davezawadi:

Unfortunately Grahams argument here can be used to do almost anything on the grounds that it is "safer". I will cite the current new thing on the block, which are AFDDs, and perhaps surge suppressors too. These are said to increase safety, so should any installation without them be classed as "unsatisfactory"?

Perhaps, in the fullness of time ... they are not mandated at the moment, but the same "creep" occurred with RCDs, which were also very expensive initially.

It means that any domestic job will cost at least £1500 for parts, and I can see the customer reaction from here! In fact they will no longer employ electricians at all and do the job themselves based on very variable advice from the internet.

I can't disagree with that ...

I will give an example of the construction industry, where H&S has become the primary thing to shout about. It has also led to a huge increase in cost of probably 30% in everything. Sites where one may not use any kind of ladder are now common, and scaffolding is required for the simplest job, even if it is only to put a safety rail around a flat roof in case the worker forgets he is not on the ground. It is true that there has been a reduction in serious accidents, which is good, but there ought to be some consideration of the cost of each accident reduction, because society may not really gain as a whole.

It's an interesting point ... we're all happy to drive, despite the increased risks that brings.

Cycling has become popular, but is now a major cause of serious cases to A&E, and motor cycles have always had a very high accident rate, about 20 times that of cars. These are not in any way "safer" by the definition we are using, so should both be banned? Children no longer walk to school (mine always did) because it could be dangerous except that cars outside schools have a significant accident rate to the children being picked up! Much of this is because people expect to be protected at all times, they no longer seem to learn to cope with risks as we did when children. If advice on how to use our home "safely" is ignored, why should the rest of us more sensible people be made to pay?

davezawadi:

Unfortunately Grahams argument here can be used to do almost anything on the grounds that it is "safer". I will cite the current new thing on the block, which are AFDDs, and perhaps surge suppressors too. These are said to increase safety, so should any installation without them be classed as "unsatisfactory"?

Perhaps, in the fullness of time ... they are not mandated at the moment, but the same "creep" occurred with RCDs, which were also very expensive initially.

It means that any domestic job will cost at least £1500 for parts, and I can see the customer reaction from here! In fact they will no longer employ electricians at all and do the job themselves based on very variable advice from the internet.

I can't disagree with that ...

I will give an example of the construction industry, where H&S has become the primary thing to shout about. It has also led to a huge increase in cost of probably 30% in everything. Sites where one may not use any kind of ladder are now common, and scaffolding is required for the simplest job, even if it is only to put a safety rail around a flat roof in case the worker forgets he is not on the ground. It is true that there has been a reduction in serious accidents, which is good, but there ought to be some consideration of the cost of each accident reduction, because society may not really gain as a whole.

It's an interesting point ... we're all happy to drive, despite the increased risks that brings.

Cycling has become popular, but is now a major cause of serious cases to A&E, and motor cycles have always had a very high accident rate, about 20 times that of cars. These are not in any way "safer" by the definition we are using, so should both be banned? Children no longer walk to school (mine always did) because it could be dangerous except that cars outside schools have a significant accident rate to the children being picked up! Much of this is because people expect to be protected at all times, they no longer seem to learn to cope with risks as we did when children. If advice on how to use our home "safely" is ignored, why should the rest of us more sensible people be made to pay?