No such thing as Safe Isolation. You are only proving dead at the time of testing, a few seconds later the installation or part of it could become live.

Best thing is do not touch anything conductive even if it is green/yellow covered.

JP

John Peckham said:

No such thing as Safe Isolation. You are only proving dead at the time of testing, a few seconds later the installation or part of it could become live.

In addition, there's a far more fundamental issue in logic with the term "proving dead"... 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'

It's not easy (some scientists and philosophers might say not possible) to 'prove' something is not there. In fact, all we are doing using a voltage indicator is saying 'I can't detect a sufficient amount of electrical energy can travel between the two points I tested to operate the detector'  It's very easy to show "false positive" by not making contact with the conductors we are testing between, and we know we have to check the voltage indicator is working before and after the test.

Sadly, we are not 'proving dead' but gathering as much evidence as we can that the circuit is likely to be dead.

And then, as John Peckham  said, 'proving dead' is a momentary indication of 'not energized' not a proof that your means of isolation are infallible for all circumstances.

So, you might ask, how on Earth (no pun intended) do I comply with the absolute duties of Regulations 13 and 14 of EAWR?

Unnervingly the answer is that (as HSE Memorandum of Guidance on EAWR tell us) Regulation 29 provides a defence against certain of the provisions of EAWR (including Regulation 13 and 14) for someone to prove they took 'reasonable steps' and 'exercised all due diligence' to avoid commission of that offence.

So, you do what you can, and use that as a defence if worst comes to the worst! Also shows that 'proving dead' alone, if anything were to go wrong, is also not a 'get out of jail free' card ... for example if the 'danger' could have been avoided by other means such as the use of insulated tools etc.

Perhaps JP offers good advice here ...

... Keep safe, mind how you go!

(It's a 'Thursday' post [general groaning])

John Peckham said:

No such thing as Safe Isolation. You are only proving dead at the time of testing, a few seconds later the installation or part of it could become live.

In addition, there's a far more fundamental issue in logic with the term "proving dead"... 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'

It's not easy (some scientists and philosophers might say not possible) to 'prove' something is not there. In fact, all we are doing using a voltage indicator is saying 'I can't detect a sufficient amount of electrical energy can travel between the two points I tested to operate the detector'  It's very easy to show "false positive" by not making contact with the conductors we are testing between, and we know we have to check the voltage indicator is working before and after the test.

Sadly, we are not 'proving dead' but gathering as much evidence as we can that the circuit is likely to be dead.

And then, as John Peckham  said, 'proving dead' is a momentary indication of 'not energized' not a proof that your means of isolation are infallible for all circumstances.

So, you might ask, how on Earth (no pun intended) do I comply with the absolute duties of Regulations 13 and 14 of EAWR?

Unnervingly the answer is that (as HSE Memorandum of Guidance on EAWR tell us) Regulation 29 provides a defence against certain of the provisions of EAWR (including Regulation 13 and 14) for someone to prove they took 'reasonable steps' and 'exercised all due diligence' to avoid commission of that offence.

So, you do what you can, and use that as a defence if worst comes to the worst! Also shows that 'proving dead' alone, if anything were to go wrong, is also not a 'get out of jail free' card ... for example if the 'danger' could have been avoided by other means such as the use of insulated tools etc.

Perhaps JP offers good advice here ...

... Keep safe, mind how you go!

(It's a 'Thursday' post [general groaning])