Why is electricity more dangerous today than in 1992?

[ericmark]

• C1 – There is a danger present, risk of injury and immediate remedial action required.
• C2 – There is a potential danger present and urgent remedial work is required.

Not interested in C3 improvements are clearly good, but mainly looking at C2, to my mind if it is potentially dangerous now it has always been potentially dangerous, and if it was safe to use in 1992 when BS 7671 came out, why is it not safe today.

I can only think of one thing which was low risk in 1992 which is a higher risk now, due to the advent of switch mode power supplies and rectifying the mains rather than isolating from the mains with a transformer first, with a TT installation today you need a type A RCD where in 1992 a type AC was good enough.

Then I struggle, I can see how using a 30 mA RCD is an improvement i.e. C3, but the lack of one does not make the installation dangerous.

I can see how use of plastic pipes may make an installation which was safe, less safe as a result, but it would have had the same effect in 1992 as today, be it less or more safe if you change something, then yes some thing can become dangerous, but is a Wylex fuse box was safe in 1992 unless something is altered it should still be safe today.

Non-compliances with the requirements of the current edition of BS 7671 that do not give rise to danger and do not require reporting.

The examples of C1 would have been just as dangerous in 1992 so no problems with that.

Some things one can understand, when plumbers started using thermal plastic header tanks then we needed extra protection, but only when a thermal plastic tank is fitted.

Consumer units having rewirable fuses can continue to provide satisfactory service

How can you say that in the same document that says lack of 30 mA RCD is dangerous.

Inadequate number of socket-outlets. (Note: A Code C3 or, where appropriate C2, if extension leads run through doorways, walls or windows, or under carpets, or are otherwise being used in an unsafe manner).

This is not the best idea

However it can hardly be classed as dangerous either, it is on my to do list, but not very high, this

was the example shown on a previous issue, clearly not good, but what has that got to do with the installation? In both cases all you need to do is unplug. And as long as the double adaptors have got fuses in, how can you get an overload?

When the EICR was to tell the owner of work which it was desirable to do, then it did not really matter if coded C2 instead of C3, when a C2 can mean some one is homeless because the owner can't get it fixed within the allotted time, then it makes a big difference.

Using common sense if the ring finals are split so should one fail due for example an RCD tripping a cable would need running up or down the stairs that is to my mind far worse than a cable running protected under the door.

Which of course brings us back to the dates, in 1992 when we did not have RCD protection at 30 mA on socket circuits splitting the circuits up/down was no real problem, side to side or front to back was often better as a lower loop impedance, but it did not really matter, but when we add RCD's the chance of failure of the circuit increases, so once the RCD is added the risk of the occupant being forced to run cables up/down the stairs to keep essential supplies running increases, so then we get into the risk assessment, is the risk of tripping on a cable on the stairs higher than the risk of some live part being left exposed long enough for some one to touch.

Remember a RCD even at 30 mA does not stop you getting a shock, however it will limit it to 40 mS and likely trip in the case of a fault before you touch it.

Clearly the Electrical Safety Council can't make up their minds, and really are we after best practice, or just acceptable practice? And there is nothing about the types of RCD, if power line adaptors are used, should you give it a C2 unless a type F RCD is fitted?

Until putting the wrong code could make some one homeless I was not really worried if some one used the wrong one, but now it has become rather important.

 

[JohnW2]

... to my mind if it is potentially dangerous now it has always been potentially dangerous, and if it was safe to use in 1992 when BS 7671 came out, why is it not safe today.

What changes over time is not 'how dangerous' various things, practices and behaviour are but, rather, what degree of risk "they" feel it is reasonable for people to be exposed to.

You and I are both well old enough to remember the days when, in a vast range of fields, things were done, without any prohibition by legislation or regulations) which would be 'quite unthinkable' today.

In many cases, the changes in attitudes to acceptable (and 'not acceptable) risks have been sensible and welcome, but the 'Nanny State' has (at least in my opinion!) got a bit carried away with itself in many situations!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps there are too many rules and regulations.

Perhaps continual additions - apart from new equipment - are a way of continuing employment.

Perhaps those in charge aren't really 'up to the job'.

 

[bernardgreen]

Perhaps today people just take it for granted and do not respect it and the potential hazards that carelessness can create

 

[echoes]

There is something in the saying that "if things are made idiot-proof, evolution just produces better idiots."

 

[Tigercubrider]

I saw a comedian on YouTube saying
" when we were kids, we played with fireworks, had knives, climbed trees, and swam in rivers-
All that is banned now"

We were fine.

It was the stupid ones who died- today, they're all still here but young adults

 

[Risteard]

the 'Nanny State' has (at least in my opinion!) got a bit carried away with itself in many situations!

COVID is the prime example of this.

 

[catlad]

My pal was telling me that a viaduct was closed when a teenager fell of whilst hanging off the side taking a selfy of himself, he plunged to his death when the railing he was holding broke. Now a lot more teenagers are aware of the dangers of hanging over the side of large structures, that's how people become aware of danger.

 

[JohnD]

We were fine.

survivor bias.

 

[JohnD]

what do you think of this?

https://lginform.local.gov.uk/repor...Regions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

Bloody nanny state, eh?

 

[ericmark]

I have no objection to the way the electric board would check an installation before connecting up the supply, however there needs to be a balance, I went into a house where the RCD was tripping, there was an extension lead running down the stairs to keep the freezer running, the fault was a little water in the outside light, but because the outside light was on the same RCD and down stairs sockets, they had this clearly dangerous lead running down the stairs.

The dangers involved in having a RCD in that case were greater than not having one. I can see there is a limit to the Darwin process of selection, and two low intelligent level people can have a child who is super intelligent, and the reverse. But I can see why you need to protect electrical installations from some one putting their hand on live water and earthed stop cock at the same time, but protection against drilling through the cable, next they will limit drill length to 50 mm.

With all the battery drills it is easy, turn off power then drill hole. If I was given a option of living in a house with not RCD or a caravan I am sure I would go for the house. Having lived in a 16 foot caravan for 3 years, I know which one I would go for. It is all well and good making laws, but we want to reduce the homeless not increase it.

 

[ericmark]

what do you think of this?


View attachment 200895

https://lginform.local.gov.uk/repor...Regions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

Bloody nanny state, eh?

Bring back the red flag. But when I was 25 my boss would complain on how long a job had taken and I was foolish enough to speed, when I was 45 I simply said I think an average of 40 MPH for that route is good, it is the people who average 50 MPH you should be having a go at, they are clearly speeding.

At 65 I thought what is the point, I'm in no hurry. I regular tow a trailer, the speed limit on normal roads is 50 MPH, I stick to the 50 MPH and it is clear this really upsets people, there is with a small camping trailer behind a large 4 x 4 no reason why I should go any slower than with the car light, but the law says 50 so 50 I do, I am sure this increase the risk as people want to overtake me. But rules are rules.

If the rules say don't use a second home, that is the rule, even if using the second home makes sense and your the prime minister, if the rule is wrong and your prime minister then change it, don't brake it. It would have been so simple, you must live where your registered with a doctor, if a doctor where your second home was would take you on his books then you could go to second home, other wise stay where you are, but that would not allow the police to issue loads of fines.

 

[JohnW2]

There is something in the saying that "if things are made idiot-proof, evolution just produces better idiots."

There is.

Since the capacity of some people for idiocy is almost boundless, true "idiot-proof" is next to impossible. However, even movements in that direction can engender complacency, which we see all the time.

I saw a comedian on YouTube saying " when we were kids, we played with fireworks, had knives, climbed trees, and swam in rivers- All that is banned now". We were fine.

Indeed - and the great majority of us 'were fine'.

However, the point is that a few were not 'fine', but that this was 'accepted' as being a part of life (or even death); there were many minor injuries, some serious injuries and a (thankfully very small) number of tragic deaths due to the sort of things you mention, but that was fully 'accepted' back then.

It is, admittedly, a lot more difficult when one starts talking about children but, for sane adults, it has always been my belief that, in general, they should be informed as much as possible about what dangers and risks exist, but then left totally free to make their own decisions about what level of risk they were prepared and happy to expose themselves to.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

what do you think of this? ... Bloody nanny state, eh?

I'm not really sure of your point. As I wrote:

In many cases, the changes in attitudes to acceptable (and 'not acceptable) risks have been sensible and welcome, but the 'Nanny State' has (at least in my opinion!) got a bit carried away with itself in many situations!

There are some interesting aspects of this data (see graph below based on the data you linked to). Firstly, although I would expect similar if one looked back a decade or three earlier, I'm rather surprised to see so much change starting only 16 years ago - I wonder what has led to this? Secondly, I wonder why the rate of road serious injuries/deaths have been increasing since 2015, in both children and adults?

Kind Regards, John
Edit: ee next post for the missing graph!

 

[JohnW2]

Here's the graph! ...