ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[PBC_1966]

In contrast, there is very little we now know about electricity, or the hazards posed by electrical products and installations, which we did not know (or have the ability to know) many decades ago. Changes in regulations concerning electrical products and installations therefore do not really relate to our having discovered that something previously thought to be safe is actually far more dangerous than was thought but, rather, to that fact that 'they'/'we'/'society' has decided that an unchanging level of safety/risk (which has been known for decades) which was considered 'acceptable' in the past is no longer 'acceptable'. That's rather different, and is essentially an arbitrary decision.

Indeed. And as I see it, the rate at which the overall level of safety has increased is not a linear progression but an exponential one where as time goes on the changes over a given period of time are having less and less real effect on improving safety. There was a far bigger improvement from, say, 1935 to 1955 than from 1955 to 1975, and in turn the improvement between 1975 & 1995 was significantly less than that from 1955 to 1975.

I feel that we've really long reached the point at which the safety curve has leveled out so much that save for any new rules which come about due to some specific discovery (e.g. this new thermal insulation material just developed reacts badly with the PVC sheath of cables, so we need to address that problem), or those which come about due to the adoption of some new technology (e.g. if we ever get the mini atomic reactor in your basement idea off the ground), everything else is really just tinkering around with trivial things to try and justify having to keep making substantial changes to the rules every few years.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Safe enough for what? They regard it as safe enough for continued use.

But not for new introductions.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

And that's what I will keep telling you until you get it.

Have you actually read the article I quoted above, from the IET's own journal? And until reading it myself, I was not aware that guidance on just this matter had been incorporated into BS7671 itself, so have you read Appendix 6 and the notes on inspections referred to within it?

Yes. They recommend that improvements be made.

They also forbid the introduction of any more RCD protection which would immediately require improvement.

I see no dissonance between those, nor do I see that the former means you may disregard the latter.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

I have to go into town tomorrow morning. It would not be unreasonable for me to decide to go and eat at Denny's should I feel hungry while running my errands. That doesn't mean that it would be unreasonable if I chose not to go to Denny's and decided to eat somewhere else instead.

So now you are going to try fatuous "analogies".

I don't know if you have some genuine difficulty with understanding the concept of reasonable vs. unreasonable in context, or if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Neither. I know that if you do not do what is officially deemed reasonably safe, and is reasonable to do, but instead do what is not allowed and what should be improved not propagated then you are not acting reasonably.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

If you really believe that, then once again, as per the article in the IET's own journal, please explain why the committee had included in an appendix to BS7671 guidance on this very issue indicating that a C3 report would suffice. If they really don't consider it to be reasonably safe, they would insist that it be coded as C2 (potential danger) as a minimum, or if they felt it to be as unsafe as you would have us believe it is, a C1 (immediate danger).

I can grasp the difference between very dangerous, dangerous, and not safe enough to be allowed to be continued.

You can't. I guess that's one thing which doesn't change.

Again, why do you think that BS7671 cannot contain rules which strive to go above and beyond what is just reasonably safe?

Why do you think that they contain rules which go so far above and beyond what is reasonably safe that you are morally justified in taking no notice of them and telling other people to take no notice of them?

Is it a combination of your blind hatred of changes to regulations and your lack of morality?

I'll skip over a whole load more of your replies which are just rehashing the foregoing.

I'll summarise them for you:

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Please either provide a legal citation that what we're discussing here is actaully illegal, or stop trying to tell people that it is.

P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

You are telling people that they do not have to do today for new work what is considered reasonable by BS 7671 today for new work, but instead can do what is no longer allowed by BS 7671 for new work.

To do that would not be reasonable, and therefore would be unlawful.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

We're talking about a very minor issue here, and installations which even those working strictly to BS7671 (forgetting about possible allowable departures from specific regulations) were signing off as compliant as recently as 2008. Please note that's 2008, not 1908, which some people might be forgiven for thinking judging by your completely overblown reactions.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? I said they're readily available, and you said they're not. And assuming that we're supposed to take that Google screenshot as evidence of how many places sell 10mA vs. 30mA devices, you seem to have just shot your argument down in flames by showing that 10mA devices are, in fact, as readily available as I said they are.

They are clearly not as available as 30mA ones, and the regulations do not require 10mA.

Well, if you want to bring up the comparison with the standard 5mA GFCI used in homes here, that's another issue. And yes, I do feel that the NEC has gotten carried away with specifying them in far too many places.

Now there's a surprise.

Tell you what - you stick to telling your adopted fellow countrymen that their regulations/codes/advice are wrong, and should be ignored, and stop telling people here to break the law because of your personal issues with regulations changing.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. And as I see it, the rate at which the overall level of safety has increased is not a linear progression but an exponential one where as time goes on the changes over a given period of time are having less and less real effect on improving safety.

That can certainly be argued. It's not just 'the flattening of the curve, but also the absolute levels of UK domestic deaths and (probably - true figures are hard to come by) serious injuries due to the electricity. These figures are (somewhat to my surprise), already so very low that there is very little scope for any further 'tightening' of the regulations to have an appreciable impact on the mortality/morbidity figures - particularly when one realises that at least some of the deaths/injuries are due to stupidity and/or disregard for any regulations which would not be altered by further changes in the regs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In some of those cases evidence surfaced showing that something which was believed to be safe was, in fact, not. Or at least not as safe as was thought.

Like 100mA RCD protection vs 30mA?

They're slightly different cases than incremental improvements in the level of safety over time without any sudden discovery of significant danger where none was believed to have existed before.

Do you know why incremental improvements in the level of safety happen over time?

It's because things change.

That's the way it works.

But to use your car analogy, you might argue that disk brakes were a significant improvement over drum brakes and therefore improve safety to some degree (ignoring possible risk compensation factors among certain drivers which might offset any such improvement). Does that mean that drum brakes are not still reasonably safe?

What if there were standards for braking performance which were more onerous for cars built after a certain date and/or which have front disc brakes rather than front drums?

Would you still be telling people building cars to take no notice of the new standards because the old ones used to be good enough, and therefore they must still be good enough because older cars are still allowed on the roads?


Things change.

That's the way it works.

Does it mean that they're not as safe as they were before disk brakes came along? Then you might argue that ABS has improved safety to some degree; does that mean that cars without it are not still reasonably safe, have become unsafe, or any less safe than they were before ABS?

If ABS became a mandatory requirement for vehicles built after dd/mm/yyyy would you tell people building cars to take no notice of that because lack of it used to be good enough, and cars built before dd/mm/yyyy could still be found on the roads?


Things change.

That's the way it works.

I'm just trying to point out that it's a matter of degree, and that in the grand scheme of things on the particular issue which started this debate some people are making huge great mountains out of tiny molehills.

Some of us are trying to get you to see that things change.

Some of us are trying to get you to see that that's how it works.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Changes in regulations concerning electrical products and installations therefore do not really relate to our having discovered that something previously thought to be safe is actually far more dangerous than was thought but, rather, to that fact that 'they'/'we'/'society' has decided that an unchanging level of safety/risk (which has been known for decades) which was considered 'acceptable' in the past is no longer 'acceptable'.

Or, expressed another way, things which were considered reasonably safe to build in the past are no longer considered reasonably safe?

That's rather different, and is essentially an arbitrary decision.

Arbitrary or not, it's a decision which has been made.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And as I see it, the rate at which the overall level of safety has increased is not a linear progression but an exponential one where as time goes on the changes over a given period of time are having less and less real effect on improving safety. There was a far bigger improvement from, say, 1935 to 1955 than from 1955 to 1975, and in turn the improvement between 1975 & 1995 was significantly less than that from 1955 to 1975.

Irrelevant.

Things are still changing.

That's the way it still works.

I feel that we've really long reached the point at which the safety curve has leveled out so much that save for any new rules which come about due to some specific discovery (e.g. this new thermal insulation material just developed reacts badly with the PVC sheath of cables, so we need to address that problem), or those which come about due to the adoption of some new technology (e.g. if we ever get the mini atomic reactor in your basement idea off the ground), everything else is really just tinkering around with trivial things to try and justify having to keep making substantial changes to the rules every few years.

What you feel is irrelevant. Your feelings are not considered in the regulations, nor do they give you or other people exemption from the law.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

 

[JohnW2]

Or, expressed another way, things which were considered reasonably safe to build in the past are no longer considered reasonably safe?

Indeed - the crucial word being 'considered'. The 'level of safety' has not usually changed, but 'they' have decided that (in 'their' opinion) a level of safety which used to be 'considered reasonable' no longer is.

If that change in view were based on a referendum, or even a survey of the population, or if it were a response to considerable pressure from the public, then it would make sense. However, since none of those are the case, one cannot help but wonder about the basis on which 'they' (a very small group, mainly of technical experts) have decided that 'we' (society as a whole) actually want these revised definitions of what is to be considered to be 'acceptably safe' for us.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Safe enough for what? They regard it as safe enough for continued use.

But not for new introductions.

If it's considered safe enough for continued use without coding indicating some sort of remedial action required to remove potential danger (not just "recommend improvement") then it must be reasonably safe. If it's reasonably safe for continued use in an existing installation then it is equally safe if you installed it today. It makes absolutely no sense to try and argue that of two identical installations one is reasonably safe because it was done yesterday and the other isn't because it was done today. Either both are reasonably safe or both are not, depending upon whatever criteria one is using to judge what constitutes reasonable safety.

Yes. They recommend that improvements be made.

Which is not the same thing as saying "This is unsafe and it should be rectified urgently."

They also forbid the introduction of any more RCD protection which would immediately require improvement.

I see no dissonance between those, nor do I see that the former means you may disregard the latter.

Within the construct of BS7671 itself, no, that's fine. But that's not the issue. You're trying to claim that it's illegal (and immoral, and probably that it makes you fat too - who knows?!).

So now you are going to try fatuous "analogies".

Only to try and illustrate how ridiculous is your broad claim of "It's not unreasonable to do X, therefore if you choose not to do X you have acted unreasonably."

Why do you think that they contain rules which go so far above and beyond what is reasonably safe that you are morally justified in taking no notice of them and telling other people to take no notice of them?

So you acknowledge that some of the rules in BS7671 go beyond what is necessary to achieve reasonable provision for safety then.

You are telling people that they do not have to do today for new work what is considered reasonable by BS 7671 today for new work, but instead can do what is no longer allowed by BS 7671 for new work.

To do that would not be reasonable, and therefore would be unlawful.

Not it would not. What would be is carrying out work which does not make reasonable provision for safety. That is not the same thing at all. And haven't you claimed that in some cases it is necessary to do what is no longer allowed by BS7671 for new work in order to remain legal?

They are clearly not as available as 30mA ones, and the regulations do not require 10mA.

They are easily obtainable, contrary to what you tried to claim earlier. As for the regulations not requiring them, what does that have to do with it if you'fre trying to argue about morals?

30mA protection offers increased safety over 100mA (or 300mA, or none), so by your logic it's somehow morally wrong not to install a new socket with 30mA protection. Well, 10mA protection offers increased safety over 30mA, so where are your morals now if you're not suggesting that people should adopt 10mA instead of 30mA protection?

"But the regulations only demand 30mA." So what, by your arguments about legality and reasonableness?

Would it be unreasonable to install 10mA protection instead of 30mA? No. So by your own logic, that means that it would be unreasonable to use 30mA since 10mA would be safer, therefore your 30mA option is illegal.

You're trying to use some perverted idea of what is "reasonable" in order to promote your idea that the 30mA requirement in BS7671 is somehow a legal requirement, but your logic falls apart if you then try to claim that it doesn't apply when I suggest an even higher level of protection,

Tell you what - you stick to telling your adopted fellow countrymen that their regulations/codes/advice are wrong, and should be ignored, and stop telling people here to break the law because of your personal issues with regulations changing.

Tell you what - How about you stop trying to claim that something is illegal when you can produce absolutely nothing to back it up?

And as we're going around in circles, I'm leaving it there.

 

[PBC_1966]

It's not just 'the flattening of the curve, but also the absolute levels of UK domestic deaths and (probably - true figures are hard to come by) serious injuries due to the electricity. These figures are (somewhat to my surprise), already so very low that there is very little scope for any further 'tightening' of the regulations to have an appreciable impact on the mortality/morbidity figures - particularly when one realises that at least some of the deaths/injuries are due to stupidity and/or disregard for any regulations which would not be altered by further changes in the regs.

Indeed, the figures are so low that I suspect the only way to reduce them any further would probably be to ban the use of electrical power in the home altogether!

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed, the figures are so low that I suspect the only way to reduce them any further would probably be to ban the use of electrical power in the home altogether!

Quite so - and even if one did that, the reduction in domestic 'casualties' would probably be more than cancelled by an increase in casualties related to the use of gas and oil etc.,

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

In some of those cases evidence surfaced showing that something which was believed to be safe was, in fact, not. Or at least not as safe as was thought.

Like 100mA RCD protection vs 30mA?

No, not like that. The more damaging effect of prolonged shocks at the higher current levels was known for decades before the BS7671 committee decided to rule that all sockets should have 30mA protection in 2008. Why do think the 5mA level for GFCI protection here was chosen when the devices were being developed in the 1960's?

Do you know why incremental improvements in the level of safety happen over time?

It's because things change.

Yes, incremental improvements in safety. Just because you make something slightly safer, that doesn't mean that it was not reasonably safe before - By using what any reasonable person would understand by the term "reasonable," that is.

Would you still be telling people building cars to take no notice of the new standards because the old ones used to be good enough, and therefore they must still be good enough because older cars are still allowed on the roads?

I've not said that people should not consider the new standards because the old ones were good enough. I've said that it should be taken in perspective, and that in the cases of electrical work we're talking about, there is no obligation (legally speaking) to adopt the new standard if you're happy with the level of protection provided by the old one.

Arbitrary or not, it's a decision which has been made.

In the case we're talking about, a decision which has been made by one particular committee of one particular organization, which is not legally binding on anybody, and for which even the committee responsible for the decision has indicated that it still doesn't consider work done to the old standard to be in any way dangerous.

What you feel is irrelevant. Your feelings are not considered in the regulations, nor do they give you or other people exemption from the law.

Neither does your "unique" interpretation of what "reasonable" means actually make it illegal just because you say so. As you will produce nothing to support your interpretation, people can draw their own conclusions.

If that change in view were based on a referendum, or even a survey of the population, or if it were a response to considerable pressure from the public, then it would make sense. However, since none of those are the case, one cannot help but wonder about the basis on which 'they' (a very small group, mainly of technical experts) have decided that 'we' (society as a whole) actually want these revised definitions of what is to be considered to be 'acceptably safe' for us.

Exactly. One can't help but think they might be a little too close to the issue.

 

[JohnW2]

...one cannot help but wonder about the basis on which 'they' (a very small group, mainly of technical experts) have decided that 'we' (society as a whole) actually want these revised definitions of what is to be considered to be 'acceptably safe' for us.

Exactly. One can't help but think they might be a little too close to the issue.

Yes - maybe too close to what is 'theoretically/technologically possible', but nowhere near close enough to cost-benefit considerations (in the widest sense) and sociological 'needs'/'wishes'.

If, say, there were only 20-30 UK deaths per year related to smoking, drinking alcohol etc., I feel sure that effort would not being put into very wide-ranging measures which attempted to 'reduce those figures'. Do they realise, for example, that in the UK the current number of domestic electrocutions is already probably not even an order of magnitude greater than the number of deaths due to people being struck by lightning (IIRC, about 3-4 per year)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If that change in view were based on a referendum, or even a survey of the population, or if it were a response to considerable pressure from the public, then it would make sense. However, since none of those are the case, one cannot help but wonder about the basis on which 'they' (a very small group, mainly of technical experts) have decided that 'we' (society as a whole) actually want these revised definitions of what is to be considered to be 'acceptably safe' for us.

Be that as it may, things change.

That's the way it works.

 

[JohnW2]

Be that as it may, things change. That's the way it works.

Yes, but 'change for the sake of change', or 'change because it is theoretically/technically possible' (regardless of 'need') are neither sensible nor appropriate. If changes are made, on behalf of society, in the name of reducing risks for everyone in that society, it behoves those making those changes to ascertain that society actually wants those changes to be made 'on their behalf', rather than their being content with the current level of safety.

We all know that a strictly-enforced blanket 20mph speed limit would result in a very marked reduction in road casualties, but we equally know that society does not want that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it's considered safe enough for continued use without coding indicating some sort of remedial action required to remove potential danger (not just "recommend improvement") then it must be reasonably safe. If it's reasonably safe for continued use in an existing installation then it is equally safe if you installed it today.

No, because things change.

That's the way it works.

Within the construct of BS7671 itself, no, that's fine. But that's not the issue. You're trying to claim that it's illegal

It is.

The law makes it so.

Only to try and illustrate how ridiculous is your broad claim of "It's not unreasonable to do X, therefore if you choose not to do X you have acted unreasonably."

If it is reasonable to do A, and you do something less safe then you have not been reasonable in your provision for safety. If you have no good reason for not doing A then your refusal to do it is unreasonable.

So you acknowledge that some of the rules in BS7671 go beyond what is necessary to achieve reasonable provision for safety then.

No - I asked you a question.

Why do you think that they contain rules which go so far above and beyond what is reasonably safe that you are morally justified in taking no notice of them and telling other people to take no notice of them?

Not it would not. What would be is carrying out work which does not make reasonable provision for safety. That is not the same thing at all. And haven't you claimed that in some cases it is necessary to do what is no longer allowed by BS7671 for new work in order to remain legal?

Find me where BS 7671 recognises that new or special hazards introduced by using 30mA RCDs instead of 100mA ones require a warning notice to be displayed. Or write that off as yet another fatuous argument.

They are easily obtainable, contrary to what you tried to claim earlier.

No they are not.

They are not easily obtainable in an unqualified way. There will be more instances where they are not available for the application than there will be for 30mA ones.

As for the regulations not requiring them, what does that have to do with it if you'fre trying to argue about morals?

A great deal.

I'm not surprised that you are unable to understand that.

30mA protection offers increased safety over 100mA (or 300mA, or none), so by your logic it's somehow morally wrong not to install a new socket with 30mA protection. Well, 10mA protection offers increased safety over 30mA, so where are your morals now if you're not suggesting that people should adopt 10mA instead of 30mA protection?

30mA is what the regulations deem acceptable. To deliberately do something less safe, and to tell others to do something less safe is wrong.

"But the regulations only demand 30mA." So what, by your arguments about legality and reasonableness?

So that is what is authoritatively regarded as reasonably safe.

You're trying to use some perverted idea of what is "reasonable"

I am so not the one here with perverted ideas.

Tell you what - How about you stop trying to claim that something is illegal when you can produce absolutely nothing to back it up?

I have backed it up.

I'll do it again in a larger font in case you've got something wrong with your vision.

P1 Reasonable provision shall be made in the design and installation of electrical installations in order to protect persons operating, maintaining or altering the installations from fire or injury.

And as we're going around in circles, I'm leaving it there.

Thank heavens for that. If you extend that moratorium to never again advising people to deliberately do things no longer considered reasonably safe and to break the law then we can avoid having this argument again.