5amp round 2pin sockets

[Paul_C]

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.

If it were a home workshop, then yes, it would covered by Part P. But I acknowledged that this was really a side issue anyway.

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.

Easier & cheaper would depend entirely upon the circumstances, and after installation nobody is going to know about them anyway.

Functional disadvantages could be open to intended use. Not in the specific case which started this thread, perhaps, but we're talking in general.

And you still don't seem to get the point about the supposed safety of A vs. B. The law doesn't say you must choose the absolute safest option possible, only that the provision you make for safety is reasonable.

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

True, but as you well know LABC's seem eager to try and enforce it as if it were in many cases. And if some LABC wanted to try and argue in court that non-shuttered sockets don't constitute "reasonable provision for safety," the argument would be pretty weak when the government's own guidelines clearly contradict that argument.

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

Again, the ODPM, Dept. of Communities, or whatever it's called this year disagrees.

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?

I meant that the absence of shutters on older BS sockets doesn't make them any less safe than non-shuttered European sockets.

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

That position is wrong -

Take it up with the government then.

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

So why don't we now have to stick a label on the consumer unit instructing those people how to wire a ceiling rose to satisfy the reasonable provision clause?

You have to assume a certain level of knowledge, or of common sense that if a person doesn't understand something he will get help.

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?

That's just my point.

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

The conclusion is valid, but we clearly have different ideas about the original premise. Maybe it's something to do with the fact that I've lived places where shutters are not the norm and nobody either officially or unofficially considers it a big deal. Britain really seems to go overboard.

And please explain why it's acceptable to have non-shuttered IEC 320 connectors lying around if non-shuttered wall sockets are "unreasonable."

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

Hang on, a minute ago you were pointing out the reciprocity over improvement versus degradation over shutters, but now you're trying to say they're different?

Do you dispute that metallic conduit would offer an increased level of safety due to various factors? Do you dispute that it is readily available and could be installed for every new domestic job in Britain?

So to use your arguments, is it reasonable to use a "less safe" option (T&E) when that better option exists?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You are missing the entire point of reasonableness, and what is reasonable and unreasonable, and what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable behaviour.

Whether this is deliberate or due to incompetence I cannot say, but the effect is the same - you don't seem to see that if Action B is less safe than Action A, and Action A is as reasonable or approximately as reasonable to do as Action B then choosing to do Action B is unreasonable.

 

[Paul_C]

if Action B is less safe than Action A, and Action A is as reasonable or approximately as reasonable to do as Action B then choosing to do Action B is unreasonable.

And what you don't seem to understand is the concept of meeting an absolute standard of reasonable safety, rather than comparing whether A is more reasonable than B, or vice versa.

If A meets some arbitrary standard of safety, however and to whatever level that may be defined, then it meets that absolute level. The fact that B might provide increased safety in some respect does not mean that A is any less safe than if option B did not exist.

An analogy: You could argue that anti-lock brakes provide an increased level of safety on a car, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to continue to drive a car without ABS, nor does it make the non-ABS brakes any less safe than they were before ABS was on the scene.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[martinxxxxxx]

There are two types of electrical operative.

Those that conscientiously try to install a safe installation in compliance with the regs by using their common sense, logic and experience to achieve a high quality standard of workmanship.

There are others who ignore or are unaware of how to achieve a safe installation and deliberately avoid compliance by the use of twisted logic and a disconnection from common sense. The thought that people could be injured or worse by their shoddy work is immaterial, as long as they get their pound notes.

Is that your opinion?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Oh OK

Well in this meeting No ones.....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And what you don't seem to understand is the concept of meeting an absolute standard of reasonable safety,

There is no such thing.

If A meets some arbitrary standard of safety, however and to whatever level that may be defined, then it meets that absolute level. The fact that B might provide increased safety in some respect does not mean that A is any less safe than if option B did not exist.

No, but it does mean that if there is no good reason to prefer A over B it is unreasonable to choose the less safe option.

An analogy: You could argue that anti-lock brakes provide an increased level of safety on a car, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to continue to drive a car without ABS, nor does it make the non-ABS brakes any less safe than they were before ABS was on the scene.

No, but it does mean that if the law required braking systems to be reasonably safe but did not mandate ABS, and if there was no good reason for car makers not to provide ABS then it would be unreasonable for them to choose not to.

 

[securespark]

so eventually I might have done the whole book..

It feels like I've done a fair chunk of the 14th, 15th & 16th Eds......

 

[Paul_C]

And what you don't seem to understand is the concept of meeting an absolute standard of reasonable safety,

There is no such thing.

If you mean there's no such thing because there's no precise definition of "reasonable," then I would agree.

But you can set an absolute standard which meets some arbitrary, absolute definition of what's considered safe.

Isn't that the way that BS7671 is treated?

No, but it does mean that if the law required braking systems to be reasonably safe but did not mandate ABS, and if there was no good reason for car makers not to provide ABS then it would be unreasonable for them to choose not to.

So do you consider it unreasonable that car manufacturers can still quite legally make and sell cars without ABS, and that it's still perfectly legal to drive such a car?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ABS is not a cost-free feature, and so the situation is not analogous to one where Option A has no significant drawbacks over Option B.

If you persevere with your claims that if 2 options are available, and there is nothing to choose between them except that one is less safe than the other, that it is not unreasonable to choose the less safe one you will only succeed in making yourself look even more barmy than you already do.

 

[Paul_C]

But on the issue of the sockets, you seemed to be arguing that cost didn't come into it.....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because it's a reasonably trivial cost.

The savings made by using old sockets are so insignificant as to be unreasonable.

 

[MrJohnson1]

One might take slight at the suggestion that one is trying to save money by installing these sockets . I am not a farmer with a belt made of bailer twine . I dissliked the waste of these sockets and, as the house I'm renovating is of a period, I thought that it might be possible to use them on a simple circuit in use by myself. I can say that I am aware of the issues raised and understand the concerns. I shall be using sockets from a different box from 1954 , only this time they are shuttered and are three pinned 5 amp =]

Never did I imagine such a question to spark such a reaction . Thank you very much .

 

[Paul_C]

Oh, there'll probably be somebody along to claim that you shouldn't use those sockets either. Imperial threads on the terminals don't meet current British Standards and therefore don't comply with Part P or some such thing.....

Speaking of bailing-wire belts, some of the lash-up wiring around these parts in farms and similar establishments makes arguments over trivial things like shutters seem pretty insignificant by comparison. You're lucky if you can find a farm which doesn't just use twisted & taped wires!