RCD requirements poll

[stillp]

No. Making reasonable provision for safety is likely to result in a safe installation, but there's no 'must' about it.

That defies logic. If the result is not reasonably safe, then how can you have made reasonable provision for safety?

Not at all.

Has anyone noticed that one of the people who voted Yes in this poll doesn't not appear to have ever posted in this forum, and not in any forum for several years, and that another has only posted twice in this forum (and virtually never anywhere else), and that 4-5 years ago?

Kind Regards, John

No, I haven't looked, as all the poll shows is that the question is open to interpretation.

 

[JohnW2]

That defies logic. If the result is not reasonably safe, then how can you have made reasonable provision for safety?

Not at all.

As I've said, I agree with you. Particularly if one is dealing with an inherently dangerous situation, one can fall over backwards in trying to 'make reasonable provisions for safety', yet still end up with something which isn't particularly safe.

No, I haven't looked, as all the poll shows is that the question is open to interpretation.

Indeed - which is why I made an attempt to produce a slightly clearer one. Nevertheless, it seems very odd that a couple of people who had not contributed to this forum for years (or never, in many years of DIYnot membership) should suddenly appear and vote!

Kind Regards,, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then, to quote something you like to ask quite often, were you not paying attention?

I was. Not sure why you think I didn't answer you the first time you mentioned the article, given that you argued with what I said in reply.

For the last time: I provided you with a link to an IET article regarding inspection of electrical installations which in turn refers to an appendix in the very same BS7671 you are trying to use to argue your case. It indicates that the absence of RCD protection is not to be regarded, per se as dangerous.

Will that be the article that you want to rely on just so long as nobody points out that it says "Unless the electrical installation designer is convinced that the socket-outlet cannot reasonably be expected to be used for other purposes, RCD protection for that socket-outlet should not be omitted" at which point you suddenly become less keen on its "recommendations" and want to look at what BS 7671 says?

I am telling you that they are no longer regarded as safe enough for it to be reasonable to continue to install them like that.

Then that's something else for which you need to cite something which backs up what you are telling us.

411.3.3(i)

As I asked you earlier, but you did not answer, what makes you think that compliance with every single regulation within BS7671 is necessary for an installation to be considered reasonably safe, or "safe enough," by the committee which was responsible for drafting those rules?

Apologies - I admit I am losing track of the questions you ask which are nonsense for one reason or another.

To help me get the context right, can you tell me where it was that I said that compliance with every single regulation within BS7671 is necessary for an installation to be considered reasonably safe, or "safe enough," by the committee which was responsible for drafting those rules?

What makes you think that they cannot, by way of the regulations within the standard, suggest things which don't just meet the minimum standard of what they consider to be reasonably safe but which go beyond that for something which, if followed, results in a standard of safety which is higher than just reasonably safe?

Lack of cynicism and an absence of a deranged hatred of the concept of things changing?