There has been some suggestion that more of us should comment on these DPCs, and I think it was mapj that suggested only a single percentage of us (is that somewhere between 0%-9%) might be doing so?

I can only speak for myself, and perhaps profusely apologise to Graham et al........some of whom know me, but I assume that a panel of experts, who worry - right overboard worry - and stress and cant sleep at night due to this worry -  about health and safety, and electrical safety, sit down and stress and worry about all the different ways that we might get a shock, or potentially die. And draw up new regulations to try and cover all these different scenarios, write a regulation to cover it, find out about the law of unintended consequences and re-write the regulation again to  minimise the unintended consequence's. I assume a LOT of thought gets put inot these changes and updates, with many meetings between many concerned, well meaning men and women. I doubt I've any valued added benefit to it. 

Clearly (to me) the 16th edition was a big change (step?) to electrical safety (IMO) but between then and now, other than RCDs being more of a thing, the regulations seem to have just expanded on what's already there. More special locations, more appendices etc  - but essentially, it was all still in the 16th

Are these new regs so different to the 16th edition? That book is half the width of the 18th. Simpler. 

I'd like to think that I had a big enough presence on the old forum, that I can show my knowledge of the regulations is probably quite good, (Not compared to some on here, obviously) but I - in no way - feel like my input on the DPCs might be valuable. Every point I bought up has probably have been debated already, and more than likely I'd sound dumb. 

My attitude is something along the lines of, in grumpy voice, "Just tell me the regulations and I'll do my best to implement the dam thing."

I've long predicted the fragmentation of our industry and the regulations and we'll soon all be qualified only to work in certain sectors of the industry and we'll only need to know and understand regs applicable to that specific industry. In future, We'll be actively prevented from working in sectors of the industry - regardless of our experience - until we pass this course or that course. Paper proof of "Competency". 

I do not support this at all (Bod's - I hope he's still around reading this but I guess he's not- and OMS oft repeated admonitions of  - "be careful what you wish for" - spring to mind. But I see it as inevitable that the way we are moving - and already the regs books are too much for most electricians unless you're in charge of the job QS or company AP or similar. I can say there are large sections of the regulations I am aware of, and rarely use; I know that if a project comes up in that section I'd better check up my understanding.  

There has been some suggestion that more of us should comment on these DPCs, and I think it was mapj that suggested only a single percentage of us (is that somewhere between 0%-9%) might be doing so?

I can only speak for myself, and perhaps profusely apologise to Graham et al........some of whom know me, but I assume that a panel of experts, who worry - right overboard worry - and stress and cant sleep at night due to this worry -  about health and safety, and electrical safety, sit down and stress and worry about all the different ways that we might get a shock, or potentially die. And draw up new regulations to try and cover all these different scenarios, write a regulation to cover it, find out about the law of unintended consequences and re-write the regulation again to  minimise the unintended consequence's. I assume a LOT of thought gets put inot these changes and updates, with many meetings between many concerned, well meaning men and women. I doubt I've any valued added benefit to it. 

Clearly (to me) the 16th edition was a big change (step?) to electrical safety (IMO) but between then and now, other than RCDs being more of a thing, the regulations seem to have just expanded on what's already there. More special locations, more appendices etc  - but essentially, it was all still in the 16th

Are these new regs so different to the 16th edition? That book is half the width of the 18th. Simpler. 

I'd like to think that I had a big enough presence on the old forum, that I can show my knowledge of the regulations is probably quite good, (Not compared to some on here, obviously) but I - in no way - feel like my input on the DPCs might be valuable. Every point I bought up has probably have been debated already, and more than likely I'd sound dumb. 

My attitude is something along the lines of, in grumpy voice, "Just tell me the regulations and I'll do my best to implement the dam thing."

I've long predicted the fragmentation of our industry and the regulations and we'll soon all be qualified only to work in certain sectors of the industry and we'll only need to know and understand regs applicable to that specific industry. In future, We'll be actively prevented from working in sectors of the industry - regardless of our experience - until we pass this course or that course. Paper proof of "Competency". 

I do not support this at all (Bod's - I hope he's still around reading this but I guess he's not- and OMS oft repeated admonitions of  - "be careful what you wish for" - spring to mind. But I see it as inevitable that the way we are moving - and already the regs books are too much for most electricians unless you're in charge of the job QS or company AP or similar. I can say there are large sections of the regulations I am aware of, and rarely use; I know that if a project comes up in that section I'd better check up my understanding.  

Well made points Tatty! I was taking a 2391 course for a number of contractors and their operatives from the ROI.  Out of interest, I asked the lads about how much they used IS10101. "Too fat!" was the cohort consensus. "Nobody uses it, we just do it the way we always have." By "nobody" they mean the practitioners at the coalface. Required changes, they say, are mostly met by word of mouth, trade press, wholesalers or when the Safe Electric inspector admonishes them etc. 

However, whilst the standard is an obligatory part of the approved contractor library, nothing persuades them to turn its pages. 

Since the issue of IS10101 2020 (the Irish Regs), I have been trying to map the differences between it and BS7671. Although a corrigendum has been issued to the former, no amendments to date. 

I would agree that both documents are putting on too much weight and both are increasingly technically complex. There is no appetite for the ordinary spark to engage with the documents on any kind of substantial basis other than when the doyens of the industry require them to be herded into a tightly squeezed training course where bucket loads of information is dumped on them only to be instantly forgotten after the first pint, all in an effort to keep them up to date and, dare I say it, keep them competent. 

Whilst it is to be admired that the IET provide the consultation process and genuinely seek feedback from those at the coalface, my experience of almost 30 years as a part-time tutor would indicate that their task will be a mammoth one.