Has BS7671 lost its way?

Paul_C · 5 Aug 2011

Are the new editions and various amendments issued over the last years necessary? Are they adding anything of real benefit to the guidelines of British Standard electrical practice? Has the level of safety really improved to any significant degree?

Or has it become a case of change for the sake of change, to try and justify the existence on committees of those who decide upon the changes, perhaps influenced by pressure from manufacturers and others with vested interests in making work and profits for themselves?

Discuss.....

JohnW2 · 5 Aug 2011

Paul_C said:
Are the new editions and various amendments issued over the last years necessary? Are they adding anything of real benefit to the guidelines of British Standard electrical practice? Has the level of safety really improved to any significant degree?
Or has it become a case of change for the sake of change, to try and justify the existence on committees of those who decide upon the changes, perhaps influenced by pressure from manufacturers and others with vested interests in making work and profits for themselves?
Discuss.....

A short answer ... Given the rate of advance of the technologies and products (and, indeed, of society's attitudes to risk), I think we would be rightfully critical if new editions of 'the regs' appeared much less frequently than the 'once every 12-13 years' average we've seen over the last 60 years or so. The intervening Amendemnts are probably far more questionable, unless there is a specific reason (e.g. metrication, emergence of major new technologies etc.).

Kind Regards, John.

holmslaw · 5 Aug 2011

Paul_C said:
Or has it become a case of change for the sake of change, to try and justify the existence on committees of those who decide upon the changes, perhaps influenced by pressure from manufacturers and others with vested interests in making work and profits for themselves?

Thats about the strength of it.

And they can keep the racket going forever by needlessly adding bits from other British Standards. For example, in the 17th they added 'safety services', but the joke is their interpretation conflicts with other relevant British Standards.

The regs are also over complicated because the authors want to make low voltage engineering a mysterious science to boost their own egos. For example this piece of nonsense View media item 30417 and this one View media item 30385.

ban-all-sheds · 5 Aug 2011

Ah - good old holmslaw - never one to miss an opportunity to say that he doesn't understand the Wiring Regulations.

I suppose it helps people to understand why he tries to rubbish them - they make him feel inadequate.

So they've got something right, then.

holmslaw · 5 Aug 2011

ban-all-sheds said:
Ah - good old holmslaw - never one to miss an opportunity to say that he doesn't understand the Wiring Regulations.

I suppose it helps people to understand why he tries to rubbish them - they make him feel inadequate.

So they've got something right, then.

Ah - good old BAS, never misses an opportunity to be nasty, and adds nothing of any use to the thread.

Some of the regulations are complete rubbish, incomprehensible and downright ridiculous. That is why me and others working on some of the most important installations in this country have to make our own regulations, they're called specifications.

Those two calculations are complete nonsense because both of them use factors that are variable, therefore the answer will be variable and bear no relationship to reality. One of them uses the nominal voltage of 230 and is therefore generally meaningless, and the other introduces a figure of .481 into a square root calculation. I mean what would happen if someone mistakenly used a figure of .482 or even .483, will we all go up in flames.

BAS, Why have you been banned from so many forums?

ban-all-sheds · 7 Aug 2011

holmslaw said:
Some of the regulations are complete rubbish, incomprehensible and downright ridiculous.

Some of the regulations are incomprehensible to you, holmslaw, to you.

Not everybody labours under the same handicaps as you.

holmslaw · 7 Aug 2011

ban-all-sheds said:
holmslaw said:

Some of the regulations are complete rubbish, incomprehensible and downright ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Some of the regulations are incomprehensible to you, holmslaw, to you.

Not everybody labours under the same handicaps as you.

Mr Nasty with nothing of substance to contribute has turned up. I'll make a deal with you and your IET mates. I will never criticise them again if you can logically explain the following:

Why is the corner of a room a safe cable zone, when in practically every house in this country, now and for ever more, there will be skirting, cornice, kitchen unit, bedroom unit fixings that will always be in the 150mm safe zone.

Why is it unsafe to lay a cable flat on the surface of a floor behind a skirting board.

On a domestic rewire, why is it necessary to remove every other floor board so that cables can be clipped to joists to avoid someone banging in a 60mm nail from below. Rather than just lay on the plaster board and only remove 2 or 3 boards per room.

Explain the total bollerx of reg 526.8, how does anyone know what mutiwire, fine wire and very fine wire means.

You can also explain why those bollerx calcs above have any meaning.

I'm waiting for you to win the argument, come on, logical answers only, and I will apologise and never criticise you or the IET again.

ban-all-sheds · 8 Aug 2011

holmslaw said:
Why is the corner of a room a safe cable zone, when in practically every house in this country, now and for ever more, there will be skirting, cornice, kitchen unit, bedroom unit fixings that will always be in the 150mm safe zone.

Another of your personal areas of confusion, which you have elaborated before.

You've made it abundantly clear in the past that this is beyond your ability to understand, so it would be futile of me to try.

Why is it unsafe to lay a cable flat on the surface of a floor behind a skirting board.

Ditto.

On a domestic rewire, why is it necessary to remove every other floor board so that cables can be clipped to joists to avoid someone banging in a 60mm nail from below. Rather than just lay on the plaster board and only remove 2 or 3 boards per room.

Is it?

Explain the total bollerx of reg 526.8, how does anyone know what mutiwire, fine wire and very fine wire means.

I would suggest that anyone who needs to know contact the IET and ask them, as they wrote it, rather than repeatedly ask rhetorical questions about it on an internet forum.

That is, of course, if they were genuinely interested in knowing rather than interested in disparaging a few regulations which they didn't like in order to support their position of being opposed to the existence of the entire set of regulations.

You can also explain why those bollerx calcs above have any meaning.

How can I possibly explain them to someone who has repeatedly made it clear that the mathematics involved is beyond him?

holmslaw · 8 Aug 2011

ban-all-sheds said:
holmslaw said:

Why is the corner of a room a safe cable zone, when in practically every house in this country, now and for ever more, there will be skirting, cornice, kitchen unit, bedroom unit fixings that will always be in the 150mm safe zone.

Click to expand...

Another of your personal areas of confusion, which you have elaborated before.

You've made it abundantly clear in the past that this is beyond your ability to understand, so it would be futile of me to try.

Why is it unsafe to lay a cable flat on the surface of a floor behind a skirting board.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

On a domestic rewire, why is it necessary to remove every other floor board so that cables can be clipped to joists to avoid someone banging in a 60mm nail from below. Rather than just lay on the plaster board and only remove 2 or 3 boards per room.

Click to expand...

Is it?

Explain the total bollerx of reg 526.8, how does anyone know what mutiwire, fine wire and very fine wire means.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that anyone who needs to know contact the IET and ask them, as they wrote it, rather than repeatedly ask rhetorical questions about it on an internet forum.

That is, of course, if they were genuinely interested in knowing rather than interested in disparaging a few regulations which they didn't like in order to support their position of being opposed to the existence of the entire set of regulations.

You can also explain why those bollerx calcs above have any meaning.

Click to expand...

How can I possibly explain them to someone who has repeatedly made it clear that the mathematics involved is beyond him?

So the most pernickety argumentative person on this forum has'nt got any argument against my comments, just more insults and nastiness.

ban-all-sheds · 8 Aug 2011

As a wise man once said - it is difficult to change by reason opinions not arrived at by that method in the first place.

You simply do not want to accept what the Wiring Regulations say. Your own signature says that only fools comply with them. You've repeatedly said that you don't understand those equations.

And so on.

You neither like nor understand the Wiring Regulations - that is an undeniable fact, and you seek out opportunities to discredit them because of your dislike and confusion.

There is absolutely no point in trying to reason with you. Nothing I could say would make a blind bit of difference, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.

You'll no doubt claim that as some sort of victory, and hold it up as proof that you're right, but that would just be one more thing you're wrong about.

holmslaw · 8 Aug 2011

ban-all-sheds said:
As a wise man once said - it is difficult to change by reason opinions not arrived at by that method in the first place.

You simply do not want to accept what the Wiring Regulations say. Your own signature says that only fools comply with them. You've repeatedly said that you don't understand those equations.

And so on.

You neither like nor understand the Wiring Regulations - that is an undeniable fact, and you seek out opportunities to discredit them because of your dislike and confusion.

There is absolutely no point in trying to reason with you. Nothing I could say would make a blind bit of difference, so I'm not going to waste my time trying.

You'll no doubt claim that as some sort of victory, and hold it up as proof that you're right, but that would just be one more thing you're wrong about.

Still nothing of any use, just a few more lies, pathetic.

ban-all-sheds · 8 Aug 2011

I'm not going to play your pointless game, holmslaw.

And nothing I have said above is a known untruth told in order to deceive, so once again you've shown that you don't even understand the meaning of a common English word.

holmslaw · 8 Aug 2011

ban-all-sheds said:
I'm not going to play your pointless game, holmslaw.

And nothing I have said above is a known untruth told in order to deceive, so once again you've shown that you don't even understand the meaning of a common English word.

BAS, you're a proven and self admitted liar.

ebee · 8 Aug 2011

Well so far as "Safe Zones" go.

I must admit the corner One I do not Like.
The top of wall below ceiling one I`m not too keen on either.
The horizontals I'm Ok with providing its obvious that two accessories may have cables between them .
The Verticals are the only ones I am totally happy with in just about all circumstances.

But that's just me and my fads.

Oh and the or exceeding 50mm bit I'm not too happy about either.

ban-all-sheds · 8 Aug 2011

Does your unhappiness lead you to regard the entirety of the regulations as worthless, to believe that only fools comply with them, and to be driven to mount a long-running campaign of disparagement?

diynot

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

Has BS7671 lost its way?

Paul_C

holmslaw

holmslaw

holmslaw

holmslaw

holmslaw

holmslaw

Similar threads