Because, when you are a developer, with a site of 100's of new-builds, why would you spend that amount of extra time and money, when the IET guidance suggests it's unnecessary?It takes 60(?) seconds to run a cable from the back box, why would an electrician not do that?
As I keep saying, it's not really as straightforward as that.It takes 60(?) seconds to run a cable from the back box, why would an electrician not do that? I see that as laziness.
One obviously has to make a decision (and, if there are 'swings and roundabouts', has not option than to be "as comfortable as one can be" with that decision).Well, if we complete 100 installations and we know from a fact that 51 people will do one thing and 49 people will do the other thing, we would cater for the 51 at the expense of the 49. .... If we have a realistic expectation that nothing will change in that respect for the forseeable future then we might feel comfortable that we have done our best for them as a whole.
Exactly - and I often remind people of that. I've actually heard people in my own family saying that they no longer have to drive 'as carefully', because of ABS..... Folk got acustomed to things being safer and took risks that the older folk would be risk averse to. .... Result - we are now not much safer than we used to be.
RCDs are one example of folks taking greater risks than other folks used too. The design of lifts and liftshafts is another. Car designs another. The list is endless.
Common sense has been replaced by 'rules and regulations' (which are often imperfect, and don't necessarily correspond with common sense) in many walks of life.But in those halcyon days we were taught to use common sense and how to apply tolerance and discretion. All of which have been removed from the curiculum of life sciences.
Why is that?Common sense has been replaced by 'rules and regulations' (which are often imperfect, and don't necessarily correspond with common sense) in many walks of life.
The fact that the rules and regulations are "often imperfect, and don't necessarily correspond with common sense" is down to imperfect drafting of those rules/regs. That undoubtedly is, in part, due to "incompetence in charge" but, to be fair, it is probably never possible to produce totally 'comprehensive' rules.Why is that? .... Anything other than incompetents in charge?
However, that was essentially accepted as 'how it is' ('a fact of life/death'), without any thoughts of attributing 'blame', seeking some sort of recompense or taking steps to 'make sure it never happens again'. Today people think differently.
Unless I'm missing something, isn't much of the confusion within this thread, due to the lack of specific 'rules' - leaving the interpretation of the 'guidance' down to common sense?Common sense has been replaced by 'rules and regulations' (which are often imperfect, and don't necessarily correspond with common sense) in many walks of life.
Kind Regards, John
I don't think so.Unless I'm missing something, isn't much of the confusion within this thread, due to the lack of specific 'rules' - leaving the interpretation of the 'guidance' down to common sense?
No.If there was a rule saying all metal back boxes should be earthed (via a flylead if the accessory has an earth terminal) - wouldn't we all be happier?
Indeed - my point.And I am sure that the parents of the small children that died picking up loose threads under the cotton looms in the Industrial Revolution just accepted it as "a fact of life".
Maybe - but, as we are discussing, the matter of 'mitigating risks' may not be straightforward - particularly when, as I have been mentioning, a particular course of action may increase or decrease risk, depending upon circumstances/situation.IMO, if someone has a financial incentive to not mitigate risks when providing a service, perhaps they should be held accountable.
As I've said, it's not necessarily possible to have a universally-accepted 'specific rules' - particularly when, as I have been discussing, a particular practice may either increase or decrease risk, according to circumstances.Unless I'm missing something, isn't much of the confusion within this thread, due to the lack of specific 'rules' - leaving the interpretation of the 'guidance' down to common sense?
We might be 'happier' (maybe because our consciences could 'pass the buck' to that rule) but, as I've said, following that rule would result in an increase in risk of electric shock in some circumstances.If there was a rule saying all metal back boxes should be earthed (via a flylead if the accessory has an earth terminal) - wouldn't we all be happier?
There is.There is a specific rule: exposed-conductive-parts must be earthed.
For a start, as you have acknowledged, I don't think ther is any doubt that metal back box screws are 'exposed'.Who thinks a back box is exposed?
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local