All-RCBO CUs - because we can?

[JohnW2]

I'll put a spanner in the works by saying that the people who write the regulations just appear to have an attitude that that they can write whatever they want with no regard to the expense being justified or not. Two billion pounds could save a lot more lives if spent in other areas; e.g. the roads. If they are that important, why not make them statutory?

Exactly - but I wouldn't really call that 'putting a spanner in the works', since it's really the same point I was making. Mind you, it's not justthose who write regulations - we see plenty of electricians and others, here and elsewhere, convinced that 'all-RCBO' is the only way to go - but, as I asked, is that "just because we can" (and thereby save a little inconvenience)?

Also, is the creeping coverage of a bit more regulation with every edition. Firstly, RCDs were a requirement for sockets likely to be used for outside tools - fair enough, I suppose - but then it is for concealed cables - which, in effect covers just about everything unless installed intentionally to negate this, then all sockets - even upstairs in wooden-floored buildings, then lighting circuits are included.

Indeed. I imagine that many/most of us assume that it's only a matter of time before they make it 'simpler' - by just requiring everything to be RCD protected. As you are aware, I have been known to question whether RCDs, even on 'high risk circuits' have actually saved an appreciable number lives, and that becomes a bigger question (to be balanced against cost) if, as is almost the case, everything has to be RCD-protected.

A demand for an RCBO on every circuit would do nothing more for electrical safety - merely cause less inconvenience (if you want that, then you can have them fitted) so, in my view, would be a step too far and over-stepping the remit of the regulation writers.

Exactly my point - although I was talking about the 'trend', not the 'mandatory' which might well eventually show its face!

There are a few other regulations which have nothing to do with electrical safety - merely a good idea anyone could do if they wanted -therefore they should not appear in the electrical regualations.

Indeed. It reminds me of one of my personal hobby horses about seat belts - which are a safety issue. I have been a fairly fanatical supporter and user of seat belts since before their existence (let alone use) became compulsory, but I have always being opposed to compulsory wearing of them by drivers and front-seat passengers. I just don't understand why a society (Nanny State?) which allows people to climb mountains, creep around in pot holes, jump out of aircraft etc. makes it illegal not to wear seatbelts - since non-wearers are only putting themselves at risk. It's a bit less straightforward for back-seat passengers since, if unrestrained, they could 'fly forward' in the event of a collision and harm those in the front seats.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I just don't understand why a society (Nanny State?) which allows people to climb mountains, creep around in pot holes, jump out of aircraft etc. makes it illegal not to wear seatbelts

So you cannot see any difference in hindrance of leisure activity between banning mountaineering, caving and sky-diving, and banning not using seatbelts in a car?

 

[Notch7]

I think the argument about seatbelts is human nature -if it isnt law, most people wont bother.

Since the ease of intertia reel belts, I imagine 99% of people wear belts.

Those that dont wear them may only be putting their own life at risk, but the NHS cost would be high.

Seat belts is a law that isnt controversial because there is no cost, minimal inconvenience and not really any loss of enjoyment.

Banning cigarettes, alcohol or chocolate might be more tricky although arguably could save many lives........

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I forgot - the farce of non-combustible consumer units is a good example of what I mean.

Which looks even more of a farce now, because immediately after that contentious regulation is this:

421.1.6 Materials used for the construction of enclosures of electrical equipment shall comply with the
resistance to heat and fire requirements in an appropriate product standard.

 

[Notch7]

I do wonder whether metal boards are necessary as a regulatiin.

Although it doesnt seem to have made boards more expensive.

If rcbos became standard or the '19th edition board', would the increase in volume bring the price down to say less than a tenner.......

If currently all circuits are protected by rcd, then I guess rcbos would not add safety, only reduction in nuisance tripping and/or ease of diagnosis.

 

[EFLImpudence]

we see plenty of electricians and others, here and elsewhere, convinced that 'all-RCBO' is the only way to go - but, as I asked, is that "just because we can" (and thereby save a little inconvenience)?

Mmmm. I don't know if it is "just because they can". I don't really know how to explain it.

It's more likely that it is lack of sufficient specific knowledge and thinking it is better without really knowing why - convenience may be enough even if the customer is not bothered - because that is how it is portrayed especially if it becomes a regulation.

It will become like ring circuits (where they are not advantageous) - a tradition where "that's what we do because that's what we do because that's how it's always been done", without realising that MCBs have virtually removed the reason for them and how easy it is to not need a ring .

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Formal cost-benefit analyses should be compulsory for all "safety enhancements"

 

[JohnW2]

I think the argument about seatbelts is human nature -if it isnt law, most people wont bother.

Probably true for many people, but I still don't see why society should use a law to force them to protect only themselves. As I said, we don't outlaw all sorts of hazardous activities.

Those that dont wear them may only be putting their own life at risk, but the NHS cost would be high.

True. However, I can tell you from experience that if you spent a few weekends in a hospital A&E department, you would come to realise what enormous NHS costs result from sporting activities, gardening and DIY - and that's before one even starts to think about things like the tobacco, alcohol and excessive/unhealthy eating etc. etc. you go on to mention - yet we do not outlaw any of those things.

Since the ease of intertia reel belts, I imagine 99% of people wear belts. .... Seat belts is a law that isnt controversial because there is no cost, minimal inconvenience and not really any loss of enjoyment.

It's controversial as far as I am concerned As I said, I've always been passionate about seat belts and their use - I fitted them to my first car back in the late 60s (and used them), before inertial reel ones existed, at a time when it wasn't even compulsory to have seatbelts, let alone compulsory to wear them. However that was/is personal choice, and I remain opposed to the idea that adults in front seats of cars should be compelled by law to use them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If rcbos became standard or the '19th edition board', would the increase in volume bring the price down to say less than a tenner.......

One would hope so, and I'm sure the price would fall to some extent. However, if/when they ever became (literally or effectively) compulsory, then the (reputable) industry could theoretically charge as much as they liked (since there would essentially be no alternatives, other than 'cheap tat').

If currently all circuits are protected by rcd, then I guess rcbos would not add safety, only reduction in nuisance tripping and/or ease of diagnosis.

Exactly - which is why I asked the question, and why EFLI questioned whether it would ever be reasonable for BS7671 (which, after all, is primarily about safety) should ever make them compulsory.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Mmmm. I don't know if it is "just because they can". I don't really know how to explain it. .... It's more likely that it is lack of sufficient specific knowledge and thinking it is better without really knowing why - convenience may be enough even if the customer is not bothered - because that is how it is portrayed especially if it becomes a regulation.

Well, one can use what language one sees fit, but there are countless examples, in most walks of life, of things we have come to accept (and maybe believe we 'need') which only came into being "just because they could" as a result of technological advances - even if we could (and did) manage quite well without them.

In my opinion, far to little thought goes into "what we actually need/want", rather than what, technologically-speaking, is possible.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Notch7]

However that was/is personal choice, and I remain opposed to the idea that adults in front seats of cars should be compelled by law to use them

I think the argument hinges around the level of inconvenience or reduction in freedom of using a seatbelt. It has almost no negative impact in peoples lives, so making it mandatory is to, worth the loss of personal freedom.

Seats save about 15,000 lives a year in America, which I suppose is ironic given that 30,000 die from guns each year.......

 

[JohnW2]

I think the argument hinges around the level of inconvenience or reduction in freedom of using a seatbelt. It has almost no negative impact in peoples lives, so making it mandatory is to, worth the loss of personal freedom.

Yes, it sounds quite possible that such was the thinking behind it. Do I therefore take it that you feel it is always acceptable to use laws to 'protect people (and no-one else) from themselves', by outlawing 'personal choice', provided that restriction has "almost no impact on people's lives".

Seats save about 15,000 lives a year in America, which I suppose is ironic given that 30,000 die from guns each year.......

As you must realise, I am in no way disputing the fact that seat belts can, and do, save many lives.

You mentioned the economics of this, and there is one part of the calculation which often goes overlooked. One of the effects of seat belt use is to convert what would otherwise have been immediate (or rapid) death into 'serious injury' which can cost the NHS a fortune. Whilst it'salso true that some 'serious injuries' will be converted into 'less serious injuries' (hence 'cheaper') most work done on this has suggested that, overall, the burden on the NHS of seatbelt use is less than one might at first think. I'm not suggesting that is an important issue, since I don't believe that saving NHS costs was the primary reason for making seat belt use compulsory, but it does mean that one has to view the 'NHS cost argument' with a little caution - after all, the best thing from the viewpoint of NHS costs would be some change which resulted in most injuries of car occupants being immediately fatal !!

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

I was not aware of wylex doing miniature RCBO's. Where have we been discussing them ?

 

[JohnW2]

I was not aware of wylex doing miniature RCBO's. Where have we been discussing them ?

In this thread.

You can read about them (here).

They are DP, 'single width' and not very tall - but also not very cheap (£42.49 in Screwfix).

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

Several manufacturers do the reduced height RCBOs now, even including the cheapo no-brand things you can get in Toolstation and similar.
The more enlightened ones are also moving to Type A for the RCD part, rather than the semi-useless Type AC.