Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 53 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3356 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

NON COMPLIANT NEW EV INSTALLATIONS

John Peckham
I was sent some information from the ECA concerning an audit undertaken by the Office of Low Emission Vehicles.


The sites inspected were those installed by "qualified" and "registered" installers claiming the OLEV subsidy.


0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3). That makes 46% of new EV installations by qualified and registered persons to be non-compliant.


Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?





Parents
  • 0
    mapj1:


    I suspect that if cars had not been common for the last 100 years or so, and I turned up now proposing a vehicle with a fantastic new engine that combined liquid fuel with explosive vapour in a single skin tank 3 inches off the road surface pumped under pressure through rubber hoses,   high voltages and whirling belts behind a non-interlocked cover and a hot exhaust pipe exposed to touch at the outside I'd be blocked on health and safety grounds.


    Absolutely Mike! On the other hand if you had turned up 100 years ago with an EV and associated charging proposal of the type currently in place and had PME been the earthing system of the day, they would more than likely have thrown caution to the wind. After a while they would have counted the dead and injured and responded if they thought the situation intolerable. We take the opposite stance now and we have to foresee the likely outcomes and probably over-engineer to counter risks that may never occur in reality. Still, I am a dedicated advocate of the modern approach even if it does seem like walking through treacle at times.


Reply
  • 0
    mapj1:


    I suspect that if cars had not been common for the last 100 years or so, and I turned up now proposing a vehicle with a fantastic new engine that combined liquid fuel with explosive vapour in a single skin tank 3 inches off the road surface pumped under pressure through rubber hoses,   high voltages and whirling belts behind a non-interlocked cover and a hot exhaust pipe exposed to touch at the outside I'd be blocked on health and safety grounds.


    Absolutely Mike! On the other hand if you had turned up 100 years ago with an EV and associated charging proposal of the type currently in place and had PME been the earthing system of the day, they would more than likely have thrown caution to the wind. After a while they would have counted the dead and injured and responded if they thought the situation intolerable. We take the opposite stance now and we have to foresee the likely outcomes and probably over-engineer to counter risks that may never occur in reality. Still, I am a dedicated advocate of the modern approach even if it does seem like walking through treacle at times.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines