Well, yes but that just makes it (the reg.) even sillier.
Exactly.
There you go.
How many would blindly follow the regulation?
Main bonding diagram (2)
- Thread starter JohnW2
- Start date
How many would blindly follow the regulation?
Sponsored Links
It does when the meter is external.
Well, since I have contravened the regulation, it IS roughly equipotential (with my MET and everything connected to it), since I have bonded it - but if I had complied with the regulation then, yes, it (and unbonded extraneous-c-p) and things that were bonded to my MET would very easily be simultaneously touchable (pipes often run quite close together).
Yep, and 'wet' rather than 'damp' at times (underfloor drainage pipes, a sump and a pump are kept busy when it rains!) - just (in many cases broken!) quarry tiles laid on top of quarry tiles which are directly on sand/soil. ... so, yes, theoretically it should be 'bonded'! Given that it's a TT installation, I'm a lot less concerned about this than I otherwise might be, since a substantial PD between bonded metal (pipes etc.) and the floor should only arise in the case of an 'L-E' fault within my installation, and that only for as long as it took an RCD to operate.
Kind Regards, John
Who knows - you and I certainly wouldn't. However, we've heard it said that it is not the place of mere mortals such as us to 'know better' than the clever committee which writes the regulations - and therefore for us to contravene what, in their infinite wisdom, they have 'actually written'.
That's why I will be interested to hear BAS's views on this matter.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
It does.
... and, as you suggested before, in this case it is far from clear whether 'at the point of entry' refers to a point on the external wall or the point where it enters the interior of the building.
I think the bottom line of all this is that any sensible person who does not feel constrained to 'comply with regulations, regardless' would probably simply ignore this entire regulation and simply apply electrical common sense. I suppose that is essentially what I (and quite probably you) actually do do!
Kind Regards, John
That would seem not to be the case.
Never assume those in charge know what they are doing.
I agree, but I'd still like to hear BAS's attitude to the issue.
I also tend to 'ignore' 20mph speed restrictions outside of school gates at 3am during school holidays - but some, even including some members of the police force, seem to regard that as a hanging offence!
Kind Regards, John
I seem to have skipped a page or so - will need to go back.
It is an offence.
However ridiculous you find speed limits at a particular time and place, you do not have the right to decide that they don't apply to you, and the police would be perfectly within their rights to prosecute.
We could make much better use of variable speed limits, which take into account time of day, day of week, traffic conditions, weather conditions, but until we do obeying a 20mph limit near a school is not optional at any time.
Fair enough. As I said, I would value your view.
The question is quite simple - whether we feel it is appropriate that EFLI should (in the wiki) 'advise' people to do what he (and I, and others), believe to be 'correct', despite that being apparently contrary to the regulations, because we believe that complying with the regulation could, in some situations (like my cellar) be dangerous. In view of what you say (predictably) about my speed limit analogy ....
... I suspect you will say that EFLI should 'advise' people to comply with the regulation in question, even if he (and I, and others) believes that to comply could, in some cases, create a danger.
Kind Regards, John
I don't think the analogy appropriate.
A more accurate one would be driving past the school at 20mph even though the speed limit was actually 30mph.
I.e. thinking - knowing - the regulation is wrong and dangerous.
A more accurate one would be driving past the school at 20mph even though the speed limit was actually 30mph.
I.e. thinking - knowing - the regulation is wrong and dangerous.
As for my diagram, I have done away with the original no.4 as suggested.
.......
Last edited:
I didn't really intend it as an analogy. I was merely pointing out that it is a situation in which I personally would have no problem in 'breaking the law' (provided I didn't think I was going to get caught!), or 'advising' others to do likewise, but suspect that BAS would regard that as irresponsible advice, which shouldn't be given.
I do agree that if one believed that, for some reason, driving at 20mph in that situation could actually be dangerous, then the argument for advising people not to do it would be even stronger - but I suspect that BAS would, even then, still say that "the law is the law" and that one should not advise people to break it, even if one believes that complying with the law could be dangerous.
Whatever, it will be interesting to hear what BAS decided.
Kind Regards, John
Neither do I. One is a criminal offence, the other merely failing to comply with a subclause of a standard, the use of which is not mandatory.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
Sponsored Links
