All-RCBO CUs - because we can?

[JohnW2]

Several manufacturers do the reduced height RCBOs now, even including the cheapo no-brand things you can get in Toolstation and similar.

Interesting. I didn't realise that.

The more enlightened ones are also moving to Type A for the RCD part, rather than the semi-useless Type AC.

... and I wasn't aware of that change, either. The applicability of Type AC does seem a little iffy.

What is your view about my 'all-RCBO' question?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

BG compact RCD's are about 12 quid plus the dreaded.

On that basis, I'd have an RCBO board no worries!

Having said that, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of RCD trips I have had in two decades: and I have an RCD incomer!

And they were all easily explained, by flood or appliance fault.

 

[Notch7]

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

I think this would be a complex cost analysis, theres a lot of influencing factors. Fatal accidents cost over £2m each.

I would say seat belts are now a part of a cars safety features, not the only one. Head restraints fitted and adjusted properly key to minimising seat belt injuries. Cars now routinely have air bags, crumple zones, anti lock breaking. Road design, safety barriers and paramedic training / technology all have had a positive impact on death and serious injury reduction.

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".

I think its a philosophical argument, how much do you value freedom of choice against imposition of rules that save lives.

And then make the judgement of freedom of choice v individual responsibility v injury cost.

Suppose the seat belt law saves lives and reduces NHS cost maybe that saving allows more Hip operations........

Individual responsibility: what percentage of people would wear seat belts if it wasnt a law?

In the airline insustry one might think that safety has no limit on value, but actually the industry does set a value on a passengers life. If a plane crashes the cost can be calculated as X cost per passenger. Safety improvements or risk reductions are costed against those costs.

 

[JohnW2]

BG compact RCD's are about 12 quid plus the dreaded. ... On that basis, I'd have an RCBO board no worries!

Fair enough.

Having said that, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of RCD trips I have had in two decades: and I have an RCD incomer! And they were all easily explained, by flood or appliance fault.

Same here, but over nearer to three decades. Throughout that period, all my (many) final circuits have been RCD protected (RCBOs in a couple of cases), and first the first decade or so of that period had just one RCD protecting each phase (broadly, one phase per floor of my large house). Like you, I have only experienced a handful of RCD trips and, unless I'm forgetting something, the cause has always been immediately, or nearly immediately, obvious (and 'real' - I don't recall ever have experienced a 'nuisance' trip) - the cause in nearly all cases being related to water!

Maybe I've been lucky, but if I had had 'all-RCBO' CUs during that period, it really would not have made any difference to anything.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I know it's my fault, but I really didn't intend or want this thread to diverge (which is obviously an understatement!) into a discussion about seat belt legislation! Anyway ...

I think its a philosophical argument, how much do you value freedom of choice against imposition of rules that save lives.

It would be different if we were talking about rules/laws which saved the lives 'of others'. However, if your question were "how much do you value your freedom of choice against imposition of a rule which might save your life (but not anyone else's life)", I would probably say that that is a question that only you could answer (or which anyone else could only answer in relation to their own life) - and it is not a foregone conclusion that everyone would give the same answer.

When I was a youngster, the most extreme example of making a personal choice to put one's own life at risk (attempted suicide) was a criminal offence, punishable by lengthy custodial sentences. Do you think that legal restriction of their 'personal choice' was reasonable, even when the choice was 'rational' (e.g. to spare the person intractable and uncontrollable pain), rather than due to a potentially treatable mental health disorder?

Suppose the seat belt law saves lives and reduces NHS cost maybe that saving allows more Hip operations........

Given the extreme pressures on public finances, and associated issues of 'social responsibility', I might have to re-think my position IF it were explicitly intended, admitted and accepted that the primary purpose of seat belt legislation was to reduce public expenditure (on NHS, police, welfare benefits etc.) - but I do not believe that to be the case.

I think you have acknowledged that your view about this specific issue is strongly influenced by the fact that the degree of impact on 'personal freedom' is minimal (hence that you believe that the 'pros' outweigh the 'cons') but I'm not too sure to what extent one should allow that influence on the underlying philosophical and sociological issues. If one wanted to outlaw behaviours which put individuals at risk of their (personally) suffering death or serious illness/injury (and, as a secondary consequence, dramatically reduce public expenditure), one would start by outlawing tobacco and alcohol and then probably move on to sports, hazardous leisure pursuits, DIY etc. etc. - but, as you have hinted, any of that sort of this would result in massive problems from 'affected' people objecting to the restriction of their 'personal liberty'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[studentspark]

I disliked the early RCBOs. They were difficult to fit into the board, and getting the conductor in was troublesome.
The new mini range by Hager, I use these a lot
I pay £24.60 each
These fuse board might be in use for the next 30+ years
So a board might cost £400, whats that, £13 a year
We should only offer RCBO boards

 

[JohnW2]

... So a board might cost £400, whats that, £13 a year ... We should only offer RCBO boards

Yes, but even if it's only "£13 per year"(which would be around £350million per year over all UK households, or about £10.5billion over 30 years), one still has to answer the "Why?" question to justify such a change. I think we are probably all agreed that (without doing some real scraping of barrels!), RCBOs do not offer any advantage in terms of safety - so what do you see as a reason?

As I recently wrote about my installation,if I had had all-RCBO CUs for the past 30 years, that would have made absolutely no difference to me - other than having cost me £400, or whatever (in 2019 £s).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

All RCBO boards offer more convenience without question, but maybe more safety too, if only one circuit pops out.

 

[JohnW2]

All RCBO boards offer more convenience without question, ...

What do you mean by that? As I said, I have suffered no particular 'inconvenience' in the past 30 years that I would not have suffered with RCBOs.

... but maybe more safety too, if only one circuit pops out.

As I said, I think one has to scrape the barrel to think of safety benefits. As with all 'separation of circuits' discussions, the worse that happens is no worse than a power cut - and, at least where I live, brief (sometimes longer!) power cuts are far more common than RCD trips. If loss of any individual circuit (e.g. lighting) is going to create a safety hazard that one feels needs to be avoided, then one has to implement a solution which works for power cuts as well as RCD etc. trips (e.g. 'emergency lighting') - and the same would be true if one had RCBOs

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I still don't see why society should use a law to force them to protect only themselves.

It's not only themselves - it also protects society and other people from the poor consequences of their actions.

As I said, we don't outlaw all sorts of hazardous activities.
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.

So can you really not see the difference between banning activities which people do for "enjoyment" but which are hazardous, and banning activities which have no enjoyment factor at all?

If you ban mountain climbing, for example, you ban a recreational activity.

Is driving without a seatbelt a recreational activity?

 

[securespark]

How many dom premises have emergency lighting/ fittings?

I think that's recognised by the fact the regs request segregation of circuits to avoid (for example) an area plunging into darkness because more than one circuit has powered down.

If you are elderly and unsteady on your feet, you don't have to be using stairs to be in danger of falling in the darkness, it can happen anywhere, I know! I have fallen several times.

That's what I see as a safety aspect.

The convenience factor of RCBO's is easier to see: fewer appliances/ circuits/ lights out of action after a fault.

I suppose you could fit a standard fitting with emergency capability, say one fitting on each floor in a central place (like halls/ landings) so that there would at least be some light immediately the circuit fails?

 

[JohnW2]

How many dom premises have emergency lighting/ fittings?

Very few - and that's my point ...

I think that's recognised by the fact the regs request segregation of circuits to avoid (for example) an area plunging into darkness because more than one circuit has powered down.

Indeed - but, again as I said, at least where I live, 'plunges into darkness' are far more commonly due to power cuts than to RCD trips. In fact, of the very few RCD trips I've experienced, only a small proportion have been during the hours of darkness.

If you are elderly and unsteady on your feet, you don't have to be using stairs to be in danger of falling in the darkness, it can happen anywhere, I know! I have fallen several times.

Indeed - and, as above, that's as much of a problem with power cuts - and the only solution is emergency lighting (which the regs do not require in domestic premises).

The convenience factor of RCBO's is easier to see: fewer appliances/ circuits/ lights out of action after a fault.

Yes, but for many 'able' people, unless its due to an N-E fault (only responsible for a small proportion of the {very few} RCD trips), they will rapidly be able to restore all but one of the circuits involved by operating the MCB of the culprit circuit.

I agree with everything you are saying, qualitatively. However, I think we are talking about very rare events, the safety problems of which are, as I've said, at least in my case far more commonly due to power cuts (not addressed by the regs) than RCD trips - so I'm not convinced that it is really 'necessary' for there to be regulations in relation to only the latter.

Kind Regards, John

 

[seasickstevie]

... unless its due to an N-E fault (only responsible for a small proportion of the {very few} RCD trips)

I'm intrigued as to why you suggest N-E fault is only likely to be a "small proportion". I would think it's likely to be around 50%.

... they will rapidly be able to restore all but one of the circuits involved by operating the MCB of the culprit circuit.

Having attended a huge number of call-outs where the elimination of one circuit by a simple process of elimination of the MCBs would've got at least 75% of the circuits back on, I've been surprised countless times how many people have not thought to carry out such a simple process, but many, when it's explained to them for 'next time it happens', still don't quite understand, with even the "Oh I don't touch electric" response.

 

[seasickstevie]

... the "Oh I don't touch electric" response.

Some people would rather sit in the dark for five hours waiting for someone to arrive, than operate a few MCBs.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm intrigued as to why you suggest N-E fault is only likely to be a "small proportion". I would think it's likely to be around 50%.

Do you really believe that? At least in my experience, a high proportion of RCD trips are due, one way or another, to 'water' - and it's most unlikely that, even if one filled an accessory with water, the small N-E p.d. would be high enough for that to result in enough N-E current to trip an RCD. That seems to mean that N-E faults whichj trip an RCD will usually only arise in relation to 'metallic' faults, which I would have thought were pretty unusual ... but, as always, maybe I'm wrong!

Having attended a huge number of call-outs where the elimination of one circuit by a simple process of elimination of the MCBs would've got at least 75% of the circuits back on, I've been surprised countless times how many people have not thought to carry out such a simple process, but many, when it's explained to them for 'next time it happens', still don't quite understand, with even the "Oh I don't touch electric" response.

Yes, I suppose I should have expected that response. I did qualify what I said with "many 'able' people" - but maybe I should have said 'able, intelligent and willing'.

However, to return to my main point/question, in relation to how many of that 'huge number of call-outs' would you say that the temporary loss of several circuits had result in a significant 'safety issue'/danger?

Kind Regards, John