From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Hrrrmph!

Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Hrrrmph!

It would be interesting to know what percentage of these were in
Scotland where the Part P doesn't apply and whether there has been an
equivalent percentage increase.

My understanding is that we just have to be satisfied that we are
'competent'!

Rob

Andy Wade wrote:
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

--
Andy

My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

On 23 Nov 2006 01:50:12 -0800, "Staffbull" wrote:


My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

It was always likely that it would deter many people from updating their gear,
which the vast majority did reasonbly safely and force them back towards using
adapters and extension leads or worse still ignore deterioration indefinitely,
which is all far more dangerous.

Andy

Andy Cap wrote:
On 23 Nov 2006 01:50:12 -0800, "Staffbull" wrote:


My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

It was always likely that it would deter many people from updating their gear,
which the vast majority did reasonbly safely and force them back towards using
adapters and extension leads or worse still ignore deterioration indefinitely,
which is all far more dangerous.

Andy

You never know they might backpedal on Part P like the CSA!!!, But part
P hasnt cost them hunderds of millions, oh and there is the NHS
centralised computer system that cost umpteen millions thats in the
process of being scrapped.
All exellent government decisions, Monster Raving Loony party gets my
vote next time as the UK is screwed under the so called intellectual
parties!!
I long for the day Wales is devoluted from the bloody idiots who have
governed our country sine October 2, 1283.

Staffbull wrote:
I long for the day Wales is devoluted from the bloody idiots who have
governed our country sine October 2, 1283.

You have my sympathies, but I suspect that Welsh politicians and
bureaucrats will screw things up just as much as those of any other
nationality.

Mike

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

On 23 Nov 2006 02:47:35 -0800, " wrote:

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

Exactly .They could all have been things that Part Pee has nothing to do with .

"Stuart" wrote in message
...
On 23 Nov 2006 02:47:35 -0800, " wrote:

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

Exactly .They could all have been things that Part Pee has nothing to do
with .

Possible but if it's difficult to extend your fixed wiring in your kitchen
or lay an armoured cable to your shed, the alternative becomes trailing
sockets or extension leads using Part P approved socket outlets from B&Q.

I would actually expect more deaths from "non-fixed" installations instead.

It is crass and sad that you can't easily fit an RCD to your own system.

Hey that's progress in a Nanny state.

Andy Wade wrote:
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

Its a success because the govt is now taking more money of the people.
Which is all it was for in the first place.

dom wrote:
Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

That would be risky, it might tell the real story.


NT

On 2006-11-23 09:35:25 +0000, Andy Wade said:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five
years due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical
equipment and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

Oh

wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.

Andy Hall wrote:

wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.

Would that be the Rt. Hon. member for Wokingham, by any chance?

--
Andy

On 2006-11-23 12:17:05 +0000, Andy Wade said:

Andy Hall wrote:

wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.

Would that be the Rt. Hon. member for Wokingham, by any chance?

I couldn't possibly comment.....

Andy Hall wrote:

I couldn't possibly comment.....

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

--
Andy

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:35:25 +0000, Andy Wade
wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

He should have left this part out of his question .

" use or misuse of electrical equipment and "

Andy Wade wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18


The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18


The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

While we are at it why not get local authorities to check each
household once a year for electrical safety and charge us a few hundred
quid each, any anomalies need to be rectified within seven days through
a registered electrician from a list in the LA or a fine will be
issued.

I might run for election, I can come up with draconian crap useless
legislation ideas as well :-)

Staffbull wrote:
wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

While we are at it why not get local authorities to check each
household once a year for electrical safety and charge us a few hundred
quid each, any anomalies need to be rectified within seven days through
a registered electrician from a list in the LA or a fine will be
issued.
NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.


I might run for election, I can come up with draconian crap useless
legislation ideas as well :-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8----
NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.

8----

Then the masses will need 5 science A levels - and they can't be denied.
So the A level certificates will come with the appliance and ID cards will
be updated at the checkout. Of course the checkout operator will ask three
testing questions to validate these qualifications:
Do you want to pay Cash? y/n
Do you want to take it with you? y/n
Do you want our extra warranty? y/n

And for foreigners (and those without an id card) the checkout operator has
an Anybody@Anywhere card which also confers VAT exemption.

Edgar

edgar wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8----
NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.

8----

Then the masses will need 5 science A levels - and they can't be denied.
So the A level certificates will come with the appliance and ID cards will
be updated at the checkout. Of course the checkout operator will ask three
testing questions to validate these qualifications:
Do you want to pay Cash? y/n
Do you want to take it with you? y/n
Do you want our extra warranty? y/n

Do you want fries with that?

And for foreigners (and those without an id card) the checkout operator has
an Anybody@Anywhere card which also confers VAT exemption.

Edgar

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment and
electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or misuse
of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.
It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

dennis@home wrote:



Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly


I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.


It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly

see above


I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.


NT

wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:44:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

Surely, if people are forced to use professional labour, for something they can
quite well do themselves, then they ARE being forced to pay unnecessary VAT !

Andy

The message
from "Clive George" contains these words:

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer.

Yes they have. Where before you could do the work yourself, and thereby
not pay tax on the work 'cos it's DIY, now you have to[1] employ someone
else to do it. Income tax, National Insurance and VAT are then payable
on the money that changes hands.

[1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
through Building Control but many people either don't know that or can't
be arsed.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Clive George wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

Preventing tax evasion at the (alleged) cost of more lives lost is not
a lot different - I think it is just semantics, though.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

I think an argument (valid or not) against Part P is that it encourages
people to neglect their electrical safety as Part P makes the cost of
complying higher than many people wish to pay.

If the government paid all the costs of an electrician testing domestic
installations + the cost of any remedial works for faults found, and
paid you £100 for being a good citizen every time you requested such
services, it would be very popular indeed. It would also be very
expensive for the government, and therefore, us.

Part P was brought in on the (possibly spurious) grounds of improving
the electrical safety of fixed domestic installations. The fact that it
had the (offically) completely unexpected side effect of reducing tax
evasion is (officially) neither here nor there, but the Treasury are
not unhappy.

Just be glad that the European Court decided that we couldn't by
toboacco and alcoholic beverages online and by mail order from other EU
countries at their duty rates today. If the decision had been
otherwise, the government would have been looking at creative methods
of filling a £12 billion hole in the public finances.

Sid

On 2006-11-23 15:44:23 +0000, "Clive George" said:

wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their
houses safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent
people evading tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing
a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument
you're presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

Actually it isn't. In terms of whether somebody in Westminster sat
down and specifically decided that introducing regulation around fixed
electrical installation as a means of tax take, probably not.

From letters that I have had from the minister of the time, via my MP,
it is pretty clear that the minister was not versed to any level of
detail at all about what was going on.

However..... this is one of a series of measures for the construction
industry whereby there is some form of self certification via members
of various trade associations. Since there is registration of work
done, in addition to membership of said trade organisations, it does
form a vehicle by which a proportion of construction industry
tradespeople are brought into a framework in which they can be tracked
for tax and other purposes.

I am sure that the industry will always have the cowboys and the tax
evaders; but in terms of the tax take, it will have certainly
contributed to the exchequer. There is certainly a political
motivation to do that.

Clive George wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.


NT

On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, said:

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.


In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction. I made my submissions about it, as did a number of others
here to the government department at the time as well as writing to my
MP about it and discussing it with him.

A set of letters came back from the minister at the time (Raynsford)
from which it was pretty clear that he was not at all well informed on
the issues surrounding part P.

Overall, on the basis of the subject matter, it didn't get a lot of
governmental attention. However, it is hard to pinpoint whether or
not there was political influence behind the selective use of the
information presented to the civil servants and others involved in the
RIA. Certainly it wasn't well balanced at all, and it was very clear
that there had been extensive lobbying by the various trade
organisations who stood to gain financially as well as influentially.

Had it not been for the death of an MP's daughter as a result of a
wiring issue that would not have been addressed by part P; there would
have been little media attention either.

In the sense that this has been one of a series of measures where trade
associations of various types have been invited to or have pushed for
being the framework for self certification in respect to various
construction industry; one can suspect that a motivation for Part P has
been as a means of control and tax take; although no more than any of
the other self certification schemes.

In the meantime, Mr Raynsford has become somewhat more disengaged
politically, but is chairman of the Construction Industry Council and
of the NHBC foundation, so continues to make his mark on the sector.
Nevertheless he did find time to attend, with his wife, a performance
of the Barber of Seville and dinner as guest of Arup Group earlier this
year.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, said:
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.

In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction.

This is because public acceptance was manufactured by misrepresenting
it as a safety policy. Had the truth been told people woud have shouted
'no way.'


NT

wrote in message
ups.com...

8

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as
the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm.

They already do that by taking money from road schemes to make rail safer.
This saves about 4 deaths a year but would save about 500+ if spent on the
roads.

Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Most of the stuff is OT AFAICS.

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly

I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads.

You are joking surely?

Most "road safety" measures are their to incerease revenue and add to
congestion, so they can justify a further 'congestion charge'


If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong
as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new
installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100%
compliance with part P!!)

In reality, even if all new "cowboy" installations were stopped from
day 1 of the legislation, the vast bulk of installations with all of
the past legacy "cowboy" work are still in existance. It would take
30 years or more before all old installations were finally rewired (as
houses are bought and sold and finally end up having a major
refurbishment).

Therefore even if the legistaltion was effective (and in practice it is
largely ignored by DIY'ers - just look at what B&Q sells including
consumer units etc!!!) I would expect a gradual decline over 10 -30
years

In actual fact there was no problem and as there is not a detailed
record of every installation (especially older installations) therefore
one can add circuits with no risk of being "caught".

Lumping fixed wiring deaths (a non-problem) with other appliance deaths
has obviously been chosen by the useless civil servants to hide what is
probably an upturn in deaths from fixed wiring!!

In other countries increased regulation caused more deaths due to
forcing up prices and encouraging more "mates from the pub" having a
go.

Lightman

The message .com
from "Lightman" contains these words:

The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong
as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new
installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100%
compliance with part P!!)

It doesn't mean they're "wrong", just not presented in a suitable
context. This is true of most statistics.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Lightman wrote:

The statistics at the start of the post are obviously completely wrong
as it implies that people are only being killed on brand new
installations within a year or two (and it assumes there is 100%
compliance with part P!!)

I've reread the post, and no such things are stated or implied.


In reality, even if all new "cowboy" installations were stopped from
day 1 of the legislation, the vast bulk of installations with all of
the past legacy "cowboy" work are still in existance. It would take
30 years or more before all old installations were finally rewired (as
houses are bought and sold and finally end up having a major
refurbishment).

Therefore even if the legistaltion was effective (and in practice it is
largely ignored by DIY'ers - just look at what B&Q sells including
consumer units etc!!!) I would expect a gradual decline over 10 -30
years

This is the final problem with part p, that deaths can be expected to
decline over time regardless of whether pp is in place or not. Without
pp they'd decline quicker, since rewiring would be avoided less often,
and there would be less inclination to do illegal jobs. But since it
should decline either way, future statistics will not tell us much.

In fact unqualified working is common today, but is not a signficant
problem, as confirmed by the near zero death rate stats. Often one
hears 'ooh thats dangerous cos its not regs compliant' but IRL the risk
level is miniscule. If only other areas of daily life were as
super-safe as electrical installations.

In the 80s I saw an installation still in daily use from around WW1 (in
retail premises as well) so I reckon it'll take an awful long time for
our historic installs to disappear. HMG might want us all to give our
money to business every 20 years for a rewire, but many arent that
easily taken in.


In actual fact there was no problem and as there is not a detailed
record of every installation (especially older installations) therefore
one can add circuits with no risk of being "caught".

blue & brown

Lumping fixed wiring deaths (a non-problem) with other appliance deaths
has obviously been chosen by the useless civil servants to hide what is
probably an upturn in deaths from fixed wiring!!

In other countries increased regulation caused more deaths due to
forcing up prices and encouraging more "mates from the pub" having a
go.

Lightman

But bear in mind most countries have lower standards to start with. UK
wiring has so many layers of protection designed in that errors here
and there dont normally get through all those protection layers, thus
no incident occurs. Hence our wiring system is much more cowboy-proof
than in most countries.


NT

On 27 Nov 2006 01:29:36 -0800, "Lightman"
wrote:

Therefore even if the legistaltion was effective (and in practice it is
largely ignored by DIY'ers - just look at what B&Q sells including
consumer units etc!!!)

B&Q does supply the trade as well as the public.

Besides, that doesn't say that Joe Public doesn't notify the BCO of
his d-i-y work.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland