David Looser wrote:

As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable
in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your notion that
safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere will ignore
them.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an
increase in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's
possible that these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules
otherwise bring about.

Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
David Looser wrote:

As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your
notion that safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere
will ignore them.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an
increase in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's
possible that these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules
otherwise bring about.

Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Like many of these badly thought out regs, most DIYers just ignore them.
They might well cause extra work to honest tradesmen, but the cowboys they
were designed to stop just carry on as normal.

--
*We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/01/2012 12:18, Bill Wright wrote:
David Looser wrote:

As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable
in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your notion that
safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere will ignore
them.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an
increase in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's
possible that these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules
otherwise bring about.


Particularly when you consider that the justification for bringing in
this legislation - based on the number of deaths from unsafe wiring -
was almost entirely false, because very few of those deaths were
anything to do with *fixed* wiring. If people use lash-ups rather than
properly installed fixed wiring in order to circumvent the regs, it
makes things *much* worse!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

P for peculiar.
Hmm, I maintain that most new regs are just someone trying to justify their
job. How long have we been wiring up stuff and plumbing things etc? Surely
long enough to knowthe rights and wrongs, yet people keep reinventing the
wheel.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable
in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your notion that
safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere will ignore
them.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an increase
in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's possible that
these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules otherwise bring about.

Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Like many of these badly thought out regs, most DIYers just ignore them.

"for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of idiots" ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:50:40 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

P for peculiar.
Hmm, I maintain that most new regs are just someone trying to justify their
job. How long have we been wiring up stuff and plumbing things etc? Surely
long enough to knowthe rights and wrongs, yet people keep reinventing the
wheel.
Brian

And his name, for the record, was John Prescott.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 04/01/2012 17:43, Roger Mills wrote:
On 04/01/2012 12:18, Bill Wright wrote:
David Looser wrote:

As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable
in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your notion
that
safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere will ignore
them.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an
increase in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's
possible that these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules
otherwise bring about.


Particularly when you consider that the justification for bringing in
this legislation - based on the number of deaths from unsafe wiring -
was almost entirely false, because very few of those deaths were
anything to do with *fixed* wiring. If people use lash-ups rather than
properly installed fixed wiring in order to circumvent the regs, it
makes things *much* worse!

The bit that really winds me up, was that sometime toward the end of the
consultation they actually owned up, and admitted that they had
misunderstood their own accident data. However they were still going to
legislate even though they had just undermined their whole case!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jan 4, 1:22*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
* *Bill Wright wrote:

David Looser wrote:
As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your
notion that safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere
will ignore them.
It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an
increase in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's
possible that these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules
otherwise bring about.
Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Like many of these badly thought out regs, most DIYers just ignore them.
They might well cause extra work to honest tradesmen, but the cowboys they
were designed to stop just carry on as normal.

FWIW most local building control officers have no idea how to apply
Part P to DIY-ers.

The total cost to me was ~£140 to pay a local building firm ("the one
we usually use" said the BCO) for a final inspection and test of a
full re-wire. The BCO was happy that this satisfied Part P and issued
the certificate for the complete building work (of which the re-wire
was only a small part).

However, Part P (and the IEE regs it points to) require that someone
"qualified" should know that no one has run wires diagonally across
walls etc etc - no one checked that. No one checked any of the things
you can't see and can't test with suitable equipment.

I'd imagine the vast majority of DIY-ers don't bother - only getting
BCO involved when it's necessary due to other obvious building work
which would make the house unmortgageable without a certificate.

Cheers,
David.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable
in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your notion that
safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere will ignore
them.

It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an increase
in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's possible that
these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules otherwise bring about.

Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Bill

What is the equivalent of Part P in Scotland?

On 06/01/2012 12:22, wrote:
On Jan 4, 1:22 pm, "Dave Plowman wrote:
In ,
Bill wrote:

David Looser wrote:
As for your allegation that the introduction of Part P results in an
increase in the incidence of strings of trailing sockets wired with
3A cable in hazardous areas, this seems to be another example of your
notion that safety rules are a bad thing because some idiot somewhere
will ignore them.
It's the law of unintended consequences. If safety rules cause an
increase in circumventing behaviour which introduces new dangers it's
possible that these dangers could outweigh the benefits the rules
otherwise bring about.
Part P has caused a lot of very peculiar situations.

Like many of these badly thought out regs, most DIYers just ignore them.
They might well cause extra work to honest tradesmen, but the cowboys they
were designed to stop just carry on as normal.

FWIW most local building control officers have no idea how to apply
Part P to DIY-ers.

The total cost to me was ~£140 to pay a local building firm ("the one
we usually use" said the BCO) for a final inspection and test of a
full re-wire. The BCO was happy that this satisfied Part P and issued
the certificate for the complete building work (of which the re-wire
was only a small part).

However, Part P (and the IEE regs it points to) require that someone
"qualified" should know that no one has run wires diagonally across
walls etc etc - no one checked that. No one checked any of the things
you can't see and can't test with suitable equipment.

That's where the concept falls apart. It was intended (although how they
ever imagined it was going to work I have no idea) that if the person
doing the work was not able to self certify, than the BCO would inspect
the work at each stage and hence verify things like cable routes.
However since most LABC departments don't have their own electrical
experts, they are faced with either the prohibitive cost of contracting
a electrician to make multiple visits as a job progresses, or go for the
cop out that most seem to follow, and ask for someone to inspect the
whole job when its done.

I'd imagine the vast majority of DIY-ers don't bother - only getting
BCO involved when it's necessary due to other obvious building work
which would make the house unmortgageable without a certificate.

I asked one of our local ones a couple of years ago how many building
notices they received for electrical only jobs. After a moments
reflection, he said none so far!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/