On 08/06/2017 18:59, Robin wrote:
On 08/06/2017 16:55, John Rumm wrote:

I would guess if that comes (*if*) it would be after this consultation
exercise...

Yerrbut...they have form on not publishing their workings (eg on metal
CUs).

And as you'll know, given the data and the assumptions behind a proposed
change people can comment on those as well as the change itself (as with
the original Part P where people pointed out the impact assessment
scored deaths by electrocution from appliances). If they only publish
them after consultation then it's too late to affect decisions.

In the case of part P though, a very different "they". Part P was a
government driven thing championed by Precott - not IET lead.

As it is, I have no idea if the driving force is the safety of
consumers, let alone the cost per quality adjusted life year or
whatever. It might for all I know be DNOs wanting to avoid paying
compensation for damage to property. And they might be very happy for
consumers to pay £m25 a year to save them £m5 a year.

Indeed, or just to keep revenue flowing in from sales of the big (insert
colour of choice) book!

Sorry. Here endeth my rant.


--
Cheers,

John.

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