British Gas

[EFLImpudence]

Could it not be argued that cars are completely harmless?
None of mine has ever attacked me.

It is only people moving them which introduces hazards.

While I hesitate to prolong an already out of control thread, the pedantic in me needs to point out that the statement is not actually correct.

It is.

The first line is a question.
The second is true.
The third would be 'even truer' had I not included the word 'only'.
Even with 'only' it is still true because a stationery car does not introduce hazards - you think they are already there.

A car presents a certain level of risk even without anyone getting in and driving it. You've got 4 or 5 pressure vessels made of rubber* to start with. A large quantity of stored chemical energy in the fuel tank, and a smaller but more flammable chemical store in the brake system. An electrical store which is capable of driving significant fault currents. And a significant amount of potential energy which it will happily turn into kinetic energy if the parking brake should fail.

* Or these days, various plastics with rubber like properties.

All true, of course so do you consider a can of petrol dangerous even if no one ever goes near it?

 

[EFLImpudence]

duplicate.

 

[JohnW2]

You could argue against your point, John, though.

I'm not sure which of my points you had in mind. All the recent exchanges seem to have been about the semantics of safe/safer/dangerous!

If you had a TT supply with VO ELCB, it complied then ...

That, in fact, is exactly what I did have when I moved into my present house - as for 'compliant', does anyone know whether it was in 1987? Quite possibly.

... but would you consider it non-compliant now? Would you want to at least replace it with an RCD?

That's precisely what I did (had it replaced with RCDs immediately), even in 1987. However, you are talking about now, and I don't think there is any doubt that reliance on a VO ELCB is non-compliant under current regs. Apart from anything else, having a relatively high impedance interposed between the MET and earth electrode is probably non-compliant in itself. The installation would very probably not comply in terms of disconnection times, particularly in the presence of parallel paths to earth (indeed, it might well not disconnect at all!).

However, I'm not sure which of my points you are arguing with. It is accepted that technological advances, and also demands for increased level of safety, arise over time - so it's inevitable that there are plenty of things which were compliant under past regs which would not be compliant under current ones - but what is your point?

Kind Reards, John

 

[securespark]

No, the VO ELCB was deleted from the regs in 1985.

My point was simply that there are indeed many things today that are non-compliant, but some of them are actually dangerous, like the VO ELCB.

I know for a fact that if I walked out of a house without alerting the customer to the fact their VO ELCB was an at risk situation, I would face a disciplinary hearing.

 

[JohnW2]

No, the VO ELCB was deleted from the regs in 1985.

Thanks. I was certainly aware of the undesirability of it when I had it removed in 1987, but wasn't sure whether it was still compliant at that time.

My point was simply that there are indeed many things today that are non-compliant, but some of them are actually dangerous, like the VO ELCB.

Sure, and that's surely consistent with what I've been saying - our view of what is 'dangerous' ('not safe enough') has changed. A VOELCB is obviously no more dangerous in 2012 than it was in 1984 but, as I've said, the view of how 'safe'/'dangerous' is acceptable obviously evolves over time. By the same token, I imagine that some of the things which are considered acceptable ('adequately safe'), and compliant, in 2012 will be regarded as 'too dangerous' (hence will have become non-compliant) by 2040.

There's also again the question of what 'dangers' one compares - even in 2012, which would you regard as 'more dangerous'- an installation with a VOELCB or an installation without it (and nothing, like an RCD, in its place)?

I know for a fact that if I walked out of a house without alerting the customer to the fact their VO ELCB was an at risk situation, I would face a disciplinary hearing.

Of course - I would hope that everyone would do the same. I tried quite hard last night to work out exactly what regs one would cite when indicating that a VOELCB was not only potentially dangerous, but also non-compliant with current regs. What if the disconnection times were OK. What would you then cite - the absence of an RCD, the high impedence interposed between MET and earth electrode, or what? Maybe I missed it, but I coulodn't find anything in the regs which specifically 'outlawed' VOELCBs.

Kind Regards, John