part p question again

[mapj1]

I think you'll find even so, more than 5000 people died on the roads in '03, I expect 04 will be the same when the numbers come out, and as an aside usually more than 10 times that number go to hospital with their injuries, but go on to recover. In a world with a balanced view of risk we would ask is X million quid better spent on regulating something that causes few accidents, or on something that causes very many.

Even traffic is not the big killer - its heart attacks and strokes (approx 100,000) and cancers (approx 150,000) I reckon by spending the part P fund on cancer screening, more lives would be saved (by which I mean, as always, that early deaths could be delayed to a more natural lifespan by better detection before things become inoperable, clearly no one lives for ever, even in a super safe world.)

Sadly, such 'risk balance' is not done between government departments, luckily the ODPM does not deal with transport, if it did, we would be seeing a competant drivers scheme, and a maximum speed of 15mph, or perhaps if the transport rules were applied to the wiring regs than all the regs would be deleted except those that it could be proved would save at least 100 lives a year. (try getting a dodgy road junction changed - a remarkably bad accident history is needed before the authorities will take such a complaint seriously)

More generally, the ONS (Office National Statistics) publishes tables annually stuffed with fascinating facts and figures, allowing you to see how many people of what age died being thrown off horses, falling down wells, lightning strikes, faulty wiring..... (now thats a nice low one...)
Many other countries do the same, allowing one to see at a glance, what the real risks are. Sadly people are emotional, (only 600 murders/year -yet what do we worry about?) not logical, when assessing dangers.
M.

 

[shaggy]

Some good points there map. You've surprised me with the road death statistic, I thought it was consistently about 3,500pa. That's lot of people dying, many unnecessarily.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nope. I reckon sesquiped is right on the money. It's certainly my experience that I have never seen a fully BS7671-compliant domestic installation. I've seen many examples of poor practice by so-called professionals cutting corners, alongside some downright ignorant DIY work.

Be fair - there are non-compliances and there are non-compliances. How many instances of things that are outright dangerous have you seen, compared to no sleeving etc?

Also, have you spotted that The Building (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2004 do not actually require compliance with BS7671?

 

[dingbat]

I regularly see sloppy, corner-cutting practice carried out that far outweighs the wrist-slapping that the NIC might hand out for lack of sleeving:

- CU changes with no main bonding and inadequate earthing(once or twice a month)
- Spurs off spurs (once a week)
- Metal light fittings on non-earthed circuits (once or twice a month)
- Broken rings, or multiple radials on over-sized breakers/fuses
- Lack of supplementary bonding in bathrooms with all-new accessories and electric showers - I don't recall ever seeing more than one or two installations where supp-bonding has been carried out.
- Miscellaneous cabling on single circuits, some not even mains-rated (quite often)

And this is all stuff supposedly carried out by 'proper electricians'. Now, I know some cowboy customers do claim their own shoddy diy work was actually done by a pro, but I don't think many go to the extent of manufacturing inspection-date stickers with defunct company names on them.

And while the wording does not specify BS 7671, what other document will be consulted if a dispute arises? I'm pretty sure the IEE will have an opinion about this.

 

[plugwash]

- CU changes with no main bonding and inadequate earthing(once or twice a month)

ok so they replaced an accessory (the CU) with a more modern safer disign and didn't update everything else at the same time. whats the problem with that?

- Spurs off spurs (once a week)

used to be allowed (at least for single sockets).

- Metal light fittings on non-earthed circuits (once or twice a month)
- Broken rings, or multiple radials on over-sized breakers/fuses

theese are probablly about the worst noncompliances you have listed.

- Lack of supplementary bonding in bathrooms with all-new accessories and electric showers - I don't recall ever seeing more than one or two installations where supp-bonding has been carried out.

again dodgy but not something i would consider a cardinal sin (did anyone do any real studys on how many lives supplementry bonding would save before pushing theese regs on us)

- Miscellaneous cabling on single circuits, some not even mains-rated (quite often)

How bad this is obviously depends on the type of cable.

my opinion is that the IEE wiring regs have gone way past the point of diminishing returns in safety. This is what happens when standards bodys are not forced to watch the cost/benifit of thier new regs.

 

[mapj1]

The docs to be seen at
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=618
make for interesting, if rather morose reading.
I apologise for giving out erroneous information earlier - I was rememering it wrong. Referring to DH2 no 30, page 195, the total for accidental death of all kinds in 2003 is
5934 males, 4962 females
transport accidents (catagories v.xx)on land is 2204 male 739 females, of which 406/227 are pedestrians.

from page 238, deaths from falling (catagories w.xx) 1336 male 1396 female
W85-99 are the electrical deaths - broken down by gender and age, but not enough detail to separate fixed wiring and appliences here - we need the ODPMs own study doc for this more detailed breakdown....
M

 

[plugwash]

imo there need to be three catagorys for electrical deaths

fixed wiring
flexes
appliances

my guess is that flexes would be far the highest catagory

im in a university dorm room right now where im not allowed to touch the fixed wiring so i have flex trailing round the edges of the room to give me power and control where i wan't it. But i am sure this is less safe than doing it properly with fixed wiring.

The iee seem to have understood this in the past (this is for example why they don't restrict socket counts on cuircuits) but part P absoloutely flys in the face of encourageing fixed wiring over extention cords.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

imo there need to be three catagorys for electrical deaths

fixed wiring.

Fixed wiring A: Death/injury due to unsafe practices when working on fixed wiring.

Fixed wiring B: Death/injury due to defective fixed wiring.

 

[dingbat]

Oh well... one can argue the toss over and over again, but I have a business to run and I'm happy to comply with the regulations. I don't get to decide the speed limits either, but I do have the choice to obey them or pay the penalty for being found out.

 

[plugwash]

or get those sprays that blind the speed cameras whilst being invisible to the human eye.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

used to be allowed (at least for single sockets). .

Can't remember where I recently read this, but somebody posted about how he used to have an unsafe/non-compliant installation, but now it's perfectly OK. He didn't actually do anything - he just waited until the requirements for supplementary bonding in kitchens disappeared in the 16th...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And while the wording does not specify BS 7671, what other document will be consulted if a dispute arises? I'm pretty sure the IEE will have an opinion about this.

I'm sure they do, but the IEE do not make the laws, neither do NICEIC/ECA/NAPIT/UTCAA.

If I decide to put a non-transformer shaver socket in my bathroom, inside a cupboard, on a 30mA RCD, this would contravene BS7671. Would it be unsafe? Plenty of other jurisdictions don't think so, and allow RCD/GFCI protected outlets. Have I made "Reasonable provision to protect persons from fire or injury"? I think I have.

If I notified LABC, since, crucially BS7671 is not mandatory, what, legally can they do? They can't say "We don't like it, it does not conform". Well, they can, but I can say "Thank you for your opinion. Goodbye."

AFAICT, if they want to actually stop me from doing something, it's going to end up with them having to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is unsafe.

Also, since the Building Regs do not mandate BS7671, no inspection/test report that they provide may contain negative comments based purely on non-compliance, it must limit itself to commenting on the compliance with Building Regs.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And while the wording does not specify BS 7671, what other document will be consulted if a dispute arises? I'm pretty sure the IEE will have an opinion about this.

Mind you - one can go too far:

 

[mildmanneredjanitor]

The picture Ban has just posted illustrates the the ridiculous things that people will have in a bathroom with little or no regard to safety...

Sheer stupidity! Someone could easliy slip on that mat on the floor and is a considerable trip hazard.

I would recomend that a sign be placed in front to warn people of the potential danger such a carelessly placed mat can have in the bathroom!



On a serious note, what IPX rating do I need for mounting a flush downlighter above a bath? (fitted last month obviously! )

 

[oilman]

used to be allowed (at least for single sockets). .

Can't remember where I recently read this, but somebody posted about how he used to have an unsafe/non-compliant installation, but now it's perfectly OK. He didn't actually do anything - he just waited until the requirements for supplementary bonding in kitchens disappeared in the 16th...

Me. (I thank you )

Sadly, such 'risk balance' is not done between government departments, luckily the ODPM does not deal with transport, if it did, we would be seeing a competant drivers scheme, ........

We already have such a scheme, where almost any donk can get a certificate and there's an organisation collecting the money. It's called the driving test