18th edition - any point?

[Midwest]

Neither. Just stating a fact. No point having rules if they're not enforced. A professional electrician goes through all the hoops to work to them. If he makes a mistake he can be done for it, as he has registered the work. Some one doing the same unofficially gets away with it, as there is no record of it.

I'm not sure at the moment there's any difference from a DIY'er cocking up to qualified electrician?

 

[Percyprod]

Qualified sparks has signed a firm saying he carried out the work, diyer can day some one else did it, difficult to prove otherwise.

 

[StephenRowley]

Just because the regs aren't a law of sorts you can still be sent down for not following them.

 

[Octopus]

I think you may have taken the statement as it is currently law, what I was in fact meaning is that if those who want 7671 to be statutory then it will be law. I can see that wasn't clear in my post. If 7671 in it's entirety does become law then the above scenario will be highly likely.

Approximately 15 years after colour changes there is absolutely no need for these labels ...... so should not even be mentioned in bs 7671

 

[Midwest]

Qualified sparks has signed a firm saying he carried out the work, diyer can day some one else did it, difficult to prove otherwise.

Well probably; but if someone's keen enough to identifying themselves, by supplying a cert, they might just do a job that complies.

 

[Intoelectrics]

Neither. Just stating a fact. No point having rules if they're not enforced. A professional electrician goes through all the hoops to work to them. If he makes a mistake he can be done for it, as he has registered the work. Some one doing the same unofficially gets away with it, as there is no record of it.

I don't disagree with what is bugging you I think the majority of (all the properly qualified decent sparkies) feel the same way. The point is the regs are not mandatory rules so you cannot be prosecuted for not following them to the letter. They are an authority in that they are the accepted best practice guidelines that people in the industry are expected to follow and work to. These guidelines are there to ensure that all measures are taken to ensure that the installation is as safe as practically possible and functions consistently as per design. So in a court of law you could be prosecuted for... basically negligence, unless you were able to show and prove a valid reason for not following the industry accepted guidelines. (I suspect that there is extremely rarely, if any, situation where not following the regs is actually better practice than doing so)
The difficulty, as you mention, is that decent tradespeople put their name to their work, accept responsibility and this is registered and recorded, cowboys don't!

 

[Percyprod]

Not knocking qualified sparks. Just saying anyone can make a mistake, part of the reason for testing an installation. If the correct tests are carried out properly, then there shouldn't be any mistakes. My point is that if a mistake is made and causing an injury for example, then someone who has registered that job can't say it wasn't him, whereas the DIYer can say someone else did it and buggered off. I can't see how he would be prosecuted. Thing is, with all the proclaimers of doom saying you shouldn't do things you're not qualified to do, the chances of anyone other than a professional being done, rightly or wrongly, is very remote. We've all seen wiring that is lethal, but has been like that for years, with no problems. I've often heard someone say "Well it works" when they've used a tape joint, wired a socket in 1mm flex or whatever. Just saying the more regs you have the more will be ignored. Like any other law, practically impossible to enforce.

 

[Intoelectrics]

Not knocking qualified sparks. Just saying anyone can make a mistake, part of the reason for testing an installation. If the correct tests are carried out properly, then there shouldn't be any mistakes. My point is that if a mistake is made and causing an injury for example, then someone who has registered that job can't say it wasn't him, whereas the DIYer can say someone else did it and buggered off. I can't see how he would be prosecuted. Thing is, with all the proclaimers of doom saying you shouldn't do things you're not qualified to do, the chances of anyone other than a professional being done, rightly or wrongly, is very remote. We've all seen wiring that is lethal, but has been like that for years, with no problems. I've often heard someone say "Well it works" when they've used a tape joint, wired a socket in 1mm flex or whatever. Just saying the more regs you have the more will be ignored. Like any other law, practically impossible to enforce.

I agree with what you are saying. The point also being that it is unlikely that anyone doing an install following the regs and rectifying their mistakes is going to end up in court. And if they do they have something to fall back on. A cowboy is most likely not going to be traced but if so and ended up in court wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Yes its a pain in the backside every time they update the regs, but we have to accept it and work to them. There has to be an accepted industry standard and it needs to be updated as things improve and progress. We all need guidance because our trade is so diverse. To make it law and then governing it is a whole new ball game and would probably be a bigger pain in the butt than its worth and i guarantee we would be footing the bill for it!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In this particular edition, I don’t like the fact that sockets for specific items of equipment, must now have RCD protection.

The RCD protection is not to protect the specific item, as we can omit RCD protection if we use an FCU or use a plug and socket rated higher than 32A.

Initially RCD protection for sockets was limited to those which could reasonably be expected to be used for portable equipment used outdoors.
This is quite understandable, as people were dying when they cut through lawn mower cables.
Then again, why does the electrical installation have to be changed rather than the manufacturer’s of the equipment being required to produce safer equipment?

For the 17th edition it was decided to extend this RCD protection to mobile equipment used both indoors as well as that used outdoors. With exceptions for skilled/instructed persons or where the use of sockets was supervised by skilled or instructed persons.
Again quite understandable, RCDs are a lot cheaper and protecting people against damaged flexes or damaged equipment is a good idea.

During the 17th it was decided that certain persons (apparently Headmasters in Schools) were abusing this exception by pretending that socket use was under their supervision, when in fact there was no supervision at all.
Rather than prosecuting theses certain persons who were clearly in breach of the HASAWA and EAWR, the IET decided RCD protection could only be omitted where a documented Risk Assessment stating RCD protection was not required had been produced.
I took exception (and still do) to this new requirement.
To my mind if someone is prepared to ignore Statutory requirements, such as those in the HASAWA and EAWR, why would anybody expect them to comply with the non-statutory requirements of BS7671?
Why should the onus for compliance with Statutory requirements be shifted from the responsible person (sic) to the electrical designer?
Why if the IET had evidence of this law breaking were the culprits not prosecuted?
Why has the IET never published or made available this evidence of non compliance with the HASAWA, EAWR and BS7671?
If these people are prepared to break the law in respect of ensuring their staff are trained to use or to be supervised while using electrical equipment, what other laws are they prepared to break?

So why the change?
Are plugs and sockets no longer deemed safe?
We’ve been using plugs and sockets since the 40s, BS7671 still lists them as an acceptable method for connection to the electrical supply.
Why all of a sudden does the plug behind my washing machine that only ever gets used every 4-6 years when my washing machine needs replacing now need RCD protection?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Why all of a sudden does the plug behind my washing machine that only ever gets used every 4-6 years when my washing machine needs replacing now need RCD protection?

Because socket outlets involve a physical interaction with electrical equipment in the action of plugging in and contact by the end user with equipment of unknown safety. It is far simpler to require all 13a outlets to be protected rather than make available 'loopholes' which may result in a hazard if taken advantage of in a way the regulations do not intend.

 

[Octopus]

I can't understand why RCD's are mandatory for circuits with "luminaries" talk about a stupid decision!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Because socket outlets involve a physical interaction with electrical equipment in the action of plugging in and contact by the end user with equipment of unknown safety. It is far simpler to require all 13a outlets to be protected rather than make available 'loopholes' which may result in a hazard if taken advantage of in a way the regulations do not intend.

If that were the case, then there would never have been any exceptions, and we wouldn’t have the ones we do have now.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I can't understand why RCD's are mandatory for circuits with "luminaries" talk about a stupid decision!

Yes, rather than mandating safer lamp holders, lets require RCD protection.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

If that were the case, then there would never have been any exceptions, and we wouldn’t have the ones we do have now.

Not at all, the regulations historically have tended to sneak in a gradual 'upgrade'. Look at the gradual increase in the size of bonding conductors, and Zs readings which were fine last year are now potentially dangerous apparently. In the next amendment AFDD's will be required on certain circuits....and in the 19th on all.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Bonding conductor CSA increased due to PME and diverted Neutral currents.
Zs has been lowered due to CENLEC introducing Cmin.
These changes are logical, there’s an explanation.
The situation I’ve highlighted is not logical, there’s no explanation.
Why should a socket that is only ever used once in a blue moon, and never for mobile equipment now need RCD protection?

 

[Intoelectrics]

Bonding conductor CSA increased due to PME and diverted Neutral currents.
Zs has been lowered due to CENLEC introducing Cmin.
These changes are logical, there’s an explanation.
The situation I’ve highlighted is not logical, there’s no explanation.
Why should a socket that is only ever used once in a blue moon, and never for mobile equipment now need RCD protection?

Yes it does seem crazy. Can we trust that this has been thoroughly investigated and the right decision has been made? I can't honestly answer that. It may well be a case of well... if people are prepared to abuse this, intentionally or not, then if all socket outlets are deemed to require RCD's then there is no ambiguity. This type of attitude can be seen everyday with all sorts of things.
An example was when I asked a fella from the road traffic agency about why the stopping distances in the highway code had never been adjusted, as modern cars have ABS and other advanced features so can now stop far quicker in a much shorter distance than when the highway code was written. He went on to explain that there had been extensive study into this and data showed that although cars are much safer, modern drivers tend to be more complacent and subconsciously rely on the technology to save them. As a result the average reaction time has increased slightly and this negates the advancement in braking technology. In fact he went on to say that data taken over the last 20 years shows that on average stopping distances during an accident had actually increased.
So this shows that in general people get complacent and sometimes what might seem like a crazy regulation actually might save someones's life.

 

[Percyprod]

ABS doesn't shorten braking distances - it helps keep control of the car. If you've ever had to do an emergency stop with ABS you'll agree. Seems like you'll never stop!

 

[Intoelectrics]

ABS doesn't shorten braking distances - it helps keep control of the car. If you've ever had to do an emergency stop with ABS you'll agree. Seems like you'll never stop!

Depends on the situation, but that is for another argument.
My point being that sometimes regulations seem silly to us until we are presented with a reasoning that makes sense. Whether you agree with the reasoning behind them is your own choice.
It might well be that sometimes the easiest thing to do is to dismiss ambiguity by just putting in a reg that covers all situations. I suspect that this might be the case in the RCD for all socket outlets situation. I could be wrong though.

 

[Octopus]

Depends on the situation, but that is for another argument.
My point being that sometimes regulations seem silly to us until we are presented with a reasoning that makes sense. Whether you agree with the reasoning behind them is your own choice.
It might well be that sometimes the easiest thing to do is to dismiss ambiguity by just putting in a reg that covers all situations. I suspect that this might be the case in the RCD for all socket outlets situation. I could be wrong though.

Hum ........... I've yet to see any of that to back up the changes to the 18th ................

In fact its always the complete lack of explanations that pxsses me off.

 

[Wilko]

For my small part, I agree. It seems we are just to accept these updates from Our Betters. Some descriptive material is sometimes released to explain decisions e.g. info around fires from combustible cu. But the material is usually incomplete and often just raises more questions .