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 51 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 5660 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

The Value of R.C.D.s

Zoomup

There have been many discussions recently about R.C.D.s, whether they really are necessary, and is an installation necessarily unsafe if it is old and has no, or insufficient, R.C.D. protection.

 

Well consider this please. If you are driving and need to brake hard to save somebody from injury or death does that incident ever get reported. If you knocked somebody over due to having bad vehicle brakes then it might.

 

If an R.C.D. operates correctly and saves somebody from injury or death, does that every get reported? There may have been 10s, 100s or even thousands of cases where an R.C.D. has saved somebody from injury or death, but we will never know the numbers because of a lack of reporting of the cases.

 

Personally I like the idea of R.C.D. protection

 

Z.

Parents
  • 0

    What is happening here is a choice (Good practice maybe, possibly convenience) is being made by the installer without consultation with the customer, at the customer's expense, on the alleged grounds of safety when in fact it is convenience, or actually profit. This is fraud by any name because the reason is a lie. 314.1 is often cited, but this is about individual circuits, not RCDs, and relates to faults in the Installation not particularly connected appliances. If one took this implicitly it would mean that every circuit had to have a separate RCD, which is certainly not in the regulations anywhere. It is pushed as RCBOs by manufacturers, which can be helpful in some cases but are not mandated in any way. Good  Practice is often quoted, but which regulation uses those words, Good Workmanship is not the same thing at all?

Reply
  • 0

    What is happening here is a choice (Good practice maybe, possibly convenience) is being made by the installer without consultation with the customer, at the customer's expense, on the alleged grounds of safety when in fact it is convenience, or actually profit. This is fraud by any name because the reason is a lie. 314.1 is often cited, but this is about individual circuits, not RCDs, and relates to faults in the Installation not particularly connected appliances. If one took this implicitly it would mean that every circuit had to have a separate RCD, which is certainly not in the regulations anywhere. It is pushed as RCBOs by manufacturers, which can be helpful in some cases but are not mandated in any way. Good  Practice is often quoted, but which regulation uses those words, Good Workmanship is not the same thing at all?

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines