5amp round 2pin sockets

[Paul_C]

unearthed - obvious danger from a fault if the item being plugged in is not DI..

But if an item requires an earth it should not be fitted with a 2-pin plug which has no such provision.

unshuttered - they're kicking up a fuss over socket blanks that let toddlers stick a straightened paperclip down the tiny hole left.. so a great big gaping hole is an even bigger target..

I don't dispute that, but the issue was about satisfying the legal requirement of "reasonable provision for safety."

The government's own guidelines on the matter state clearly that an installation to a recognized standard of another EU/EEA country will satisfy the building regulations. Of course, we all know that's only in the guide because of the EU, but nevertheless that is the government's stance on the legal position of Part P.

How could it possibly be claimed that the lack of shutters on an old BS socket violates the "reasonable provision" requirement when the government's own guidelines clearly indicate that similar non-shuttered sockets are to be considered acceptable?

If you can poke a paperclip or other metallic object into an old British 5A socket, you can poke it into a Shucko outlet too.

non-polarised - leaves the live connected when switched off on items with single pole switches and if the plug is reversed..

And again, how could that be argued to be any more of a problem when it is the norm in many European countries, and the government's guidelines indicate that following those standards is an acceptable method of complying with the building regulations?

 

[Paul_C]

When does a blank have a hole in it?

Documented here:

http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/

 

[ColJack]

non-polarised - leaves the live connected when switched off on items with single pole switches and if the plug is reversed..

And again, how could that be argued to be any more of a problem when it is the norm in many European countries, and the government's guidelines indicate that following those standards is an acceptable method of complying with the building regulations?

anything plugged in abroad that has a switch on them, have double pole switches on them..
their breakers are all double pole too aren't they?

 

[Paul_C]

anything plugged in abroad that has a switch on them, have double pole switches on them..

Not everything. I have some Moulinex (made in France) kitchen appliances which all have single-pole switches.

their breakers are all double pole too aren't they?

Not sure about everywhere, although I know that's become the norm for new installations in France now. Not that it would make any difference with regard to reversible plugs, since the breaker is ahead of the socket.

 

[ColJack]

made in france dosn't mean destined for the french market...
the french version probably has a DP switch on it..

 

[Paul_C]

made in france dosn't mean destined for the french market...
the french version probably has a DP switch on it..

Definitely the same models sold in France at the time. These are 1970's appliances. Maybe they're fitting DP switches to them now, but they certainly weren't then.

Oh, and in inspecting inside a couple of them some years ago, I remember that at least one had the blue wire from the supply cord connected to the switch, so even if you used a non-reversible plug all wired to standard, the switch would end up in the earthed supply conductor.

 

[ColJack]

oh be fair.. even the french standards change every few years...

 

[Paul_C]

But people don't stop using older appliances every time the standards change.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If, say, somebody wanted a few Shucko sockets around a room for some reason, why do you think it would be unreasonable to run a circuit or two for those outlets in an installation which in other respects is to BS7671?

Why do you think that there would not be a more reasonable solution which does not involve Schuko sockets?

I honestly can't think of a requirement where there wouldn't be.

How would those sockets and the associated circuits be any different from the same sockets and circuits if the entire house had been wired to VDE or some other standard?

It comes down to whether it was reasonable to do it that way.

Because...

Do you think that choosing not to work to the most obvious standard to use in this country purely because you've got a box full of old sockets that no longer comply with the standard, and you want to use them just to save a few quid, would count as reasonable?

If there's a good reason for wanting to deviate from the "obvious" standard, or in fact for wanting to work to some other standard entirely, then yes, it's reasonable.

this:

I have a box of 60 NOS bakelite ones

Any idea if they can be used for anything other than paper weights ?

reads to me as if the only reason the OP wants to use them is that he happens to have a box full.

And no, IMO that is not a good reason.

The government guidance on compliance with Part P doesn't in any way state that failure to comply with the "obvious" standard would result in non-compliance with the requirement for "reasonable provision for safety."

Indeed not, but although you use the term "reasonable provision" you don't seem to be thinking about what that means.

If you want sockets for lighting it is not reasonable to install unsafe ones when it is just as easy to install ones which are safe.

You asked about documenting standards or conventions if they were not ones reasonably expected to be used in this country, in order to satisfy the requirement for anyone maintaining or altering the installation in the future. As P2 was revoked, no such requirement now exists.

Although P2 was removed, the concept of reasonable provision for the safety of people maintaining or altering the installation was added into P1.

And if you deviate from the wiring conventions which people would reasonably expect to find in this country then a reasonable provision for their safety when maintaining or altering it would be to tell them about it.

But how does that make them any less safe?

They are clearly less safe.

The fact that other wiring regulations allow them does not make them more safe.

Since safer designs are:

1) Allowed in the UK

2) Universally available in the UK

3) Cheaper in the UK

then it is not reasonable to use something less safe for non-functional reasons.

 

[ColJack]

aren't french schuko plugs polarised anyway?
they're certainly earthed..
ok so the smaller plugs can go in any way up but they are by definition used only on DI equipment anyway..

 

[Paul_C]

Why do you think that there would not be a more reasonable solution which does not involve Schuko sockets?

I honestly can't think of a requirement where there wouldn't be.

Maybe a workshop where work is carried out regularly on equipment fitted with different plugs for different countries? You could use an array of adapters, but having the correct sockets directly to hand on the wall might be considered more convenient.

That's an aside anyway. Part P does not say that you must make "the most reasonable provision possible," only that you must make "reasonable provision."

The government's own guide clearly indicates that Shucko (or French, Italian etc.) sockets are to be considered as meeting the requirement.

If you want sockets for lighting it is not reasonable to install unsafe ones when it is just as easy to install ones which are safe.

But why are they unsafe? Fair enough, you can argue that shuttered BS546 3-pin or BS1363 sockets offer increased safety because of the shutters, but that doesn't make the non-shuttered sockets any less safe than those European types which the government says meet the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement.

Although P2 was removed, the concept of reasonable provision for the safety of people maintaining or altering the installation was added into P1.

Fair point, I'd forgotten that those provisions were moved into P1.

And if you deviate from the wiring conventions which people would reasonably expect to find in this country then a reasonable provision for their safety when maintaining or altering it would be to tell them about it.

Do you really need to tell somebody about sockets which are clearly visible? They are obviously not current standard, so anyone competent enough to be maintaining or altering the wiring in the first place should also be competent enough to see them and realize that "something is different."

But how does that make them any less safe?

They are clearly less safe.

The fact that other wiring regulations allow them does not make them more safe.

Less safe than what? I acknowledge that shuttered sockets provide an increased level of safety, but that doesn't make them any less safe than the non-shuttered sockets of other standards, which do comply with the "reasonable provision" requirement.

You seem to be arguing that "reasonable provision" means adopting the highest possible standards rather than the minimum acceptable standards of the regulations.

If you took that to the extreme, you could argue that a typical domestic installation which complies fully with BS7671 is not "reasonable provision," since you could do more. We'd all be wiring our homes with rigid metallic conduit, for example.

 

[Paul_C]

aren't french schuko plugs polarised anyway?
they're certainly earthed..
ok so the smaller plugs can go in any way up but they are by definition used only on DI equipment anyway..

Yes, French plugs which provide earthing facilities are non-reversible (although from what I've seen there, they don't seem too fussy about which way round they wire the sockets in the first place).

But this whole business about the possibility of a SP switch in a portable appliance ending up in the "wrong" side of the supply is completely overblown anyway in most cases.

Take something like the Moulinex blender I was referring to earlier. If the switch opens the earthed conductor of the incoming supply then yes, the motor will remain at 240V when it's switched off, but so what? What harm is it going to do?

 

[ColJack]

nothing at all unless it's dropped into a sink..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe a workshop where work is carried out regularly on equipment fitted with different plugs for different countries?

And would that be somewhere within the scope of Part P?

Even if it were, you know damned well that the context of this topic is not a workshop.

Part P does not say that you must make "the most reasonable provision possible," only that you must make "reasonable provision."

So you have two options, lets call them A and B.

A is easier to do than B
A is cheaper to do than B
A is safer to do than B
A has no functional disadvantages compared to B

It is not reasonable to do B.

The government's own guide clearly indicates that Shucko (or French, Italian etc.) sockets are to be considered as meeting the requirement.

The Governments own guide is not the law, and it is wrong in other areas.

In this country, in domestic environments, it is not reasonable to install sockets which are less safe than our "native" ones.

Fair enough, you can argue that shuttered BS546 3-pin or BS1363 sockets offer increased safety because of the shutters, but that doesn't make the non-shuttered sockets any less safe than those European types

So the presence of a feature makes product X safer than product Y which does not have them, but the absence of the feature from product Y does not make it less safe than product X?

How does that work then?

which the government says meet the "reasonable provision for safety" requirement.

That position is wrong - arbitrarily or trivially choosing to use products which do not provide the same level of safety as alternative products which would be reasonable to use does not constitute reasonable provision for safety. How can it when it is an unreasonable decision leading to a decreased level of safety?

Do you really need to tell somebody about sockets which are clearly visible? They are obviously not current standard, so anyone competent enough to be maintaining or altering the wiring in the first place should also be competent enough to see them and realize that "something is different."

Just like everyone who fiddles with a ceiling rose should be competent enough to see what all the conductors do?

Join the real world, and try to grasp the concept that we have laws/regulations/rules which are needed because the reality is that not everybody can be trusted to behave appropriately without them

I acknowledge that shuttered sockets provide an increased level of safety, but that doesn't make them any less safe than the non-shuttered sockets of other standards,

Of course it doesn't - how could a feature which provides an increased level of safety make something less safe than not having the feature?

which do comply with the "reasonable provision" requirement.

See above - that position is wrong - there is no logical argument which can be advanced which can show that it is reasonable to capriciously dispense with safety features.

You seem to be arguing that "reasonable provision" means adopting the highest possible standards rather than the minimum acceptable standards of the regulations.

No - I am arguing that not doing something reasonable and as a result providing a decreased level of safety is an unreasonable act.

If you took that to the extreme, you could argue that a typical domestic installation which complies fully with BS7671 is not "reasonable provision," since you could do more. We'd all be wiring our homes with rigid metallic conduit, for example.

No, because that would be an unreasonable safety improvement.

Quite opposite from an unreasonable safety degradation

 

[Paul_C]

nothing at all unless it's dropped into a sink..

How would it be any different than if you dropped the appliance into the sink with it running? There's is always going to be some wiring live inside the unit, whether you use SP switching in either side or DP switching.