Do I need a new electric CU for (Rental) EICR? (Ed.)

[JohnW2]

Just because you not got the current book does not always make you "not up to date" does it?

Of course not - and, probably far more important (and potentially worrying) is that "having the current book" (perhaps because the club to which one pays one's subscriptions insists on that) most certainly does not necessarily, let alone 'always' make one "up-to-date" !

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Hands up all those who have read (and hopefully understood) an edition of a regs book cover to cover

PS - I am meaning the edition which is current at the time of reading, not an historical edition (I think that the very first one was about 4 pages of A4 type paper)

 

[ebee]

It does seem we are returning to the higher safety standards of bygone days, not returned to man with red flag, but we have gone down to 20 MPH so cyclists are overtaking cars.

Eric, I am not sure they were higher safety standards as such (in the main) but probably similar or lower in many instances.
What has changed is, in my opinion, that we have made things often safer to the extent people tend not to take as much care themselves to mitigate risks because of such and the outcome combined can be a less safe position than previous.

Since time itself, some people have taken a attitude "it`s only 5 amps (5A rewireable fuse)" so do not take as much care as they should do to not touch it. Nowadays the "Oh I`m OK it has a 30mA RCD so I am safe" creeps in.
In practice, nowadays, those people who might have taken care previously, do not take as much care now.
Result, higher potential danger.
There always has been some idiots on the roads. Nowadays there are more drivers and more of them (proportionally I think) are idiots so the potential for danger is a lot higher even with modern safety standards to cars and roads.
Has modern safety standards encouraged some folks to take more/bigger risks? I think perhaps yes.
Nightmare.

 

[Murdochcat]

Next time there is a discussion about the regs I'm going to use the 15th edition to make my statements - NOT.

Most of the issues are due to the ambiguity of the regs and differing opinions, but referring to old versions simply isn't helpful.

 

[ebee]

OK but the rental laws specifically states the 2018 Regs, not subsequent ammendments, therefore to comply with that law an inspection must be compared to that particular version.

You might, at the time, suggest recommondations for items include in subsequent ammendments and again items you personally recommend to enhance safety etc and I think that most of us would commend you for that.
What you must not do is to suggest such ommisions are defects when compared against the standard required.
You could end up in the middle of a right arguement or even get sued.

 

[JohnW2]

Eric, I am not sure they were higher safety standards as such (in the main) but probably similar or lower in many instances.
What has changed is, in my opinion, that we have made things often safer to the extent people tend not to take as much care themselves to mitigate risks because of such and the outcome combined can be a less safe position than previous.

Indeed - and, in any event, as I said, with the exception of the 'speed limit' example which eric cited, I struggle to think of any other situation in which there has been a 'relaxation' of safety standards since the 'bygone days' (an increase in speed limits, when cars came along) followed by a subsequent return in the direction of those 'bygone days' (more recent reductions in some urban speed limits).

As I keep saying, what has happened is that 'they', without any consultation with 'us', have decided that 'we' are no longer to accept the risks which we happily lived with in the poast. In some cases, they undoubtedly have correctly decided that we now want 'less risk' - but in (many) other cases ..... !!

Since time itself, some people have taken a attitude "it`s only 5 amps (5A rewireable fuse)" so do not take as much care as they should do to not touch it. Nowadays the "Oh I`m OK it has a 30mA RCD so I am safe" creeps in. ... In practice, nowadays, those people who might have taken care previously, do not take as much care now. ... Result, higher potential danger.

Yep, reduction in risk can indeed lead to complacency, which may actually have the overall effect of increasing the residual risk to an individual. It's not uncommon hearing people in 'hazardous occupations' saying that they would be very worried if they day ever came when they were not frightened by some of the situations they have to face - since it is that very fear which 'keeps them on their toes', safety-wise.

There are very very few 'protective measures' which give "100% protection", but some people don't seem to understand that. We saw some of that when people started receiving Covid vaccine - after they had received vaccine, some people appeared to assume that they no longer needed to take any (essentially common-sense) measures to reduce their risk of infection - ans that somewhat disported some of the early data relating to the efficacy of the vaccines (obviously never expected to be "100% protection")

Eric himself often tells us that, in the days when RCDs were uncommon, he had one fitted when his son started 'playing with electrical/electronic things'. Whilst that was undoubtedly well-intentioned, since human nature is as it is, that probably meant that, 'reassured by the RCD', his son was probably sometimes somewhat ';less careful' than he would have been had that 'protection' not been installed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is NOT a vaccine.

 

[JohnW2]

It is NOT a vaccine.

Eh? What isn't a vaccine?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

We are certainly having 'ever-higher safety standards' forced upon us, seeming primarily because some people (some whose name may rhyme with "canny"!) think (without consulting 'us') that 'we' are now less prepared to accept small (often extremely small) risks than we were in the past - but, in the vast majority of cases, that represents a 'higher standard' (i.e. less preparedness to accept risk) than in 'bygone' days, not a return to "safety standards of bygone days".

The higher they seem to set the safety bar, the more it seems they lose sight of the basics - I have in mind all the dangerous Chinese stuff which manages to get into the UK. Dangerous mains power adaptors, dangerous 13amp plugs and adaptors, dangerous toys. The UK seems to be flooded with these.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Eh? What isn't a vaccine?

The Covid jab. Vaccines give immunity.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Hands up all those who have read (and hopefully understood) an edition of a regs book cover to cover

PS - I am meaning the edition which is current at the time of reading, not an historical edition (I think that the very first one was about 4 pages of A4 type paper)

15th Edition, you were expected to know it, and be able to recite it word for word.

 

[JohnW2]

The higher they seem to set the safety bar, the more it seems they lose sight of the basics - I have in mind all the dangerous Chinese stuff which manages to get into the UK. Dangerous mains power adaptors, dangerous 13amp plugs and adaptors, dangerous toys. The UK seems to be flooded with these.

That's very true of the overall picture, but it is different people/departments/whatever that are 'losing sight of' (at least, not effectively dealing with) the sort of things you refer to.

Those who create laws and regulations have already done all they really can to 'outlaw' the sort of products you refer to - so they have not 'lost sight of' anything in this regard. The problem relates to the failure (of others) to prevent (well, realistically, minimise) the import into the UK of such 'outlawed' products.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The Covid jab. Vaccines give immunity.

If you mean 'total ("100%") immunity' (presumably in everyone who receives it?) what example of a vaccine which does that can you cite?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

since it is that very fear which 'keeps them on their toes', safety-wise.

Even that has changed. Seems my old safety boots no longer accepted and it needs to be a CAT III or something for the insurers.

Eric himself often tells us that, in the days when RCDs were uncommon, he had one fitted when his son started 'playing with electrical/electronic things'. Whilst that was undoubtedly well-intentioned, since human nature is as it is, that probably meant that, 'reassured by the RCD', his son was probably sometimes somewhat ';less careful' than he would have been had that 'protection' not been installed.

I think he has become more cautious now, he as an electrical engineer is well aware of the limitations of the RCD. Only in USA would some one put a motor caravan into auto and try and make a cup of coffee. But it is the precautions which can make things more dangerous, when I was a boy if I used the old wolfcub drill to drill a hole in the wall and hit a live cable the fuse would blow, but as time went on I got a black and decker drill which was double insulated so the fuse would not blow and the gear box of the hand drill would become live.

So what we are looking at is because we have class II equipment we now need the RCD to switch off power as there is no earth route to do it. And we need class II equipment for out door use as the DNO has been allowed to use TN-C-S and that is the root of the problem.

However there are other things as well, I look at a very old wiring regulation book 13th edition and it exempts the use of an earth wire for "Lighting fittings using filament lamps installed in a room having a non-conducting floor, mounted at such a height that they cannot readily be touched and are out of reach of earthed metal." Today filament lamps are rare, and when found are not as we used then, we can today without using a cloth to stop the bulb burning our hand remove a bulb from its holder.

Be it the switched mode power supply and resultant need for SPD, or the removal of bonding requirements in the bathroom which in turn means RCD's are required, modern equipment is now made so we need the RCD where years ago the earth bonding meant it was not so important.

Same applies with other items, a BA22d bulb in the ceiling with a non safety bulb holder is OK, one we would not likely leave it without a bulb in the socket, and two out of reach of children, but a table lamp needs the special safety bulb holder. Although as yet no rules saying so.

 

[JohnW2]

Even that has changed. Seems my old safety boots no longer accepted and it needs to be a CAT III or something for the insurers.

That doesn't alter what I said - that, human nature being what it is, someone wearing your old safety boots might thereby becomne a bit complacent because of that 'reassurance', and therefore be a bit 'less carefulk' than were they not wearing any safety boots.

I think he has become more cautious now, he as an electrical engineer is well aware of the limitations of the RCD.

Very probably, as a result of age/maturity and experience, as well as anything else. However, my point hasn't really got anything to do with any particular safety measure or one's knowledge about it limitations - any degree of protection afforded by any device with whatever limitations can lead to the complacency I have discussed.

Kind Regards, John