ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[stillp]

In this case, one which has been made by the committee representing one particular private organization to be added to a standard with which nobody is required to comply by law. You seem to keep deliberating forgetting that part.

Which "particular private organisation" is that?

 

[PBC_1966]

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 in the 1960's when the devices were being developed in the 1960's?

Why do you think that ignoring the advice in the Wiring Regulations and sticking with a now deprecated level of protection more likely to result in damaging effects counts as reasonable behaviour?

Cost and effort versus the tiny return in improved safety on that cost and effort. To go back to the original topic of prescribed zones for cables, is it reasonable behavior to run a few extra feet of cable in an existing house outside those zones if it makes the job of adding a socket much cheaper and easier when there are already a dozen other cables not in the prescribed zones in the room?

Now why do you think it's reasonable behavior to just go with the 30mA protection specified by the current edition of BS7671 ignoring the fact that if you provided 10mA protection the result would be safer?

I'm sure there are plenty of others, who while recognizing that 30mA protection provides an increased level of safety over 100mA, still regard 100mA as being reasonably safe.

But not you?

Have you not been paying attention for the last ten pages? Of course I regard 100mA RCD protection on sockets as being reasonably safe.

The fact that they've recommended 30mA for new installations does not, in itself, mean that they regard a lesser level of protection as unsafe.

You don't agree with them?

About what?

Maybe not in that case, but there are situations where the position has to be "Well *^"*&%())*#@ you, society, that is what you are getting."

Isn't that called a dictatorship?

 

[PBC_1966]

Perhaps not always necessarily, but I believe that one has to think very very carefully before just accepting the concept of 'control' imposed by government/ authorities/ whoever which allegedly is (i.e. 'they' believe to be) 'in the interests of society' but which 'society' does not actually want (or necessarily even approve of, or 'like'). That is, IMO, a potentially very slippery slope.

Indeed it is. Government is supposed to be the servant of the people, not their master. Not that in the particular electrical cases we're discussing here specifically B-A-S has actually shown anything which supports his claim that the relatively trivial things we're talking about are illegal anyway.

In context, the matter of 'vested interests' has already been mentioned. Can you really believe that (even if it were arguably a very 'reasonable' position to take) the IET+BSI would ever say something along the lines of "It is our opinion that we have reached a point at which compliance with the current version of BS7671 is achieving a level of electrical safety (i.e. number of electrically-related deaths/injuries) which is acceptable to society and which, if maintained, will be acceptable for many years to come. {.....}

And that's part of the problem with groups which have that sort of vested interest in perpetuating their own work. To do what you propose (and I agree that it would be a very reasonable position to take given the present "state of the art" for electrical power) would, effectively, mean that they would be putting themselves out of a substantial part of their work for the next however many years.

 

[stillp]

In context, the matter of 'vested interests' has already been mentioned. Can you really believe that (even if it were arguably a very 'reasonable' position to take) the IET+BSI would ever say something along the lines of "It is our opinion that we have reached a point at which compliance with the current version of BS7671 is achieving a level of electrical safety (i.e. number of electrically-related deaths/injuries) which is acceptable to society and which, if maintained, will be acceptable for many years to come. {.....}

And that's part of the problem with groups which have that sort of vested interest in perpetuating their own work. To do what you propose (and I agree that it would be a very reasonable position to take given the present "state of the art" for electrical power) would, effectively, mean that they would be putting themselves out of a substantial part of their work for the next however many years.

Have you told the NFPA that? I'm not sure if they'll be impressed.

 

[PBC_1966]

It's just conceivable that the upcoming 'EU Referendum' will prove to be a very rare example of a case in which the 'wishes' of the public prevail over what (a majority of) government believe would actually be best for them. However, the problem with that one is that most people (like me!) will be voting about something we don't really understand, so goodness know what will be the true basis of whatever 'wish' the electorate express!

Don't worry John, I'm sure that if the majority vote so as to get the "wrong" result, the government will either come up with some kind of excuse as to why they're just going to ignore the result altogether, or they'll let you all keep voting again and again at frequent intervals until you give the "correct" answer (at which point they'll say "The people have spoken, it's settled for all time," of course).

 

[stillp]

Who was it said that "The problem with democracy is that any fool can vote"?

 

[PBC_1966]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - Ben Franklin

Or the other one:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49. - Thomas Jefferson

Democracy has to be constrained by the recognition of certain inalienable rights.

 

[PBC_1966]

So you keep saying, but you won't provide any sort of citation to substantiate your claim.

P1 Reasonable proivision 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.

Your continual reposting of that does not constitute substantiation of your claim. Nobody here is disputing that the law says that "Reasonable provision shall be made" etc.

It is your opinion of what that actually means which I am asking you to substantiate, if you think you can. Cite some legal document (anything which even remotely supports it, at this stage) which agrees with your interpretation, or admit that you cannot find any such reference and accept that maybe, just maybe, you are trying to interpret "reasonable" in a way which is, for want of a better way of putting it so succinctly and appropriately, unreasonable.

Because in some cases they are rules which clearly have no measurable bearing on safety whatsoever, at least not unless we take into account the most outlandish situation of somebody who is so incompetent he shouldn't be touching electrical equipment in the first place. One very trivial example - Earth sleeving. Are you seriously going to suggest that if you install an accessory without putting sleeving on the earths that the result is not still reasonably safe?

Yes, I am.

If you really, genuinely believe that omitting the sleeving from an earth wire means that the installation is not still reasonably safe, by any normal interpretation of the term, then I think there's no hope.

There is no REASON to not sleeve the earths, and therefore your action in not sleeving them is WITHOUT REASON.

i.e. it is UNREASONABLE. So what you did does not constitute REASONABLE provision.

As both John and I have tried to explain, that is not how the term "reasonable" is applied when the law demands "reasonable provision" for something.

There are fewer of them.

They are not therefore obtainable to the same extent as 30mA ones therefore it would be unreasonable to insist that they be used when the authoritative guidance is that they are not reasonably required.

In the same argument you're trying to use your relative interpretation of "reasonable" (it's not unreasonable to do A, therefore to do B instead must be unreasonable) while pointing to (and using as part of your argument) guidance which uses an absolute measure of what is reasonable (even though A would be better than B, do B are you will have satisfied the requirement of reasonable provision).

You aren't saying that I should be recommending 10mA protection because you think it's a good idea, you are just trying to score points. I am arguing for something I believe in - you are just arguing against things because you cannot stand the way they are.

The reason I'm not saying that you should recommend 10mA protection is because I don't think it's necessary, or even desirable (any more than the 5mA GFCI provision all over the place here is particularly desirable).

I'm just using the 10mA issue to illustrate the flaw in your logic. X (10mA) is safer than Y (30mA), which is in turn safer than Z (100mA) - By your argument, if it's reasonable to do Y then it's unreasonable to do Z because Y is safer than Z. But you won't accept that if it's reasonable to do X then it must also be unreasonable to do Y, because X is safer than Y.

And then you're trying to say it's unreasonable to do X because (a) the regulations in BS7671 don't require it and/or (b) 10mA devices are not so common as 30mA ones. At least I think that's what you're trying to say, but I'm really not sure any more given how you seem to think that 10mA devices are "not readily available" when clearly they are, and are then saying "Ah, but there aren't so many of them."

But given that you are now claiming that even a missing piece of earth sleeving can mean that an installation is not reasonably safe, there really is no point in even trying to get you to see reason.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think it's very relevant once we reach the point of diminishing returns.

That may well be relevant if deciding whether the regulations need changing.

But irrelevant to accepting that they have.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

As John has pointed out, when injuries and fatalities from electrical power in the home are at such extremely low rates (some of which, as he noted, might well be down to stupidity, simple neglect, or some other thing which no amount of regulation short of banning electrical power would eliminate), why can we not just say, "That's enough for the time being. We won't be adding any more requirements unless and until something comes along which suggests we need to," and do that?

Maybe we can and should.

But we haven't

Things change.

That's the way it works.

And your feelings and opinions about what you might like to be the law do not make it so, so from the point of view of others dong electrical work they are irrelevant.

My feelings and opinions do not change what the law says. And neither do yours.

I advocate complying with it, you advocate breaking it.

In this case, one which has been made by the committee representing one particular private organization to be added to a standard with which nobody is required to comply by law. You seem to keep deliberating forgetting that part.

Not at all.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Cost and effort versus the tiny return in improved safety on that cost and effort.

LABTYD.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Get over it.

To go back to the original topic of prescribed zones for cables, is it reasonable behavior to run a few extra feet of cable in an existing house outside those zones if it makes the job of adding a socket much cheaper and easier when there are already a dozen other cables not in the prescribed zones in the room?

No.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Now why do you think it's reasonable behavior to just go with the 30mA protection specified by the current edition of BS7671 ignoring the fact that if you provided 10mA protection the result would be safer?

Authoritative guidance says it is reasonably safe.

Of course I regard 100mA RCD protection on sockets as being reasonably safe.

wrt being safe enough to be allowed to be continued to be installed you are wrong.

Things change.

That's the way it works.

Get over it.

Isn't that called a dictatorship?

Not necessarily.

Is democracy called mob rule?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Your continual reposting of that does not constitute substantiation of your claim. Nobody here is disputing that the law says that "Reasonable provision shall be made" etc.

But they are disputing everything that counts as reasonable provision, and proposing things which do not.

It is your opinion of what that actually means which I am asking you to substantiate, if you think you can. Cite some legal document (anything which even remotely supports it, at this stage) which agrees with your interpretation, or admit that you cannot find any such reference and accept that maybe, just maybe, you are trying to interpret "reasonable" in a way which is, for want of a better way of putting it so succinctly and appropriately, unreasonable.

Nor can you substantiate yours.

I tend toward something safer than you, you tend towards something less safe than I.

I advocate something which is officially reasonable, you advocate something which is not.

If I am wrong and people do what I say then they have lost nothing. If you are wrong and they go with you you have turned them into criminals.

If you really, genuinely believe that omitting the sleeving from an earth wire means that the installation is not still reasonably safe, by any normal interpretation of the term, then I think there's no hope.

No - please pay attention.

The work you do means that your work is not reasonably safe because you have failed to add a safety feature which it is reasonable to add. For no good reason you have omitted it. Therefore your provision for safety has not been reasonable.

As both John and I have tried to explain, that is not how the term "reasonable" is applied when the law demands "reasonable provision" for something.

What you've tried to do is to say that if you act unreasonably you have been reasonable.

I'm just using the 10mA issue to illustrate the flaw in your logic.

It's not working. Probably because there isn't one.

X (10mA) is safer than Y (30mA), which is in turn safer than Z (100mA) - By your argument, if it's reasonable to do Y then it's unreasonable to do Z because Y is safer than Z. But you won't accept that if it's reasonable to do X then it must also be unreasonable to do Y, because X is safer than Y.

Authoritative guidance says Y is reasonably safe.

But given that you are now claiming that even a missing piece of earth sleeving can mean that an installation is not reasonably safe, there really is no point in even trying to get you to see reason.

No - please pay attention.

The work you do means that your work is not reasonably safe because you have failed to add a safety feature which it is reasonable to add. For no good reason you have omitted it. Therefore your provision for safety has not been reasonable.

 

[JohnW2]

As John has pointed out, when injuries and fatalities from electrical power in the home are at such extremely low rates (some of which, as he noted, might well be down to stupidity, simple neglect, or some other thing which no amount of regulation short of banning electrical power would eliminate), why can we not just say, "That's enough for the time being. We won't be adding any more requirements unless and until something comes along which suggests we need to," and do that?

Maybe we can and should. But we haven't. Things change.

They do, but maybe they change when they shouldn't, or don't need to. We can't do anything about history, but maybe something should be done to try to prevent yet more essentially 'unnecessary' changes (changes which cannot possibly achieve much in the way of increased safety) being implemented?

Stillp has indicated that Standards are usually revised 'on a 4-year cycle'. Why 4 years? In terms of BS7671, do practices regarded as 'adequately safe' (for new work/installations) really come to be regarded (by 'them') as 'not adequately safe' (for new work/installations) in as little as 4 years ??

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't that called a dictatorship?

Not necessarily. Is democracy called mob rule?

That is how it is viewed by a good few thinking people. What are your views about a system whose fundamental principle is to ignore the wishes, and often the interests, of minorities?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Depends on what those are.

 

[JohnW2]

That's not their job. Their job is to write a standard that adequately reflects the current state of technical progress in achieving a safe installation. The do not have to decide anything about what 'society' thinks is acceptable.

Apologies - I missed this post earlier.

Well, in many cases, they appear to have decided about what someone thinks is acceptable. Maybe I was being over-generous in suggesting that they were deciding on behalf of society - perhaps it is simply their own opinion, without reference to what 'society' may think or wish!

As I've said, if changes were all the result of technological advances, they would be more understandable, but that is not commonly, or necessarily even often, the basis of a change. For example, nothing happened to suddenly make non-accessible screwed joints any less safe than they ever had been. They had been regarded as 'acceptably safe' for best part of a century, and hadn't become any less safe, so the decision to 'outlaw' them must have been based on what 'they' thought was "someone's" changed view of what degree of safety/risk was 'acceptable', not because the risk had changed.

Kind Regards, John