ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone
- Thread starter bernardgreen
- Start date
Sponsored Links
No, I don't regard "all... except..." as an oxymoron. I suppose that a more correct formulation would be "most... with the exception of...".
If we really want to get bogged down in the semantics of the language, I would say that "all... except" is far more precise than "most... except."
"All... except" is quite clearly stating that you have complied with each and every regulation except for those specifically listed as exceptions. "Most... except" could be interpreted as stating that you have not complied with those regulations specifically listed as exceptions, but that you have complied with most of the others, but not necessarily all, meaning that you may not have complied with some other regulations which are not listed explicitly under your exceptions.
Last edited:
It could be being happy with things, which don't mean what they actually say, is what leads to lengthy threads.
Sponsored Links
Fair enough. In the sort of cases I've been talking about (with just one or two exceptions, in relation to hundreds of regulations), I would personally think that "Nearly all, with the exception of..." or "Nearly all, other than ..." would probably be more appropriate/natural than your 'most' - which I think would tend to be an understatement if one were talking about, say, just one exception in the context of the hundreds of 'normative provisions' in BS7671.
Not being a linguist, I don't know what is 'strictly correct', but I do know that constructs such as "All except" are very common in everyday English - particularly when the 'exceptions' are a very small proportion of 'the whole'.
Kind Regards, John
FWIW, I agree - for reasons which we both have given. As I've just written, even if it weren't a bit ambiguous, to use "most" if one were talking, say, about 499 out of 500 regulations would tend to convey a 'played down' impression of the actual situation.
Kind Regards, John
According to BS7671. But if you're departing from BS7671 anyway, you can depart from that requirement too.
In your opinion. 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.
Do you have something to back that up? How do you know they didn't decide that 100mA is reasonably safe, but that 30mA is better so we'll recommend that for new installation work? Do you think that BS7671 (and the IEE Wiring Regs. before them) only strive to achieve something reasonably safe as an absolute minimum, and not make recommendations beyond that for an improved level of safety or convenience?
And as you're fully aware, neither the decisions of JPEL/64 nor the contents of BS7671 are law, so that claim is fatuous without something to substantiate it. Can you cite any legal precedent which has decreed that sockets with 100mA protection instead of 30mA are not reasonably safe?
Yes, things change, especially in the early days when we were still learning a great deal, and sometimes - even today - a discovery reveals that something we once thought was reasonably safe really isn't. But you seem unable to put this into reasonable perspective: In terms of sockets with 100mA protection we're not talking about something from the early electrical days of 1882, nor even something from as recently as 1982, when in many places sockets were still being installed with no RCD protection whatsoever and considered safe by just about everybody. We're talking about a rule introduced into BS7671 as recently as 2008. Are you seriously suggesting that an installation carried out in full compliance with BS7671 as it stood in 2007 is not reasonably safe?
But you are the one who seemed to want to turn this into some debate about morals and decency. If you genuinely believe that it's somehow immoral to add a few feet of cable and an extra socket without also providing 30mA RCD protection when nothing else in the room has it, on the grounds that there's a tiny chance somebody might die as a result of that when he would have survived with 30mA protection, then from that moral point of view you shouldn't be happy to tell people it's fine to just 30mA protect the new work and leave everything else as it is. If you genuinely believe that anything less than 30mA protection is not reasonably safe, shouldn't you be advising that putting 30mA protection on the new work would comply with BS7671, but that rewiring to put everything on 30mA protection should be done for safety?
Fair enough, although I don't think I've seen you "suggest" that quite so frequently or in quite such strong terms as you insist that new work must be 30mA protected.
10mA RCD protection?
https://www.mkelectric.com/en-my/Pr...ocketoutlets/RCDprotected/Pages/K6231WHI.aspx
Not if you want to claim departure-modified compliance with BS 7671.
I'm sure there are - the world is full of idiots.
But the fact is that it is not regarded as reasonably safe by the people who write the Wiring Regulations, and given that it is not difficult to provide 30mA protection it is unreasonable to not do so, and therefore not reasonable to not do so, and therefore unlawful.
Common sense. You should try it sometime.
No I cant, and nor can you.
But then I'm not the one with a pathetic, frightened, neophobic attitude to regulations who wants to promote a nihilistic agenda.
I am suggesting that it is no longer considered reasonably safe enough to be perpetuated.
That's the way changes work. It could be as recent as yesterday, or even "a few seconds ago" that something was considered reasonably safe and now isn't.
We all get that you don't like that, and we all get that you will do absolutely anything you can to stop other people from recognising that that is the way that changes work.
Yes, to do with what today's regulations require today, and how that relates to what the law requires today.
Actually the immoral behaviour which concerns me is yours when you tell people that that is OK.
What is the relative availability of 10mA RCDs and RCBOs vs 30mA?
Well, as there was talk of oxymorons earlier, surely this is one?
If you have departed from the regulations contained within BS7671 as a whole, then you can't have complied with BS7671. But if there is a regulation in BS7671 which says that certain other regulations may be disregarded so long as you make provision for an equal level of safety, then the disregarding of those specific regulations can't be a departure from BS7671 because BS7671 explicitly states that they may be disregarded.
Isn't it? 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.ban-all-sheds said:
You may like to read this article (or at least the last page of it) from the IET's own Wiring Matters periodical, discussing the new Electrical Installation Condition Report introduced in 2008, as it mentions this issue specifically:
http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/40/condition-report.cfm/type=pdf
And what does C3 mean?
So there you have it. And apparently it was even included in Appendix 6 of BS7671 itself.
Note that they're talking not just about 100mA protection instead of 30mA, but of having no RCD protection, and still don't regard it as unsafe in any way.
Nonsense on all counts. It might not be unreasonable to do many things, but that doesn't necessarily mean that not doing them is unreasonable either. And in this case, neither does it mean that the result cannot be reasonably safe, which is all the law demands.ban-all-sheds said:
Of course I can't - That's the whole point.ban-all-sheds said:
But is it reasonably safe? The wiring regs. committee obviously considers it to be, otherwise they would not be suggesting only a C3 for it on an inspection.ban-all-sheds said:
What I don't like is that you are using ridiculous arguments (a) to try and suggest that something is required by law when it isn't, and (b) to try and suggest that some minor departure from the rules, which results in a situation which even the writers of the current rules don't regard as being unsafe, is somehow a disaster waiting to happen.ban-all-sheds said:
Your response to the idea that adding one more socket or one more cable drop without 30mA protection in a house already full of them is completely over the top, to the extent that anyone would think I'd suggested running bare busbars around the living room wall or bolting all the 1 sq. mm lighting cables directly to the live busbar in the distribution panel.
The law today requires that the installation be reasonably safe. I've just pointed you toward the references which show that those who are responsible for the regulations regard the situation we're talking about here as being reasonably safe. It is therefore perfectly legal.
If you want to urge people that following the current recommendation in BS7671 to add 30mA RCD protection is a good way to improve safety, fine. But you really should stop trying to suggest that something is dangerous and/or illegal when it isn't.
Both are now widely available. So if we were to apply your argument, given that it is not difficult to provide 10mA protection it is unreasonable to not do so, and therefore not reasonable to not do so, and therefore unlawful. All of which is just as much nonsense as your argument for 30mA over 100mA (or none).
Last edited:
But you haven't made such provision.
It means they regard it as no longer safe enough.
Yes, there I have it.
And so do you, but you would rather see people die than implement recommended improved standards, so consumed are you by a hatred of regulations changing.
Yes they do.
Are you
a) genuinely incapable of reading properly
or
b) pretending that you are in the hope that other people will believe your twisted incompetence and agree with your position?
Of course it does. Not that you and reason are familiar.
Of course it does - don't behave like a fool.
No.
No they don't.
Precisely. They recommend that it be improved, because they do not believe it to be adequate.
I'm not.
I'm saying that when the regulations change the regulations change and the regulations change. That's the way it works, and it doesn't matter how much you stamp your little feet and wail that you could have done it yesterday, that it the way it works.
No - it's a response which is based on the way it works when regulations change.
You would indeed have suggested that 100+ years ago, on the grounds that it was allowed in the previous edition of the regulations and there were already bare conductors. If you had your way it would still be allowed.
No, they do not regard it as safe enough to be perpetuated.
No it is not, because it is no longer allowed to be installed because it is no longer regarded as safe enough to be perpetuated.
And you should stop advising people to break the law and to do things which increase rather than decrease the chances of injury because of a mad ideological aversion to the idea that regulations change.
This from a man in a country where they don't regard even 30mA as sufficient.
Google BAS?????
I didn't say I had in the case we were considering, so obviously the result would depart from the overall requirements of BS7671.
I was pointing out that if regulation X of BS7671 says that you may disregard regulation Y so long as you do Z, then so long as you do, in fact, do Z, the result would still be in compliance with BS7671 as a whole even though you have not complied with the requirements of regulation Y. So in such a case there can be no departure from BS7671.
Safe enough for what? They regard it as safe enough for continued use.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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 have trouble with the concept of the committee recommending that something be added for increased safety while not considering the status quo to be unsafe?
I'll skip over a whole load more of your replies which are just rehashing the foregoing.
Please either provide a legal citation that what we're discussing here is actaully illegal, or stop trying to tell people that it is.
You seem to have a mad ideological aversion to doing anything which falls slightly outside the current regulations within BS7671 without putting that thing into perspective and assessing whether there is some significant danger or whether the very slightly increased risk is trivial given the circumstances. BS7671 is not the be-all and end-all of electrical work, and as you've pointed out to people plenty of times, is not the law either.
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.
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.
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. Then there are AFCI's, which are another whole different story,
We used to think that asbestos, thalidomide, DDT, lead water pipes and cars with two-wheel brakes were reasonably safe. Now we don't. It's called progress.
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. 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.
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? 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?
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. The average person may well stand more chance of being killed falling off the ladder while he's adding that socket in his living room than of being electrocuted by it later because he didn't add 30mA RCD protection!
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? 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?
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. The average person may well stand more chance of being killed falling off the ladder while he's adding that socket in his living room than of being electrocuted by it later because he didn't add 30mA RCD protection!
As PBC has just written, I think those are a bit different. In most/all of those cases, we were previously unaware of potential hazards, so things which are now known to be unsafe were then thought to be safe, because of lack of knowledge in the past.
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.
There obviously have been a few 'advances' (in technology, rather than knowledge), like the appearance of RCDs, which require regulations that could not even have been dreamed of 50 years ago - but there are few examples of that, which is again a rather different issue.
Kind Regards, John
Last edited:
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
