More Women

Everything a trade association does has one eye on keeping their members happy, and safety is often the excuse for slipping in rules that benefit them, I'm only guessing in this particular case but it's true in general. A classic was the IEE insisting on bonding every tap etc in a kitchen on safety grounds, that made a lot of work for a lot of electricians but has been withdrawn as it was shown to be making things more dangerous in many cases.

Greg

...... and the one they came up with about no sockets to be reachable by anyone with a hand in the sink!

Richard

Didn't know that had been withdrawn!! Must investigate!

I think the next one to become notorious will be the fact you no longer cap wiring buried in walls if it's within a 'zone'. This saves a lot of work but assumes the general public know not to drill a wall in a zone 100mm wide radiating vertically and horizontally from any switch or socket, nor close to an internal corner or ceiling, nor on the reverse side of a thin partition wall that backs on to a zone. I seriously wonder how many DIYers know about that.

I did the 16th edition and the electrical inspector's courses last year to get up to date, there's a lot of good common sense in there but also a fair few suspicious bits that would seem to put ease before safety.

Greg

You're not alone, plenty of electricians don't know either 8-(, hopefully the recent changes in the law that effectively ban unqualified people from doing most domestic work will improve things.

For the record, supplementary equipotential bonding is now normally only required in rooms with baths and showers, rooms where people are going to be immersed so their skin resistance is low. In other areas, particularly toilets and kitchens, adding more places you can touch a solid earth is generally frowned upon because an earth free environment is by far the safest.

Apparently the IEE argued against the change on the grounds that even with plastic pipes the water in them could conduct, hence the ludicrous practice amongst large house builders of inserting a foot of metal pipe into an otherwise plastic system so that the bond wire could be strapped to it!. Amazingly enough the IEE didn't know that water is an insulator, only becoming conductive when impurities are added (wet skin has lots of salt in it). This only ended when ERA did the obvious experiment of filling a plastic pipe with tap water from around the country and measuring it's resistance, their conclusion was that less than a metre of water filled pipe will insulate you sufficiently so the IEE backed down.

Anyway, I think we're way off topic now 8-)

Greg

In spite of my email address, the IEE is no more!!!!! its now the IET. Don't get me started!!

I reckon Micky F is spinning in his grave!

You too ?

Steve aka snipped-for-privacy@iee.org Not, ever, IET.

Told you DO NOT GET ME STARTED!!

Yes I know, a while ago I started the process of becoming an member but decided better of it as the professional benefits were limited, now that no one even knows their name I'm convinced I made the right call 8-).

That aside, all the piles of 16th edition documents I have will be labelled IEE for a many a year to come so I can't see people stopping calling them that.

Greg

Good for you the licencing regulations state that 10l metal with a proper vapour proof cap and marked "Petroleum Spirit Highly Flammable" (OWTTE) is a suitable container for petrol. Note 10l so 20l jerry cans are out (in theory...). 5l is the max for plastic containers for petrol.

Then it's a pity all modern cars have plastic petrol tanks much larger than this isn't it 8-), I'm lead to understand there are also laws about how much (or rather little) petrol you can store in your garage too yet you can have as many cars with as much fuel as will fit. If you got rid of all the inconsistent laws I wonder how many would be left?.

Greg

larger than

Well I have long held the view that we have far too many laws, after all parliaments have been sitting for hundreds of years. My suggestion (come the revolution) it that they should only be able to pass a law if they repeal an existing two laws

Perhaps we should revert to the old system where parliament was only convened when there was something to talk about. With the MPs being there all the time they have to justify their existance by over legislation.

AWEM

Plus a large number of unemployed lawyers - which is why the government will never do it. for a little more of the farcical regs see

which bacically means your local used car lot is breaking the law if it has more than a dozen or so cars containing fuel or not depending on which part of the section on metal containers you read.

Derek

also available : Explaining the concept of a brewery outing to a politician

Some time back I worked for British Rail, both as a Guard and as a Signalman. The Rule Book had evolved over many, many years and was extrememly comprehensive, covering every possible situation and circumstance (note: it was developed by Railwaymen, not Lawyers, so being comprehensive was possible). It was, to all inetents and purposes, "The Law" (legally, too) There was, however, general agreement that it would be impossible to actually run the railway using the book *to the letter*, hence "work to rule" industrial action was so effective. I hate to think what it looks like now, since "accident investigation" (the lessons of which were enshrined in the Rule Book) is no longer carried out by railwaymen under the guidance of an independent Inspector, but by lawyers steering the health & safety executive, often with very dubious motives.

My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in point is emplyoment law - I want to employ someone, but the risk for a small buiness is massive - I can have some clown trun up and bankrupt my business simply because I didn't give them the job (they can get legal aid to go to a tribunal on *any* grounds, no matter how stupid - I'd get no help at all) - never mind actually giving them the job and then finding that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone, on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with armfulls of your stock - really!).

Plus, it's pracically impossible to word an advert now describing the sort of person you want without upsetting someone and ending up in front of another tribunal.

The lunatics have indeed already taken over the asylum!

Richard

One

Pedant we were talking about hand portable containers.

That depends on the building and it's attachment or otherwise to another building and if you are licenced. 175l, without a licence, in 5/10l (plastic/metal) containers in a building x metres from an occupied building springs to mind. It's all on the web if you look.

|| that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone, || on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with || armfulls of your stock - really!).

If you word their contract so that an employee may be instantly dismissed for gross misconduct, and that your list of examples of gross misconduct includes theft from the employer, you would be in a very strong position. Same with drunk at work, drugs etc. We have instantly dismissed people for drinking while on duty, and never had any comeback. There isn't a tribunal in the country that would award damages or demand reinstatement for an employee who was caught red-handed stealing from their employer.

I think you missed the smiley!, but even so I totally fail to see why a portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic when the world has been using larger metal ones since petrol was invented, and vehicles carry 50l plastic or metal tanks.

Greg

It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.

I guess the limit is beacuse portable containers are much more likely to abused and/or placed in stupid places compared to a tank fixed to a vehicle.