was that perhaps the situation with the case that established that precedent?

When, as in most situations (and certainly Part P), there is not a legal requirement to comply with the Standard, I would have thought that the person arguing that (s)he had complied with the law would be free to go through all issues, one at a time, in each case producing whatever argument (any argument) they had to support their belief that the work was compliant with the law. If one were doing that, I see no reason why they could not cite 'compliance with BS7671' as their argument in relation to 99 out of 100 issues, and some other argument in relation to the 100th issue.

It would be a pretty silly Court (which I would hope could be successfully challenged by a half-decent lawyer - at appeal if necessary) who would conclude that 99 of the issues were 'adequately/reasonably safe', by virtue of compliance with BS7671, provided that the 100th issue was also compliant, but that those 99 (BS7671-compliant) issues wlould suddenly become 'not adequately/reasonably safe' if the 100th issue were not BS7671-compliant!

... but I should re-iterate that, in the specific context of this discussion ('safe zones'), I would not attempt to produce an argument that work was 'reasonably/adequately safe' if it were not compliant with BS7671 as regards 'safe zones' - so, in this context, the above would be moot.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree these are a combination of two un-common events, metallic service pipes and a failed Neutral in the local network but the result is well known. I think BS 7671 should require that when a service pipe is known or suspected of being metallic and extremely low impedance to Ground ( or substation Neutral ) then the installation should NOT be PME but be a TT installation with a Ground electrode installed to ensure that the system continues to have an Earth should the metallic service pipe be replaced by non conducting pipe work.

Until then bonding metallic service pipes to the incoming Neutral should be considered as possibly negligent in view of the known danger of the bond being overloaded following loss of Neutral to the properties in the area. Loss of Neutral to that one property would go un-noticed as the bond cable CCC would ( if to BS 7671 ) be capable of safely carrying the neutral current of that one property.

Isn't that, basically, why PME is not allowed for petrol stations?