Why is electricity more dangerous today than in 1992?

[Harry Bloomfield]

I know it's more complicated, but a lot of people fail to see past the "stick to the speed limit and everything's fine" part of the message. Add in the shift to mechanised enforcement (i.e. speed and red light cameras) which can't detect bad driving or offer advice at the point of infraction and you have a recipe for worsening driving standards and worsening accident stats. This takes time to happen.

I noticed a large upsurge in poor irresponsible local driving recently, when the lockdown eased.

But back to the original question ...
I agree, the actual hazard from electricity and the presence or absence of any feature hasn't changed significantly. However, our attitude to risk has changed, and the risk arising from hazards has changed (complacency).

If the company I served my time in industry was anything to go by, the work required was to an exceptionally high standard, much higher than modern standards. Site conditions and site safety was always pretty much ignored and many risks taken to get jobs done. What I took away from it was that some risks if you assessed them carefully and mitigated them, you could get away with.

 

[JohnW2]

One factor which I believe will contribute to this is the change in emphasis from "standards" to "compliance". This goes back further than 5 years, but I recall discussing it with a friend who's a driving instructor. He said they'd all had to change their style from "drive safely with compliance definitely second" to "compliance with the law<period>". I know it's more complicated, but a lot of people fail to see past the "stick to the speed limit and everything's fine" part of the message. Add in the shift to mechanised enforcement (i.e. speed and red light cameras) which can't detect bad driving or offer advice at the point of infraction and you have a recipe for worsening driving standards and worsening accident stats. This takes time to happen.

Yes - but, as you say, this has been progressively happening for a good long while, and I really can't believe it can explain all, or probably even much, of the the sudden upturn in the curve (which had previously falling for years) after 2015, and nor the 13%+ rise in 'Serious injuries + deaths' during the three years from 2015 to 2018, particularly given that deaths continued to fall during that period.

As I said before, I think it very probable that what we are seeing is the result in some change in the (already very iffy) way in which they defined 'Serious injury'. As I said, many of the injuries which are 'Serious' by the definition they seem to be using are not really at all serious in medical or 'common sense' terms, so it would take only small changes in policies and/or practices to produce the sort of changes we are seeing.

But back to the original question ... I agree, the actual hazard from electricity and the presence or absence of any feature hasn't changed significantly. However, our attitude to risk has changed, and the risk arising from hazards has changed (complacency).

As I've said, I certainly agree that nothing has become more dangerous about anything electrical to bring about the changes in attitudes to risk etc. On the contrary, electrical installations, equipment and appliances have been progressively getting 'safer', yet 'we' (or is it 'they'?) seem to be getting more concerned about the residual hazards than they were about the greater ones of the past.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I like the idea of improving safety, however when some one is found in difficultly as sea, the RLNI will send out a lifeboat with a crew to save them, even when they are risking their own lives to do so. This is repeated with many of the fire and rescue services. So the idea of risk assessment does not really pan out with these events, there will always be some risk with everything we do, and care is required so when trying to reduce the risk, the reverse is not the case.

This happened with the socket protector,

to my mind unless marked BS 1363 it should not be put in a 13A socket, and to date not found one marked BS 1363, I had this argument with a woman from the council who was insisting that before the house was used for child care these silly items were put in every socket a child could reach, the person who marketed these should get an award for selling so many useless bits of plastic.

However in the EU where shuttered sockets were not the norm, there equivalent likely made sense. OK this is an extreme case, but we have many cases where well meaning people in authority have issued the wrong advice. My mother was disabled and also had alzheimer's so the council fitted a new kitchen and sent some one to tell my mother how to use the new equipment, the woman dully arrived and told my mother to switch off the oven at the FCU when finished, this resulted in the carcase overheating, and the clock stopping, and the oven failing to work again until the clock had been reset, and my mother would not take my word not to turn it off at the FCU I had to get the woman back to tell her. So on inquiry it seems she only had a gas oven, on asking if she turned off the gas tap each time she finished with it, the answer was no, so why do it with electric?

All best intentions, but not enough thought had been used.

As stated each issue of BS7671 gives the date at which new designs need to take it into account, so if the installation has not degraded and it passed when installed, it should still pass.

However that does not really work where the requirements have been clarified rather than changed.

314 INSTALLATION CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENT
314-01-01 Every installation shall be divided into circuits as necessary to:
(i) avoid danger and minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault, and
(ii) facilitate safe operation, inspection, testing and maintenance.
314-01-02 A separate circuit shall be provided for each part of the installation which needs to be separately controlled for compliance with the Regulations or otherwise to prevent danger, so that such circuits remain energised in the event of failure of any other circuit of the installation, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.
314-01-03 The number of final circuits required, and the number of points supplied by any final circuit, shall be such as to facilitate compliance with the requirements of Chapter 43 for overcurrent protection, Chapter 46 for isolation and switching and Chapter 52 as regards current-carrying capacities of conductors.
314-01-04 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. The wiring of each final circuit shall be electrically separate from that of every other final circuit, so as to prevent the indirect energising of a final circuit intended to be isolated.

314.1 Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:
(i) avoid hazards and minimize inconvenience in the event of a fault
(ii) facilitate safe inspection, testing and maintenance (see also Section 537)
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit
(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation
(v) mitigate the effects of electromagnetic interferences (EMI)
(vi) prevent the indirect energizing of a circuit intended to be isolated.
314.2 Separate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be separately controlled, in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.
314.3 The number of final circuits required. and the number of points supplied by any final circuit, shall be such as to facilitate compliance with the requirements of Chapter 43 for overcurrent protection, Section 537 for isolation and switching and Chapter 52 as regards current-carrying capacities of conductors.
314.4 Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. The wiring of each final circuit shall be electrically separate from that of every other final circuit, so as to prevent the indirect energizing of a final circuit intended to be isolated.

The "(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation" makes it clear RCD's are considered as forming circuits, and in real terms we should consider ⅓ of the RCD rating as a safe level, so we should check that the back ground leakage does not exceed 9 mA, however I will admit I have never tested, mainly as my clamp-on does not read that low, with the old 100 mA we were looking at 33 mA or less, but my meter would not measure that either. So some one could go to an installation I had installed and say it does not comply, it needs more than 2 RCD's. However what we are really looking at is test methods, and in hind sight, and hind sight is easy, I got it wrong, the ½ rating tests should be done with all MCB's turned on. If it does not trip with MCB's on the 15 mA plus leakage is not over 30 mA, but 30 mA test should be done both MCB's off and on, to ensure no DC component will stop the RCD tripping, but oddly we are not required to do this, or even check what type of RCD is fitted. May be just as well as my old installations may fail.

So if an installation fails, OK word is unsatisfactory, and nothing has degraded, can you call back the guy who installed it and demand it is corrected FOC? or if over 10 years old, the last guy who did a PIR (now called EICR) and passed it? If some thing has degraded, or been altered by unknown persons (Owner) then OK it may fail now but not when last checked, but no RCD sprouts wings and flies off.

But the oldest copy of BS 7671 I have is 2001, before that date I used the firms copy, so OK I know 1966 the rules on earths for lights changed, but I remember having to earth window frames at one point, what year that started and stopped I don't know, but if this was 1981 to 1991 (15th Edition) should I fail a property if built in this period and there are no bonding wires to window frames? The same applies distance of a socket to a sink, I seem to remember it was in one of the early editions.

 

[JohnW2]

This happened with the socket protector, ... to my mind unless marked BS 1363 it should not be put in a 13A socket, and to date not found one marked BS 1363 ...

That would presumably be because no part of BS1363 applies to 'socket protectors'.

The "(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation" makes it clear RCD's are considered as forming circuits ...

I don't understand what makes you think that, particularly given that the BS7671 definition of 'a circuit' explicitly states that a circuit consists of everything protected by a single over-current device. I know that you have previously argued that an RCD is an 'over-current device', since it operates when the residual current exceeds a certain value, but I hope you said that with your tongue in your cheek, since is seems (to me) to be a daft suggestion, given that 'everyone knows' what is meant by an 'over-current protection device'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

In a way yes tongue in cheek, however my point is there is some ambiguity in BS 7671, it is written in English after all. So we get small changes like historically and rule of thumb. And it becomes clear that some ambiguity is being clarified. Where this is the case, then it is possible some one has miss read the intent of the regulations.

"take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit" has far reaching implications, and I know the argument is a general power cut will plunge one into darkness, however this also applies if you can't reset a MCB or RCD due to an fault, so what are the dangers? Well I would say running an extension lead up/down the stairs is dangerous, so if the sockets are split side to side or front to back in a house, then if you loose the supply to a freezer any extension lead used would not run up/down the stairs, but if split upper and lower floor it would, of course if there is a cooker supply with a socket then you still have two supplies on the lower floor, and it is unusual to have freezers on the upper floor. However it would seem the regulations do cover the way the sockets should be arranged, but in a vague way.

If in the future this is clarified, then it is not a change in the rules, but clarifying what they mean, this could have far reaching effects, as the rules have not changed, only the way we have been reading them will have changed.

So a house which in 1992 was considered to comply, we then realise it didn't, rules not changed just the we have been reading them. I knew that in 1966 there was a change saying an earth needed to be run to light fittings, but also that we did not need an earth between the ceiling rose and bulb holder, but finding the regulation was not easy (A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lampholder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.)
This

does need an earth so in some cases it does go further than the ceiling rose. However read the regulation and it says "terminated" so even if only a place to park the earth wire, any fixed appliance should have a provision to terminate the earth wire, I must be reading this wrong, as I have seem many a wall thermostat with no earth terminal. Maybe bending it over and putting tape on it is classed as terminated?

And this it the problem we have to consider what is meant, if some one says to me correctly terminated I think of transmission lines and 300 Ω ribbon cable, balums and the like, and the impedance of cable and terminations, but did not even consider that before returning to further my education and getting a degree. So it is what one thinks it means, with is not always what the writers intended.

 

[StephenOak]

what do you think of this?

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

Bloody nanny state, eh?

Not a lot as it is only one measure.

Some of that change is probably better safety kit in cars. But some of is probably children being chauffeured around when they used to walk / children not being allowed out to play on their own.

Those points probably lead to children being less active and thus becoming less active adults, which (with other changes) leads to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Child deaths on the road today are easy to measure, adult deaths (and reduced quality of life) in the coming decades is impossible to measure and very difficult even to estimate, so it is very hard to balance one against the other.

Someone mentioned push-bike helmets. I have heard David Spiegelhalter (who is a keen cyclist who wears a helmet) say that he is strongly against the compulsory wearing of bike helmets as it will put children off cycling and the long-term impact on the nation's health would be negative.

 

[JohnW2]

In a way yes tongue in cheek, however my point is there is some ambiguity in BS 7671, it is written in English after all.

Fair enough. However, I think it very inadvisable, in this DIY forum to suggest, even if 'with tongue in cheek' (which many/most DIYers would not realise) that, in a technically pedantic sense, and RCD might be considered to be an 'over-current protective device' - since many of the general public (including DIYers) are already confused enough about the difference between 'over-current protection' and 'residual current protection' without you helping to add to their confusion!

... "take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit" has far reaching implications .... If in the future this is clarified, then it is not a change in the rules, but clarifying what they mean, this could have far reaching effects, as the rules have not changed, only the way we have been reading them will have changed.

Indeed. I would say that any 'regulation' which starts by say that one should "take account of ...", or similar, is intended to be open to discretionary interpretation, rather than being prescriptive, and I think that there is a tendency of some to 'over-interpret' some such regulation (e.g. as saying that there MUST be at least two lighting circuits on different RCDs). At the very least, one could presumably satisfy the spirit of that reg by installing emergency lighting (which would also work during power cuts), so there is not any implied 'MUST' about having two lighting circuits. As I understand it, we saw similar in the past, with all the spaghetti of supplementary bonding that was often installed a few decades back - as I understand, much of that resulted from a mis-interpretation / over-interpretation of the then current regs.

This ..... does need an earth so in some cases it does go further than the ceiling rose. However read the regulation and it says "terminated" so even if only a place to park the earth wire, any fixed appliance should have a provision to terminate the earth wire, I must be reading this wrong, as I have seem many a wall thermostat with no earth terminal. Maybe bending it over and putting tape on it is classed as terminated?

Interesting point, particularly given that, as often discussed, many manufacturers of Class II items have instructions saying that one "MUST NOT" connect an earth to the item! As you say, that all comes down to the perceived meaning of 'terminated' - a word which is not defined in BS7671.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

The "(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation" makes it clear RCD's are considered as forming circuits, and in real terms we should consider ⅓ of the RCD rating as a safe level, so we should check that the back ground leakage does not exceed 9 mA ...

I wonder if it's just coincidence that ⅓ of 30mA is 10mA - the limit for expected leakage current when (IIRC) high integrity earthing is required for socket circuits ?

That would presumably be because no part of BS1363 applies to 'socket protectors'.

Ah, hang on - won't the dimensional requirement for plugs & pins not apply ? This is where things fall down - ideally they'd be required to conform to at least those parts, even though they cannot comply with the electrical parts.
Interestingly I've seen less of them for sale lately - it's something I look for when we're out shopping and I've sent a few emails to Asda. Last time we had a bit of an exchange via email where they said "no problem, our suppliers tell us they are safe". Next thing, they've stopped selling those and have a different brand on the shelf. Last time I was in, I don't think I saw anything - not even in the "home safety" packs that have a selection of stuff in them (draw/cupboard restrictors, door restrictors, furniture corner protectors, and so on).
I wonder how much of it is the retailers not stocking them, or the manufacturers waking up to the facts ?

 

[ericmark]

This website has been highlighting the problem for a long time. There has been some progress, now banned in hospitals, although still used in my dentists.

I had a problem with them as so many were saying must be used, and then realised they did not have BS 1363 printed on them, so I did not argue about use, just said any used must have BS 1363 printed on them, otherwise put in the bin, as as yet not found any with BS 1363 printed on them.

 

[SimonH2]

Yup, I've been referencing the Fatally Flawed website as well.
You won't find any device with BS1363 printed on it - well not correctly anyway. To do so would mean passing all the tests mandated by BS1363 which is going to be hard for something with none of the electrical bits that need testing. One way round this would, IMO, be to get BS1363 modified to have two groups of tests - one group that everything must pass, and another that only plugs (i.e. electrical devices) need to pass. But does that open up the world to devices claiming BS1363 compliance by lying about it's functionality ?
Another approach would be a specific standard for such devices, which references all the bits of BS1363 that are needed. Without a "massive problem that must be solved" impetus, that is not going to happen quickly - or at all.

 

[JohnW2]

Ah, hang on - won't the dimensional requirement for plugs & pins not apply ?

Well, in common sense terms, the dimensional requirements (of a 'socket protector') obviously should be the same as the corresponding requirements for pins of plugs specified in BS1363.

However, that does not alter the fact that 'socket protectors' are not within the scope of BS1363, which means that cannot specify dimensional requirements for them.

One thing that has always surprised/confused me - why do (at least some of) these 'socket protectors' not have pin dimensions as specified for plugs in BS1363 - it's presumably as easy to make them the correct size than an incorrect size? ... or are we perhaps just talking about 'production spread' in the dimensions?

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

One could claim compliance with "relavent clauses" of BS1363 like clipsal do for their 13A screw lock waterproof plugs.

On the subject of new standards BSI introduced a new standard for travel adapters a few years back. While I am not aware of any legal requirement to follow said standard it nevertheless seems to have resulted in a marked difference in the travel adapters sold in major retailers. Gone are the "continental adapters" with thinner pins so they can get into russian sockets, the "intercontinental adapters" with pins that rotate to fit both Australian and American sockets and no earth and the "visitor adapters" which try to take three different shapes on pin in the same hole (though types that take two different shapes of pin in the same hole with a sepeate slot for the australian pins still seem to be around).

 

[SimonH2]

One thing that has always surprised/confused me - why do (at least some of) these 'socket protectors' not have pin dimensions as specified for plugs in BS1363 - it's presumably as easy to make them the correct size than an incorrect size? ... or are we perhaps just talking about 'production spread' in the dimensions?

It does seem strange, butvaccording to Fatally Flawed, there is not a single model tbat meets the dimentional requirements of BS1363. One gets close to a full card of wrong dimensions. IIRC there's a tabke on Fatally Flawed with dinensions as per BS1363 and those measured for the various socket "protectors".
I too don't understand this. As you say, it would be as easy to get them right as to get them as wrong as some of them do. The only tricky bit is moulding parallel pins, tapered ones release better from the mould. I can only assume that the people making them, and the people putting their name to them, just don't care.

 

[JohnW2]

One could claim compliance with "relavent clauses" of BS1363 like clipsal do for their 13A screw lock waterproof plugs.

I don't think one really could/should claim "compliance with...", since there is nothing that BS1363 requires 'socket ptotectors to comply with. However, if you changed 'compliance with' to 'consistent with', that would probably be reasonable enough.

However, on the basis of what Simon and I have been discussing, it sounds as if none of them acrtually are consistent with the dimensional requirements (for plug pins) of BS1363 - so it sounds as if they probably could not really even claim 'consistency'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It does seem strange, butvaccording to Fatally Flawed, there is not a single model tbat meets the dimentional requirements of BS1363. One gets close to a full card of wrong dimensions. IIRC there's a tabke on Fatally Flawed with dinensions as per BS1363 and those measured for the various socket "protectors". I too don't understand this. As you say, it would be as easy to get them right as to get them as wrong as some of them do. The only tricky bit is moulding parallel pins, tapered ones release better from the mould. I can only assume that the people making them, and the people putting their name to them, just don't care.

Yes, very odd. It is perhaps possible that, being made of plastic rather than metal, if they were made the same dimensions as BS1363 socket pins they would be difficult to insert into a socket - hence deliberately made slightly 'undersized' {are they 'undersized', rather than 'oversized'?} in comparison with plug pins?

Kind Regards, John