# Are standards necessary / useful in the UK?



## pe2dave (21 Dec 2020)

Professional Services Standards seem to think so.


----------



## marcros (21 Dec 2020)

of course they are.


----------



## Argus (21 Dec 2020)

That's an unanswerable question.

Allow me to throw in a simple scenario: You buy a car. You don't need a licence to drive it. No insurance required. There are no properly laid roads, though some are excellent dual carriageways. There are no road signs because there are no rules,and anyway some roads just finish in the middle of nowhere.
When you get on the road you can go at any speed. You can drive in any direction - on either side of the road.......................
When you fix your car after the last bump, none of the spares fit.......

Standardisation of all sorts are rules - top to bottom -that allows manufacturers to make spares that fit your car, non statutory test standards (Some car-makers from the Fatherland excluded) that tell you how it will perform.... Roads that work, and enable predictable performance both behind the wheel and in front of it. I could continue, though I do allow that some manufacturing standards ISO 9000 series, the 31000 series etc) introduce levels of bureaucracy that make your gonads itch....

Yes - we do need 'em. Globally, it's an immensely complex area, that actually requires (and largely receives), international co-operation and co-operation between trading rivals.

Disclaimer: In a previous wage-earning existence, I contributed on behalf of UK manufacturers to a number of standards, at BS, CEN, ISO/IEC levels........


----------



## beech1948 (21 Dec 2020)

Yes and maybe.

Yes because how the hell else are we to get parts of a specified shape from more than one supplier. How would you fit a chuck to a drill if there were no standards as to thread size and receiver sizes.

Maybe because there are times when a standard is wanting in scope. I work in a business which is very innovative. Not in the sense of theatricals but in the sense of creating things which are improved or new ideas. A new idea may be the thing which creates the standard out of necessity. eg The Tesla charger point receiver as the first mover in mass EVs ( I think).

Three products I have worked on went on to become the or a global standard over maybe 5 yrs of effort.

I have just created what I think is the first AIOC ( AI Operating Centre sort of like a NOC) in the world to connect to AI systems, interrogate them as to health and performance and to report back to the AIOC that all is well OR not. If not then to precipitate action to repair and restore. This took 7 months over the recent pandemic and was a key element in the survival of my business. So lots at stake.

Few people have any conception of what innovation is really. Its a kind of self protection about change or lack of it. Most people do not welcome change unless it is tiny and to them harmless incremental change. Real change/innovation is often a brutal and unforgiving thing as it frequently destroys prior thoughts and radically changes perceptions into new channels.


----------



## bourbon (21 Dec 2020)

You have to thank Whitworth for standardization. When he invented a screw cutting lathe. Also to some extent Lucas electrical as well. Remember the 60's and 70's cars with 7'' round headlights, That was Lucas's doing.


----------



## MusicMan (21 Dec 2020)

beech1948 said:


> Yes and maybe.
> 
> Yes because how the hell else are we to get parts of a specified shape from more than one supplier. How would you fit a chuck to a drill if there were no standards as to thread size and receiver sizes.
> 
> ...



Very nice work on this, beech.


----------



## Jacob (21 Dec 2020)

Ditching EU standards as we speak, finalised any day now. Less red tape should help speed up our trade with the whole world and possibly the universe! We'll soon see the results.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (21 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> Professional Services Standards seem to think so.



It's a bit like saying are *laws *necessary/useful in the UK?....

Ethical Standards - Yes (we could all do with better standards, better adhered to - honesty? integrity? etc. etc.)

Technical Standards - Yes (where they don't exist, they have to be invented [by groups of people collaborating at one level or another] otherwise progress is extremely limited).

The above was typed into a computer (running standardised software on standardised hardware), powered from the UK electricity grid (which relies on all sorts of standards) and transmitted over the internet (built from standardised hardware and software components).

Of course, "standards" for their own sake are a bit pointless, but without them genuine progress on any significant scale is almost impossible.


----------



## Spectric (21 Dec 2020)

Without standards everyone would be working to a different set of metrics. Thats why we have calibration centres that can ensure your equipment is calibrated to a traceable standard and everyone can have confidence that everyones metre ruler is a metre long to a stated tolerance at a given temperature. Imagine if every petrol station had their own version of the litre, you would not be able to readily compare cost. I think when they talk of ditching EU standards they are not talking about the standards but things like how certain foods can be processed and what colour a cow has to be so that it can be exported into the EU.


----------



## TheUnicorn (21 Dec 2020)

Standards are good, protection for everyone involved, common sizing etc etc, what is bad is nonsensical beaurocracy, where common sense is overlooked for the lack of the right box ticked, the right form filed etc. If everything is efficient and safe everybody wins


----------



## Woody2Shoes (21 Dec 2020)

Spectric said:


> Without standards everyone would be working to a different set of metrics. Thats why we have calibration centres that can ensure your equipment is calibrated to a traceable standard and everyone can have confidence that everyones metre ruler is a metre long to a stated tolerance at a given temperature. Imagine if every petrol station had their own version of the litre, you would not be able to readily compare cost. I think when they talk of ditching EU standards they are not talking about the standards but things like how certain foods can be processed and what colour a cow has to be so that it can be exported into the EU.


I think this whole anthithesis to EU rules is because powerful vested interests want us to eat their produce which meets lower standards in terms of food safety, animal welfare and environmental responsibility. It's not so much straight/bendy bananas as chlorinated chicken, pesticide residues etc.


----------



## billw (21 Dec 2020)

There's always been pride in British Standards and the fact we were usually ahead of the curve. Dropping EU standards will do what to us really? If we adopt US level food protection then all hell will break loose.

I think the US will try to sell us their stuff, I think most people won't touch it with a bargepole and you'll see a hell of a lot more "100% British" labels and signage in shops and restaurants as a result.

OK I've been to the States a load of times and never once blinked about eating their food, so it's hypocritical to say I'd not eat it here but the fact is I wouldn't because over I've got a choice.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Dec 2020)

bourbon said:


> You have to thank Whitworth for standardization. When he invented a screw cutting lathe. Also to some extent Lucas electrical as well. Remember the 60's and 70's cars with 7'' round headlights, That was Lucas's doing.



****Pedant Alert****

It was Henry Maudslay who developed the first practical screwcutting lathe in the very late 1700s, building on work done by Jesse Ramsden and others in the mid to late 1700s; Joseph Whitworth came up with the first standard for screwthread diameter, pitch and threadform in about 1842.

***Pedantry Off***

Are standards necessary and useful? Yes, provided they are applied appropriately. 

If you live next to a new nuclear power station, you'd want to know that the design was done properly, the right materials used in its construction and those materials supplied against appropriate standards, the plant was properly tested before it went into operation, that the operators were trained to a suitable standard, and that the plant's maintenance met suitable standards.

If you are making garden gnomes, the standards applicable to nuclear plant might not be so appropriate.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (21 Dec 2020)

bourbon said:


> You have to thank Whitworth for standardization. When he invented a screw cutting lathe. Also to some extent Lucas electrical as well. Remember the 60's and 70's cars with 7'' round headlights, That was Lucas's doing.


Ahhh ........... Lucas ..............Prince of Darkness.


----------



## Jacob (21 Dec 2020)

Cheshirechappie said:


> ****Pedant Alert****
> ......
> 
> If you are making garden gnomes, the standards applicable to nuclear plant might not be so appropriate.


I hope you are right. We wouldn't want a Chernobyl disaster at the bottom of the garden, even if on a little gnome scale.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> I hope you are right. We wouldn't want a Chernobyl disaster at the bottom of the garden, even if on a little gnome scale.



That's the point of having appropriate standards.


----------



## Sandyn (21 Dec 2020)

The list of Standards in the link are more Business Governance Standards, which are a bit different to Standards for Metrics. We couldn't do anything without standardisation of metrics, but Business Standards are not always necessary. Many companies perform perfectly well without adhering to any BSI standards. All these standards are a bit of a money making business, I would question why Standards are so expensive, probably on average £100 each, They should be available for a nominal fee. Then you have all the accreditation fees, the annual fees, the additional staff to maintain the standards. If you have really good staff who know what they are doing, you don't need business governance standards. Companies now often request that any suppliers have accreditation to various standards. and won't deal with companies who don't. it perpetuates the business. You can get a BSI accreditation for producing rubbish products, as long as you document how you make your rubbish product and follow the process during the audit. These standards don't measure the quality of what is being made, only the process put in place. 

In many cases, Business standards are required these days, because industry is full of inexperienced people who haven't a clue what they are doing, so they need a guide to follow. Everything in business is being re-invented today and given a new sparkly name, but it's what good successful companies have been doing for years without having a Quality Management Systems.
Despite my slightly cynical view, overall, I think they are a good thing and I shouldn't complain, It was my source of income for many years.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (22 Dec 2020)

Economic and material success is inextricably linked to common standards. 

Whether it is screw threads, interchangeable parts (Colt guns), weights and measures (metres, kilos etc), I can't think of a primitive society which has progressed wthout some level of standardisation.

And the most successful economies are those which seem to apply standards and processes with the greatest rigour - eg: Germany, Japan, Switzerland. 

But there does need to be some intelligence applied. One organisation I worked for some years ago was concerned to ensure 100% complete compliance for BS5750 accredtation. Documenting the processes became more important than managing the business. Daft!


----------



## SamTheJarvis (22 Dec 2020)

Spectric said:


> Without standards everyone would be working to a different set of metrics.



Well, I think the question posed here intends to ask whether standards are best formed from the ground up or mandated from on high.

The value of standards themselves is obvious, how they're formed and instituted isn't.

Standards typically either improve efficiency (replaceable parts) or reduce risk (building codes)

Could easily make the case that standards contrived simply to reduce risk cause stagnation in a given industry, and that an industry can only sustain a certain level of stagnation. While the suits may not like it, some risk is required to keep this life of ours meaningful.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2020)

Anybody in doubt about standards just needs to look at what "sub-standard" entails, whether it's food and drink, brake components, nuts and bolts, etc. etc. across the whole range.


----------



## pe2dave (22 Dec 2020)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Are standards necessary and useful? Yes, provided they are applied appropriately.



I'd like to think there was some self regulation here? As a mfc org, why should I support
that X standard, which we believe is daft? 
OTOH, I know we might lose sales initially, but longer term, supporting Y standard will
open up markets we are not yet in... and it does make sense?


More on topic, what woodwork standards are 'missing' / needed?
My recent one (very annoying) was dust extraction, ports etc. 
What else?


----------



## pe2dave (22 Dec 2020)

SamTheJarvis said:


> Well, I think the question posed here intends to ask whether standards are best formed from the ground up or mandated from on high.
> 
> The value of standards themselves is obvious, how they're formed and instituted isn't.
> 
> ...



Good point. "Standards bodies" may document them, but the driving force is most often interested parties. This has upsides and drawbacks, often introducing bias etc, but generally, if done with a common interest this form of standards generation is the most successful.
Enforced standards? I'm sure there are some (taking a wide definition of standards) but I'd suggest this is not only ever successful when "interested parties" are *really* consulted.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> I'd like to think there was some self regulation here? As a mfc org, why should I support
> that X standard, which we believe is daft?


The problem with self regulation is "people"; specifically people who would rather not have the hassle of said regulation as it impinges on profit margin. Unfortunately, money (and to some scale, ease) are powerful motivators; hence external/mandatory regulation is all too often required in order to keep things in check.

Even in the case where an organisation isn't specifically trying to be cynical or greedy, it makes much more sense for "the standard" to be "my standard" (when it comes to, say, a connector or plug specification). The inevitable end result is _n_ different brands on the market, all of whom are using plugs that are incompatible with one another (e.g. the early days of mobile phones - where pretty much every phone came with a different charging plug).


----------



## pe2dave (22 Dec 2020)

@sploo You document the reasoning behind self regulation.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> @sploo You document the reasoning behind self regulation.


The opposite, surely? Or maybe I've misunderstood?


----------



## pe2dave (22 Dec 2020)

No. if the standard is not commonly agreed, whether it's your standard or not, it is unlikely to be commonly adopted, hence you will not benefit from 'your' standard.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> No. if the standard is not commonly agreed, whether it's your standard or not, it is unlikely to be commonly adopted, hence you will not benefit from 'your' standard.


I think we're probably talking at cross purposes then; as that's not really what I was getting at.


----------



## Dr Al (22 Dec 2020)

The main problem that I see with Britain not keeping in line with EU standards is that manufacturers will have yet more standards to follow. At the moment, if you want to sell into the EU, USA and Canada, you have to meet the requirements for CE marking (for Europe), CSA (for Canada) and (for radio stuff at least) FCC for USA. If the British standards deviate from EU ones, we'll have to add British standards to that list (so that we can sell into Britain).

I often think XKCD has the best view on standards: Standards (I used to have this printed out by my desk).


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

Dr Al said:


> The main problem that I see with Britain not keeping in line with EU standards is that manufacturers will have yet more standards to follow. At the moment, if you want to sell into the EU, USA and Canada, you have to meet the requirements for CE marking (for Europe), CSA (for Canada) and (for radio stuff at least) FCC for USA. If the British standards deviate from EU ones, we'll have to add British standards to that list (so that we can sell into Britain).
> 
> I often think XKCD has the best view on standards: Standards (I used to have this printed out by my desk).


You're risking dragging the dreaded "B" word into the thread; but yes, if the UK does anything other than blanket adopt EU-driven standards then it will inevitably require another set of standards for manufacturers to follow. Where I work we've been having to look into this (CE marking) because there's still some confusion over exactly what a post-Brexit UK business can or cannot (or should or should not) do with marking products that may be sold on the mainland (vs NI, and vs ROI).

XKCD is pretty much a cult favourite amongst many techies though. Great stuff.


----------



## Droogs (22 Dec 2020)

Simply if you are in favour of ditching standards then you are basically Jacob Rees Mogg and all that matters is profit


----------



## Lodger001 (22 Dec 2020)

Any manufacturing business, if it is to survive in the export market, would have to adopt the standards of the country into which they are marketing their products. So if we are intending to sell into Europe it would pay us not to diverge dramatically from the European standards. However that also applies to them selling into our market. We have to achieve a balance not just throw out anything European just because it is "foreign". But we should not be bound by it, our standards may well be higher, for example god forbid the importation of US Chickens...


----------



## billw (22 Dec 2020)

Droogs said:


> Simply if you are in favour of ditching standards then you are basically Jacob Rees Mogg and all that matters is profit



Or an American.


----------



## Pozidrive (22 Dec 2020)

Are standards useful? Just take a look round the average home and have a look at how many phone chargers there are, all with different outputs and fittings. Personally, I've got a drawer with probably 20 different chargers for different phone's - crazy!


----------



## Cooper (22 Dec 2020)

The survivors and relatives of lost loved ones in Grefell Tower wish there had been better standards, *which were actively applied*. When products are traded internationally it is even more important. One thing that must not happen is "marking of their own homework" Boeing 737 MAX.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2020)

Cooper said:


> The survivors and relatives of lost loved ones in Grefell Tower wish there had been better standards, *which were actively applied*. When products are traded internationally it is even more important. One thing that must not happen is "marking of their own homework" Boeing 737 MAX.


Exactly.
In fact it's a daft question to start with - of course standards are necessary, who wants a substandard anything, from sausage roll to intercontinental jumbo jet.


----------



## deema (22 Dec 2020)

Interesting perspectives given. I’m rather cynical myself of standards having sat on a few of the committees who set them in different industries, from automotive, electrical parameter instrumentation to medical. The committees supposedly have representatives from all stakeholders (interested parties) but are in reality dominated IMO by the largest manufacturers in that sector. The aim has always been IMO of the company’s to develop a standard that has been so difficult, draconian and expensive to implement that it reduces / eliminates competition. Nothing what’s so ever to do with protecting the public, that was always what the measures were dressed up to be. Lipstick and pig come to mind.

Now once these usually over the top standards get made into law, the real problems begin. There is nobody policing them. So, you have a situation where anybody can claim to be making products to a standard and nobody knows if they are or arn’t. A good example is the recent wonderful emission scandal of VW. A very highly respected German manufacturer of vehicles who you would have assumed was beyond reproach of flaunting, circumnavigating and fraud about compliance. Well, it would appear not. 

The usual joke is that anything marked CE marked coming from China is not CE marked which by the way a company can award itself, it standards for Chinese Export. There as there is nobody to regulate, check or verify the millions of products meet the standards they claim to have been made to. The only time anything is checked is when there is a serious accident. Even then, most investigators don’t have a clue about the standards or how they are interpreted. At one company, who I was associated with, the largest manufacturer of the type of product in the UK, we were the experts the police called upon in serious automotive accidents that involved the type of products we made.

Look at FENSA, you have these days to be FENSA registered and ‘approved’ to fit a window. Well. Let’s look at the detail. How do I become FENSA approved? How long does it take to master the skills required / exams I have to sit? The answer might surprise you.....five minutes in the FENSA web site a few pounds and you get immediate FENSA certification. No exams, no nothing. Golly, I’m so glad and feel so well reassured that the window fitter is FENSA approved! 

So, I have examples as long as my arm, and indeed just about everything I’ve ever looked into has exactly the same issues. Let’s as a last example take the law of the land, which has been cited. The pretext in the Uk is that not knowing the requirements of the law is no defence in the Uk. Well, how many of us know the law? I mean ever law that’s still on the statute books that could or is likely to touch us.....hands up......anyone.....nobody? Nope, none of us. It’s so complicated, open to interpretation, and it’s actual nature defined and redefined ever court case that we have specialists who make it their business to study, understand and interpret it for us.....lawyers! I can absolutely guarantee that every single one of us has broken the law multiple times and been completely unaware we have done it. There will also be numerous times we have broken the law deliberately, knowing, and with motive.......parking, speeding, jay walking are all good examples. I think it’s Wales that has / had the zero tolerance approach to all speeding offences, they certainly seem to have more than their fair share of speed cameras.....but have the most deaths on the roads. Possibly due to everyone focused on trying to slow down when ever they see a speed camera than actual focusing on driving.....who knows, but it’s reassuring that they have a zero tolerance to speeding.


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> .......I think it’s Wales that has / had the zero tolerance approach to all speeding offences, they certainly seem to have more than their fair share of speed cameras.....but have the most deaths on the roads. Possibly due to everyone focused on trying to slow down when ever they see a speed camera than actual focusing on driving.....who knows, but it’s reassuring that they have a zero tolerance to speeding.


More possibly due to still not having enough speed cameras.


----------



## deema (22 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> Exactly.
> In fact it's a daft question to start with - of course standards are necessary, who wants a substandard anything, from sausage roll to intercontinental jumbo jet.



Did you notice the lovely Boeing jet that has been grounded due to its propensity to fall out of the sky due to an air speed sensor.....only having one......complicated alarms etc etc? Good job it passed all those standards! Oh, and arnt they about to try and let it fly again.....with only one sensor!


----------



## DBT85 (22 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> I'd like to think there was some self regulation here?



Self regulation doesn't work because Money. This has been proven over and over and over again.



deema said:


> Did you notice the lovely Boeing jet that has been grounded due to its propensity to fall out of the sky due to an air speed sensor.....only having one......complicated alarms etc etc? Good job it passed all those standards! Oh, and arnt they about to try and let it fly again.....with only one sensor!


Tests which both Boing and the FAA have been found to have bent the rules on to get it through.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Interesting perspectives given. I’m rather cynical myself of standards having sat on a few of the committees who set them in different industries, from automotive, electrical parameter instrumentation to medical. The committees supposedly have representatives from all stakeholders (interested parties) but are in reality dominated IMO by the largest manufacturers in that sector. The aim has always been IMO of the company’s to develop a standard that has been so difficult, draconian and expensive to implement that it reduces / eliminates competition. Nothing what’s so ever to do with protecting the public, that was always what the measures were dressed up to be. Lipstick and pig come to mind.
> 
> Now once these usually over the top standards get made into law, the real problems begin. There is nobody policing them. So, you have a situation where anybody can claim to be making products to a standard and nobody knows if they are or arn’t. A good example is the recent wonderful emission scandal of VW. A very highly respected German manufacturer of vehicles who you would have assumed was beyond reproach of flaunting, circumnavigating and fraud about compliance. Well, it would appear not.
> 
> ...



I think that what you're describing is people/organisations 'gaming' the system. Whatever system is in place, people will seek to manipulate it to their advantage in some way or other. Just because not all rules/laws are 'good' or have the desired results, should we chuck them *all* out? I suggest we should not, and that we should engage with the rule/law-makers to improve them (not easy to out-lobby the lobbyists sometimes, I know).


----------



## pe2dave (22 Dec 2020)

Odd how many standards do work, to the mutual benefit of orgs?


----------



## billw (22 Dec 2020)

DBT85 said:


> Tests which both Boing and the FAA have been found to have bent the rules on to get it through.



I'm surprised anyone has any faith in the US regulation system or Boeing as a company after that fiasco. DId a case study on Boeing recently and the lengths they go to to avoid taking the blame for anything is pretty eye-opening.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (22 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> Odd how many standards do work, to the mutual benefit of orgs?


Yeah - for example, they make buying and selling stuff a lot easier (at multiple levels)!


----------



## Jacob (22 Dec 2020)

Woody2Shoes said:


> I think that what you're describing is people/organisations 'gaming' the system. Whatever system is in place, people will seek to manipulate it to their advantage in some way or other. Just because not all rules/laws are 'good' or have the desired results, should we chuck them *all* out? I suggest we should not, and that we should engage with the rule/law-makers to improve them (not easy to out-lobby the lobbyists sometimes, I know).


They'd cheat even more so without regulation, which is why we have regulations in the first place, definitely for the better on the whole.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Now once these usually over the top standards get made into law, the real problems begin. There is nobody policing them. So, you have a situation where anybody can claim to be making products to a standard and nobody knows if they are or arn’t. A good example is the recent wonderful emission scandal of VW. A very highly respected German manufacturer of vehicles who you would have assumed was beyond reproach of flaunting, circumnavigating and fraud about compliance. Well, it would appear not.


None of that is really the fault of the standards though. Indeed the "standards" relating to vehicle emissions are the very thing VW were breaking, by implementing a hidden vehicle mode to try to fake better results. The automotive industry would almost certainly prefer no (or at least greatly relaxed) standards in this area - as it would enable them to reduce costs.


----------



## deema (22 Dec 2020)

It’s just my cynical view, I compare it to the law of the land. We have laws, lots of them, but they arnt enforced as there arnt sufficient police to prevent crimes / investigate them when they do happen.......or actual keep proper statistics on how many happen......exit stage left Ian Hopkins (Manchester exchief of police) . We make more laws, which in the main make everyone feel better, as we have now crimilised something or other, but the reality is it’s not actually policed. Minor crimes don’t in the main go to court, a caution, a night in the cells, perhaps a police record, small fine etc are dolled out. But still this doesn’t change behaviours, and that’s not including the thousands of reported crimes that never get solved. 

So, how does this relate to products, well, As I real life example, I was involved in an industry that up until 1998 had no standards, it was a free for all. But, accidents were very few and far between. Why? Well the public bought the product predominant from a small number of highly regarded company’s that had built their reputation on the safety of their products. All was well with the world. Then in 1998 a new standard was set, product cost now increased as all new products had to be certified.....these are classed as safety critical items. Bravo, we all must now be safer, the result, well safety went down. It opened the flood gates to cheaply made products that were ‘CE’ marked and didn’t comply at all. How do I know, because we tested them! Anyway, accidents increased, people got hurt, no prosecutions arose as nobody but a few company’s could really could carry out the real tests, certainly not the police, who weren’t even aware it knew the standards and how to recognise a dodgy product. It continues to this day.

Closer to a lot of woodworkers hearts, table saws. Lots of regulations around them. Excellent, very dangerous piece of kit unless used properly. So, you’d expect all new table saws to be safe; obviously! Well, IMO no, a high number arnt, in fact IMO they are positively dangerous. There have been many threads on here about wobbly, misaligned, won’t lock properly table saw fences. There have been lots of excellent engineering solutions suggested and threads on how to make the fences work properly, as they should have to begin with. So, what we can say is that saw as sold did not meet the basic safety requirements, the requirements if the standards and still they are being sold, and still people keep fixing them. The law is simply, all of these are illegal, and you are entitled to return them for a full refund......but few know it, few do it and so it continues.


----------



## deema (22 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> None of that is really the fault of the standards though. Indeed the "standards" relating to vehicle emissions are the very thing VW were breaking, by implementing a hidden vehicle mode to try to fake better results. The automotive industry would almost certainly prefer no (or at least greatly relaxed) standards in this area - as it would enable them to reduce costs.




Standards and enforcement go hand in hand. Without one you have neither.

I wonder how important VW is to Germany, could it be allowed to fail and go bankrupt as a consequence? 

So what has happened now it’s been found out? All the dodgy product recalled, everyone got compensation? Or, are they all still running around polluting the environment and everyone has forgotten about it and moved in. Anyone go to jail? 

Now, what should have happened is that the product doesn’t meet the standards, it should have been recalled and changes made to make it compliant or destroyed. Individuals should have been compensated for the misleading claims they made in their marketing. Those responsible for fraud should have been prosecuted and probably receive jail sentences. Now, I’m not aware of any if that happening, but I’m happy to be corrected.


----------



## DBT85 (22 Dec 2020)

Laws are made so that if someone is caught doing it then they can be prosecuted.

The law doesn't stop me breaking the law, it holds me accountable if I'm caught.

Otherwise people can do things that we know they shouldn't be doing, and when caught there is no recourse.



deema said:


> And what has happened now it’s been found out? All the dodgy product recalled, everyone got compensation? Or, are they all still running around polluting the environment and everyone has forgotten about it and moved in. Anyone go to jail?
> 
> Now, what should have happened is that the product doesn’t meet the standards, it should have been recalled and changes made to make it compliant or destroyed. Individuals should have been compensated for the misleading claims they made in their marketing. Those responsible for fraud should have been prosecuted and probably receive jail sentences. Now, I’m not aware of any if that happening, but I’m happy to be corrected.


There are multiple cases going through courts across the globe for people sold these vehicles getting compensation. No idea on the fraud part. But the execs that make these decisions are they type of people that don't go to jail all too often.


----------



## D_W (22 Dec 2020)

billw said:


> Or an American.



?? 

We work proportionally more, but as far as standards go, we adhere to them when they make sense. We don't have the same european sentimentality to something established if it's getting in the way. 

This is changing, though - the economy of innovation that was here through, let's say, 1965 ,doesn't really exist at the same level now. Too much regulatory red tape and overhead. And lots of capital from the wealthy being used to purchase low and mid level businesses left and right at the same time (that money is past the red tape whereas someone just trying to make or do something anew has to learn it all).


----------



## pe2dave (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> . All was well with the world. Then in 1998 a new standard was set,
> 
> 
> 
> Closer to a lot of woodworkers hearts, table saws. Lots of regulations around them.



Standards? Or regulations? Easy to conflate.


----------



## Spectric (22 Dec 2020)

People question Boeing only having a single airspeed sensor but that is not the real issue. The problem now is that many pilots cannot actually fly an aeroplane, they have been trained on modern fly by wire systems and have become reliant on computer assistance. Something goes wrong and they are in big trouble, many lack the basics that would have been learnt had they had to fly by the seat of their pants in an old plane where they feel what it is doing. There was a program not long ago where a plane crashed because the pilot lost electronic instrumentation, he thought it was descending so he just pulled back until the plane stalled at which point it fell out of the sky. We now have the same issue with driving, you are taught to pass the test and not how to drive.


----------



## billw (22 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> ??
> 
> We work proportionally more, but as far as standards go, we adhere to them when they make sense. We don't have the same european sentimentality to something established if it's getting in the way.



I think I'd replace "when they make sense" with "when the market accepts them". We've seen the latest administration gut regulations on clean air, clean water, and Trump with his "I can't wash my hair properly because the pressure's too low" nonsense. 

The American attitude comes across as "standards are set by the level at which consumers sue", because if there's no financial cost then business doesn't care.

I'm not saying it's wrong, free-market capitalism has driven the country for two centuries after all, but when it comes to protections for wildlife, nature reserves, environmental issues - well that's the negative aspect in my eyes of having short-termism at the centre of your outlook.


----------



## billw (22 Dec 2020)

Spectric said:


> Something goes wrong and they are in big trouble, many lack the basics that would have been learnt had they had to fly by the seat of their pants in an old plane where they feel what it is doing.



Quite a few accident reports in which the pilots were frantically leafing through the ops manual trying to figure out what to do.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Standards and enforcement go hand in hand. Without one you have neither.


Agreed - but lack of enforcement is still not the "fault" of the existence of the legislation.



deema said:


> I wonder how important VW is to Germany, could it be allowed to fail and go bankrupt as a consequence?
> 
> So what has happened now it’s been found out? All the dodgy product recalled, everyone got compensation? Or, are they all still running around polluting the environment and everyone has forgotten about it and moved in. Anyone go to jail?


Errr - quite a lot happened: Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia

Refit of several million vehicles, plenty of lawsuits, hundreds of millions of Euros paid out, arrests, and several executes receiving criminal charges.



deema said:


> Now, what should have happened is that the product doesn’t meet the standards, it should have been recalled and changes made to make it compliant or destroyed. Individuals should have been compensated for the misleading claims they made in their marketing. Those responsible for fraud should have been prosecuted and probably receive jail sentences. Now, I’m not aware of any if that happening, but I’m happy to be corrected.


As noted above; that's _exactly_ what's been happening. It took all of about 5s to search "vw dieselgate scandal" and get the above wiki link.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

Spectric said:


> People question Boeing only having a single airspeed sensor but that is not the real issue. The problem now is that many pilots cannot actually fly an aeroplane, they have been trained on modern fly by wire systems and have become reliant on computer assistance.


That's perhaps a bit harsh on the 737 Max pilots; given that Boeing had failed to mention MCAS in the aircraft manual.


----------



## billw (22 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> That's perhaps a bit harsh on the 737 Max pilots; given that Boeing had failed to mention MCAS in the aircraft manual.



Also if you watch some of the crosswind landings on YouTube which are manually done, it's fair to say pilots still have a lot of skill. Pilots who fly to Gibraltar have to be really skilled, if you land on R09 the approach is pretty hair raising and the winds are very unpredictable. No chance autopilot would ever cope.


----------



## deema (22 Dec 2020)

Hi Sploo
Yep, read the Wikipedia, all of it. Did you see (as an example) where the EU basically has done nothing, and only in 2020 decided they needed new laws to help regulate itself / compliance to the standards that they whitewashed and allowed to continue not to comply with the very standards they should have been enforcing? Let’s remember this dates back to 1998 when it was first highlighted.....a mere 22 years? Can point at the appropriate sections.


----------



## billw (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Hi Sploo
> Yep, read the Wikipedia, all of it. Did you see (as an example) where the EU basically has done nothing, and only in 2020 decided they needed new laws to help regulate itself / compliance to the standards that they whitewashed and allowed to continue not to comply with the very standards they should have been enforcing? Let’s remember this dates back to 1998 when it was first highlighted.....a mere 22 years? Can point at the appropriate sections.



I recall one story where a country got round the issue of restaurant hygiene standards by simply not employing any inspectors. No restaurant failed an inspection as a result.


----------



## D_W (22 Dec 2020)

billw said:


> I think I'd replace "when they make sense" with "when the market accepts them". We've seen the latest administration gut regulations on clean air, clean water, and Trump with his "I can't wash my hair properly because the pressure's too low" nonsense.
> 
> The American attitude comes across as "standards are set by the level at which consumers sue", because if there's no financial cost then business doesn't care.
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong, free-market capitalism has driven the country for two centuries after all, but when it comes to protections for wildlife, nature reserves, environmental issues - well that's the negative aspect in my eyes of having short-termism at the centre of your outlook.



Our emissions standards are far more strict than europe or the UK. All of the US isn't in on the carbon gestapo, though. Why? Some don't think it's a problem (I'm not in that crowd) and most of the rest objecting don't much care for the terms, which are just wealth reallocation without necessarily doing much to lower carbon. 

As for the rest of the air quality standards, you'll have to gauge for us how much of the global air quality issues are due to the US vs. eastern europe and asia. 

Interesting that the biggest offender that I can recall in terms of emissions standards here is a european company scamming emissions tests.


----------



## D_W (22 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> None of that is really the fault of the standards though. Indeed the "standards" relating to vehicle emissions are the very thing VW were breaking, by implementing a hidden vehicle mode to try to fake better results. The automotive industry would almost certainly prefer no (or at least greatly relaxed) standards in this area - as it would enable them to reduce costs.



Emissions equipment on cars is a marketable thing here. It may not make as much immediate sense in the UK where most of what comes out of there just blows over open water, but there are several areas of inversion in the US that are almost intolerable without emissions standards on cars. The whole issue further with diesels and why they're being given up on here is that they can't cut it with emissions no matter how "clean" you make them, and they're being outdone by HEVs in terms of mileage and cost. 

Fairly sure the EPA has two goals here - eliminate coal, and eliminate diesel. Eventually it will be moving toward all power generation being centralized so that it's distributed to users (even as far as California determining that gas appliances pollute more than using gas to generate electricity and using the electricity in appliances - so that's the route they're going. The rest of us in the US will follow after diesel and coal are eliminated and unburned fuel emissions elsewhere are tackled. 

Some of our foundations here outed the particulate emissions and filth that the whole biofuels and biomass industries contribute. Trendy idea - horrible polluter compared to nat gas and more expensive. Virtue signaling isn't our specialty unless you hang around in academic circles here.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Hi Sploo
> Yep, read the Wikipedia, all of it. Did you see (as an example) where the EU basically has done nothing, and only in 2020 decided they needed new laws to help regulate itself / compliance to the standards that they whitewashed and allowed to continue not to comply with the very standards they should have been enforcing? Let’s remember this dates back to 1998 when it was first highlighted.....a mere 22 years? Can point at the appropriate sections.


Whaaaaa? 

How have you managed to (apparently) read that Wiki page, yet ignore the long list of sanctions you'd claimed hadn't happened, and then somehow get onto blaming the EU?


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> Interesting that the biggest offender that I can recall in terms of emissions standards here is a european company scamming emissions tests.


I would reword that to say that the biggest offender _to get caught_ is a European company (who also happens to be [just about] the biggest auto maker in the world). However, plenty of the others are also "up to stuff": Diesel emissions scandal - Wikipedia



D_W said:


> Emissions equipment on cars is a marketable thing here. It may not make as much immediate sense in the UK where most of what comes out of there just blows over open water, but there are several areas of inversion in the US that are almost intolerable without emissions standards on cars.


I'd hope that the incentives to introduce anti-pollution legislation aren't based on the logic of "blows away => someone else's problem => don't bother" vs "stays here => our problem => guess we better do something"


----------



## deema (22 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> Whaaaaa?
> 
> How have you managed to (apparently) read that Wiki page, yet ignore the long list of sanctions you'd claimed hadn't happened, and then somehow get onto blaming the EU?



Yes a few bits of wrist slapping. But, the cars still didn’t comply, if you read it they allowed them twice the emissions of the standard and years to even meet the reduced requirement. So no, the vehicles were not recalled and fixed to meet the requirements of the standard they were produced to and to which every other vehicle manufacturer had to abide by. It would in all likelihood have killed the company if they had.

this is however diverting from the original question


----------



## Nigel Burden (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Interesting perspectives given. I’m rather cynical myself of standards having sat on a few of the committees who set them in different industries, from automotive, electrical parameter instrumentation to medical. The committees supposedly have representatives from all stakeholders (interested parties) but are in reality dominated IMO by the largest manufacturers in that sector. The aim has always been IMO of the company’s to develop a standard that has been so difficult, draconian and expensive to implement that it reduces / eliminates competition. Nothing what’s so ever to do with protecting the public, that was always what the measures were dressed up to be. Lipstick and pig come to mind.
> 
> Now once these usually over the top standards get made into law, the real problems begin. There is nobody policing them. So, you have a situation where anybody can claim to be making products to a standard and nobody knows if they are or arn’t. A good example is the recent wonderful emission scandal of VW. A very highly respected German manufacturer of vehicles who you would have assumed was beyond reproach of flaunting, circumnavigating and fraud about compliance. Well, it would appear not.
> 
> ...


 
Zero tolerance to speeding is stupid. 

Firstly speedometers are not accurate and allowances are made for this by the majority of Police forces in the UK in that they allow a 10 percent plus 2 mph before a fixed penalty is issued. As most drivers are unable to accurately asses their speed this makes sense for what is a minor offence.

IIRC. zero tolerance was introduced by the then Chief Constable Richard Brunston. who himself was caught speeding on the A55 

Nigel.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

deema said:


> Yes a few bits of wrist slapping. But, the cars still didn’t comply, if you read it they allowed them twice the emissions of the standard and years to even meet the reduced requirement. So no, the vehicles were not recalled and fixed to meet the requirements of the standard they were produced to and to which every other vehicle manufacturer had to abide by. It would in all likelihood have killed the company if they had.


The wikipedia article literally details the recalls; there's an entire section dedicated to it. The "few bits of wrist slapping" included settlements such as a payment of 830 million Euros.

The vehicles were specifically recalled to meet the requirements to which every other vehicle manufacturer had to abide to. Now whether those cars actually meet the stated legal standard _under normal driving conditions_ is another thing altogether (as pretty much no cars actually do).

I suspect the "realistic" EU driving emissions test is a related concession (whether that's a sensible solution or an awful defeat to the car companies is a different discussion).


----------



## Misterdog (22 Dec 2020)

I remember when we went from a 3/4" 8 gauge screw to a 19x4 mm I loved it because the Euro screws were such better quality. The lads I employed were flummoxed for years though.
If I had ten shillings for each time I explained how simple the new metric system was, I would be retired now.


----------



## DBT85 (22 Dec 2020)

Spectric said:


> People question Boeing only having a single airspeed sensor but that is not the real issue. The problem now is that many pilots cannot actually fly an aeroplane, they have been trained on modern fly by wire systems and have become reliant on computer assistance. Something goes wrong and they are in big trouble, many lack the basics that would have been learnt had they had to fly by the seat of their pants in an old plane where they feel what it is doing. There was a program not long ago where a plane crashed because the pilot lost electronic instrumentation, he thought it was descending so he just pulled back until the plane stalled at which point it fell out of the sky. We now have the same issue with driving, you are taught to pass the test and not how to drive.


Pilots have to spend hundreds of hours to fly for airlines in the specific plane they need to fly. Its nothing like passing a driving test where once complete (possible to pass with literally no prior real experience) you can drive everything from a fiat 500 to a ferrari f50.


----------



## D_W (22 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> I would reword that to say that the biggest offender _to get caught_ is a European company (who also happens to be [just about] the biggest auto maker in the world). However, plenty of the others are also "up to stuff": Diesel emissions scandal - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> I'd hope that the incentives to introduce anti-pollution legislation aren't based on the logic of "blows away => someone else's problem => don't bother" vs "stays here => our problem => guess we better do something"



Well, you'd have to explain why a country and continent obsessed with environmental standards vs. the US standards is so much more lax about automobile emissions. The driver here was likely the ohio valley and LA areas where inversions left smog just sitting in place. 

When I bought my first VW, I was amazed that the Euro version was 210 horsepower and the american version was 174 horsepower. The difference between the two was meeting emissions standards (that was 20 years ago now - I learned my lesson to not buy german cars from VW).


----------



## Misterdog (22 Dec 2020)

Nigel Burden said:


> Police forces in the UK in that they allow a 10 percent plus 2 mph before a fixed penalty is issued



Sometimes, but then sometimes not.

The judge will view it dimly when you try to tell him that you read on the internet that 35 MPH is acceptable in a 30 limit.
Or 79 MPH on the motorway.

You might find the judge has more powers at his discretion than you thought..


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> Well, you'd have to explain why a country and continent obsessed with environmental standards vs. the US standards is so much more lax about automobile emissions. The driver here was likely the ohio valley and LA areas where inversions left smog just sitting in place.
> 
> When I bought my first VW, I was amazed that the Euro version was 210 horsepower and the american version was 174 horsepower. The difference between the two was meeting emissions standards (that was 20 years ago now - I learned my lesson to not buy german cars from VW).


Good question. I must admit I always thought it was odd that the home of the gas guzzling V8 had emissions rules that often meant reduced HP on US versions of cars. I don't know exactly how US emissions rules compare to those across the rest of the world though.

BTW I wouldn't advise being put off German cars as a result of buying a VW; there are other options


----------



## Nigel Burden (22 Dec 2020)

Misterdog said:


> Sometimes, but then sometimes not.
> 
> The judge will view it dimly when you try to tell him that you read on the internet that 35 MPH is acceptable in a 30 limit.
> Or 79 MPH on the motorway.
> ...



You would not be in court if you accepted the fixed penalty.

10 percent plus two is the guideline put in place for Police forces regarding prosecuting speeding offences by the ACPO. Association of Chief Police Officers, below which a prosecution is not recommended.

Nigel.


----------



## Jake (22 Dec 2020)

DBT85 said:


> There are multiple cases going through courts across the globe for people sold these vehicles getting compensation. No idea on the fraud part. But the execs that make these decisions are they type of people that don't go to jail all too often.



Winterkorn (ex CEO) has been charged with fraud in Germany (along with other senior execs) and has been indicted in the US as well.


----------



## DBT85 (22 Dec 2020)

Nigel Burden said:


> Firstly speedometers are not accurate and allowances are made for this by the majority of Police forces in the UK in that they allow a 10 percent plus 2 mph before a fixed penalty is issued. As most drivers are unable to accurately asses their speed this makes sense for what is a minor offence.



Paging @XH558 as I'm fairly sure that this is a myth.

Zero tolerance however _is_ stupid, but speedos (I think) have to over estimate your speed from the factory, not under.


----------



## Nigel Burden (22 Dec 2020)

DBT85 said:


> Paging @XH558 as I'm fairly sure that this is a myth.
> 
> Zero tolerance however _is_ stupid, but speedos (I think) have to over estimate your speed from the factory, not under.



You are correct that it is illegal for a speedometer to under read. IIAC, a speedometer is allowed to over read by up to 10 percent, hence the guidance from the ACPO. 

Most Police forces do not operate a zero tolerance policy, although some have no doubt caved in to pressure from anti speed pressure groups. Most forces are signed up to the National Speed Awareness Scheme. Dorset however, is not signed up to the scheme, preferring operating it's own Driver Awareness Scheme.

Nigel.


----------



## D_W (22 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> BTW I wouldn't advise being put off German cars as a result of buying a VW; there are other options



Things are probably different in europe where core models are made in europe, though I have my doubts about too many audi products coming remotely close to toyota's core products when it comes to longevity. 

Here in the US, a lot of german cars are made in mexico or the south, and on top of that, there are plenty of low volume US only models. 

I'm not aware of a good reliable german car since the early 1980s mercedes. It's almost a joke, too -especially on teh service and repair side. 

Coil over plug for my wife's VW (you read that right - literally about the same time I was dumping my VW for a honda, I met my wife. She had just purchased a VW with an audi-made turbo four cylinder. Great power potential, but as a practical car, an absolute cowpie. poor efficiency, poor engineering for every part in the car, constant replacement of routine things (as a relative here who is a VW certified tech would later tell me "well, they often don't use plastics that tolerate oil contact in parts of the car where oil contact is common). At any rate, over 10 years, I put about 8 coil over plug units in that car. Not remotely close to a significant issue with it, though (only about $300 of parts to do that and easy to diagnose) - just under $40 each. If you were unfortunate enough to have the audi with the same engine, the connector was different ($90) and the same part with a third style of connector was available for a benz ($132). That's the online price, slight discount over parts counter. I often wondered what the markup on the coil was for a benz, plus diagnostic, etc. 

it takes about 15 minutes to check the code twice, swap out the coil and then put all of the covers back on. dealers here charge a $50-$75 diagnostic fee for anything, usually mark up parts 200-300% on the service bill and then charge a half hour of labor. That would put a benz coil over plug fix at around $475. All for a core part (sans the connector issue) that would wholesale around $20 and by someone with a cordless ratchet and a code reader, could be changed in less than 10 minutes). 

These kinds of things are why I love the older incremental improvement philosophy that 'yota used to use. Even the older platforms from some of the domestics were like that (not uncommon to drive a ford panther platform for over 300k miles without anything but routine service, but also plenty of domestic stuff now that struggles to have very many get to 150k miles even with near five figures of repair bills in the wake. 

Between the wife's VW and mine, 110k miles of total driving yielded about $11,000 in repairs, with about 1/3rd of that warranty covered. 

My toyota vehicle is 13 years old in two months. Unscheduled maintenance so far is $79. 

The audi and benz vehicles the same size class as my old VWs were off the road before the VWs even were. 

Cousin-in-law who is a VW tech likes to buy the old diesels (pre scandal) for scrap price ($200), go through them end to end, drive them a while and then sell them for $3k. He does that with about one a year. "They are fun cars for a mechanic, but not good to own if you can't do all of the work on them".


----------



## Spectric (22 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> I'm not aware of a good reliable german car since the early 1980s mercedes. It's almost a joke, too -especially on teh service and repair side.


Unfortunately the German auto industry would have priced itself out of the market had it not started making Mercedes and the like on the same scale as the rest. They seem to have gone too far down the pan and need to up their game somewhat. I can remember when you knew it was a mercedes, the doors felt heavy and solid yet closed with a gentle click and the engine just purred.


----------



## sploo (22 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> Things are probably different in europe where core models are made in europe, though I have my doubts about too many audi products coming remotely close to toyota's core products when it comes to longevity.


Remember that Audi _is_ VW 

I don’t know the situation in the US, but it's quite normal to find VW, Audi and Skoda cars all with VW stamped parts (given they're all part of VAG). 

It's a good point about the location of manufacture though; as I believe that BMW and Mercedes make their European-bound cars in Germany.


----------



## Jameshow (22 Dec 2020)

We hired a vw 4x4 7 seater toureg sized but not. 

Quality was not up to European standards more like Skoda level.... 

Engine was a nice 3.6 V6 but no V8! 

Cheers James


----------



## DBT85 (22 Dec 2020)

Jameshow said:


> We hired a vw 4x4 7 seater toureg sized but not.
> 
> Quality was not up to European standards more like Skoda level....
> 
> ...


Skodas like audis and seats are mostly vw parts, just with a less galling price tag.

Can't complain at all about my 280 Superb.


----------



## Jameshow (22 Dec 2020)

Tbh haven't been in the latest Skoda but the 2004 - 2010??? Octavia felt a step down from the past / A4. 

Cheers James


----------



## SamTheJarvis (23 Dec 2020)

Dr Al said:


> The main problem that I see with Britain not keeping in line with EU standards is that manufacturers will have yet more standards to follow.



If they're effective standards, what reason do we have not to adopt them independently? Same goes for any EU law, I don't see why we need to all sign the same bit of paper.

It seems the case to me that the health of the body of standards relies on non compliance and adversity to keep it in check.


----------



## SamTheJarvis (23 Dec 2020)

DBT85 said:


> Self regulation doesn't work because Money. This has been proven over and over and over again.



It's definitely related to the economic health of a system. The less economic activity there is, the greater the incentive to swindle.

Saying it doesn't work because Money is reductive. Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal and yet quality of work and diligence were never higher, this was due to there being a strong sense of social cohesion and there was more to gain by doing a good job than a bad job.

Money itself is not the problem, the health of the system we live in absolutely is and always will be. The economic state is just the most tangible indicator of the health of a system, but there's far more behind the scenes.


----------



## CornishWoodworker (23 Dec 2020)

Standards are there for a reason and the reason many items fail prematurely is that of failure to meet standards and the combining of many parts from different sources each having their own standard although stating their compliance against their customers requirement.
When you start combining items with tolerance limits , you can quite easily find yourself outwith final tolerance somewhere on the final product.
Why does a particular woodlathe or bandsaw fail ?
Well its built to a price and anticipated usage and component parts chosen accordingly.
This is standards , in action.


----------



## DBT85 (23 Dec 2020)

SamTheJarvis said:


> It's definitely related to the economic health of a system. The less economic activity there is, the greater the incentive to swindle.
> 
> Saying it doesn't work because Money is reductive. Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal and yet quality of work and diligence were never higher, this was due to there being a strong sense of social cohesion and there was more to gain by doing a good job than a bad job.
> 
> Money itself is not the problem, the health of the system we live in absolutely is and always will be. The economic state is just the most tangible indicator of the health of a system, but there's far more behind the scenes.



But we no longer live in 1950s britain (much to chagrin of some). Companies in the last 70 years have proven in all markets that if they are free to regulate themselves, be it financial institutions, house building, car manufacture etc, they will cut corners and even cheat the regulations that _do_ exist in order to save money or make more money. Is it ALL companies and people? Of course not. But like the laws of the land you have to regulate and legislate for the lowest common denominator. 

Small town Joe that makes kitchen cabinets for the 5 mile radius around him probably doesn't need that kind of regulation. His business stands on the feet of the work done and word of mouth. That stops as you get larger and larger until there are too many flawed people in positions of power, looking to save a penny here and tuppence there, becase in the end it all adds up and they've got owners or shareholders to pay or their own bonuses to look forward to.


----------



## Jonm (23 Dec 2020)

Sandyn said:


> The list of Standards in the link are more Business Governance Standards, which are a bit different to Standards for Metrics. We couldn't do anything without standardisation of metrics, but Business Standards are not always necessary. Many companies perform perfectly well without adhering to any BSI standards. All these standards are a bit of a money making business, I would question why Standards are so expensive, probably on average £100 each, They should be available for a nominal fee. Then you have all the accreditation fees, the annual fees, the additional staff to maintain the standards. If you have really good staff who know what they are doing, you don't need business governance standards. Companies now often request that any suppliers have accreditation to various standards. and won't deal with companies who don't. it perpetuates the business. You can get a BSI accreditation for producing rubbish products, as long as you document how you make your rubbish product and follow the process during the audit. These standards don't measure the quality of what is being made, only the process put in place.
> 
> In many cases, Business standards are required these days, because industry is full of inexperienced people who haven't a clue what they are doing, so they need a guide to follow. Everything in business is being re-invented today and given a new sparkly name, but it's what good successful companies have been doing for years without having a Quality Management Systems.
> Despite my slightly cynical view, overall, I think they are a good thing and I shouldn't complain, It was my source of income for many years.


Very true. I worked for a design company with a very high worldwide reputation for quality. They were resistant to the introduction of “Quality Assurance” on the basis that ”our reputation is our guarantee of quality”. They had to introduce it as clients started to require it.

The important thing was to ensure that the processes and procedures reflected what you should be doing and did not introduce unnecessary processes. Yes it did introduce a layer of bureaucracy and did not guarantee quality. There was an element of tick boxes but it did ensure that things like peer review did happen when required and not get forgotten. Overall I found it not to be onerous in use but setting it up needed to be done carefully and that initial work did require a lot of effort.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Dec 2020)

1) Life is complicated.
2) There's nothing produced that someone won't make cheaper and worse.
3) Sometimes, innovation works and it can be made cheaper and better.
4) You have a choice. You can buy a product or service guaranteed to meet a given standard, or one that isn't.
5) Researching the standards relevant to every product or service takes time most of us don't have.
6) Sans intensive research, we go by reputation or word of mouth/forum/whatever.
7) How necessary a standard may be is related to the consequences of failure of product or service.


----------



## Jake (23 Dec 2020)

SamTheJarvis said:


> If they're effective standards, what reason do we have not to adopt them independently? Same goes for any EU law, I don't see why we need to all sign the same bit of paper.



That is exactly what will happen. There are two global regulatory systems, the EU and the USA. The US is quite concerned that the EU is winning the race to become the de facto global standard. That is because in many (not all) respects it is tighter, so using EU standards as the starting point and bolting on any extras for US compatibility is simpler. It's cheaper to do that than to try to produce different things to different standards. There are no other systems with any real influence at all (they are literally BS, except if you think very locally for local people). China might develop a third, but for the moment it is either DGAF or a follower of EU/US regs (in a mixture of substance and nominally). 

So we will end up following one way or another - having lost a voice in what the regs we need to follow should be.


----------



## George_N (23 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> Ditching EU standards as we speak, finalised any day now. Less red tape should help speed up our trade with the whole world and possibly the universe! We'll soon see the results.


Sadly not less red tape. Border/ customs checks on every consignment going between U.K. and EU. A ream of paper for every single truck. Hundreds of new customs agents needed to try and keep all that straight. The EU has an Aviation Agency, Medicines Agency, Chemicals Agency etc that took care of regulating their respective sectors for 28 countries (27 now we’ve left) and we need to replicate each and every one for ourselves. That’s thousands more civil servants on the public payroll ie not actually earning money for the economy.
Where there “might” be less red tape is in areas where we deregulate, like workers rights and environmental standards (because who needs those, right?)


----------



## sploo (23 Dec 2020)

Jake said:


> So we will end up following one way or another - having lost a voice in what the regs we need to follow should be.


Nail. Hit. Head. On the.

It's staggering that so many failed to understand that. Given that it would be completely counter-productive to not follow widely adopted regulations (i.e. those from the EU); having 1/28th of a voice may not have been ideal, but now having 0/27th of a voice is even worse.


----------



## Jameshow (23 Dec 2020)

Stronger standards would be a good thing..... 

Not only just safety aspects but also quality standards. 

CE mark really isn't a standard of quality generally. 

I could be wrong but the old B.S. standards were as much a sign of quality as much as safety? 

In the wake of Brexit, B.S. could be revived as a standard of true engineering standards. 

Cheers James


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> Nail. Hit. Head. On the.
> 
> It's staggering that so many failed to understand that. Given that it would be completely counter-productive to not follow widely adopted regulations (i.e. those from the EU); having 1/28th of a voice may not have been ideal, but now having 0/27th of a voice is even worse.



No change on that one - the UK is still a member of CEN, as you'll see under 'membership' in this link;

European Committee for Standardization - Wikipedia 

By the way, the British Standards Institution is not a part of government, it's an independent organisation. Originally set up in 1901 as an industry committee, it was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1929. It is not publicly funded, hence the need to cover it's costs by charging for it's standards and services.

BSI Group - Wikipedia


----------



## DBT85 (23 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> Nail. Hit. Head. On the.
> 
> It's staggering that so many failed to understand that. Given that it would be completely counter-productive to not follow widely adopted regulations (i.e. those from the EU); having 1/28th of a voice may not have been ideal, but now having 0/27th of a voice is even worse.


It's OK the NHS is getting a lot more money now.


----------



## sploo (23 Dec 2020)

Cheshirechappie said:


> No change on that one - the UK is still a member of CEN, as you'll see under 'membership' in this link;
> 
> European Committee for Standardization - Wikipedia


I'm very happy to be wrong on that one then! Whether lack of MEPs will result in reduced representation in that area I don't know; but let's hope not.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (23 Dec 2020)

SamTheJarvis said:


> .... Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal and yet quality of work and diligence were never higher, this was due to...


My rose-tinted hindsight detector has gone bananas. There was a great deal of economic growth in the 50s post war and driven by technological and other factors, but there was shoddy work then just as there is now.


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2020)

George_N said:


> .......
> Where there “might” be less red tape is in areas where we deregulate, like workers rights and environmental standards (because who needs those, right?)


And free movement is bit of a luxury for your humble working man - better to wait for orders.


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2020)

SamTheJarvis said:


> .... Consider 1950s Britain (or most wealthy countries of the world at that time), regulations were minimal ....


Standards of one sort or another are ancient and they were going strong in the 50s too.
The Romans had standards (no pun intended!) Building regs were around in the dark ages. They got a major boost following the fire of London (1666) - party walls, more use of brick and other measures imposed. Relax regulations and you get Grenfell Tower.
The military depended upon them - they'd specify all sorts of things in minute detail, such as sails - weight/quality of cloth and the thread, the number of stitches per inch. Not only government - Guilds and other trade orgs set up standards.
They are just an inescapable and essential feature of living in a cooperative society. Removing standards doesn't liberate anybody it just creates chaos. What they amount to is a minimum specification.
Food regs are big and essential. Who wants a sub standard sausage roll, or a polluted water supply?
I wonder how the truckers are doing in Dover at the moment!


----------



## sploo (23 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> And free movement is bit of a luxury for your humble working man - better to wait for orders.


Ah but this is why we stay humble; we weren't smart enough to move to Monaco like that Ratcliffe fella


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> I'm very happy to be wrong on that one then! Whether lack of MEPs will result in reduced representation in that area I don't know; but let's hope not.


You'll be happy to know that the number of MEPs a country has (or not) does not affect their input to standards. The standards bodies (CEN, BSI and so on) deal with standards, but not regulations, directives or laws. The European Commission and various Parliaments deal with laws, directives and regulations, but not standards.


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2020)

Cheshirechappie said:


> You'll be happy to know that the number of MEPs a country has (or not) does not affect their input to standards. The standards bodies (CEN, BSI and so on) deal with standards, but not regulations, directives or laws. The European Commission and various Parliaments deal with laws, directives and regulations, but not standards.


Regulations are largely about standards. In fact surely they amount to the same thing? Agreements/directives about how things should be done.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> Regulations are largely about standards. In fact surely they amount to the same thing? Agreements/directives about how things should be done.


No.


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2020)

Cheshirechappie said:


> No.


Er, hmm, oh yes they are!
They merge into one another: agreement on a standard, regulations to impose the standard, directives to the agreement on the standard, ad infinitum!
How do you see them differently CC?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> Er, hmm, oh yes they are!
> They merge into one another: agreement on a standard, regulations to impose the standard, directives to the agreement on the standard, ad infinitum!
> How do you see them differently CC?


VERY roughly speaking, standards are voluntary, laws etc are mandatory.

You can choose whether or not to buy an engineer's square conforming to BS939. If you're equipping a new manufacturing facility for Rolls Royce, you probably would. If you just want to know whether you've ground the edges of your chisel about square in your home workshop, an Amazon cheapy not conforming to any standard would do. There's no law telling which you must use in any given circumstance.

Sometimes it's clearer - you can supply electrical equipment with non-standard plugs if you wish, but nobody would buy it because the plugs wouldn't fit in standard sockets. If they did buy it, they'd very quickly be asking for their money back. In that case, standards help everybody to produce kit that works with components supplied by others.

Regulations are mandatory - you must comply, or face legal sanction. Steam boilers, for example - the regulations state that you must hold valid insurance to steam a boiler. It's the responsibility of the insurance company (not government or legal agencies) to ensure that your boiler meets the standards they specify; if you steam your boiler without satisfying their requirements, your insurance is invalid, and you can be prosecuted for using an uninsured boiler. The law does not specify which standards you must meet, just that you must hold valid insurance.

That's your lot on this subject, Jacob. I have other things to do this evening and for the next few days, so if you want an argument or a long tarradiddle about it, as you so often do, kindly find someone else to have it with. Thank you.


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2020)

As I say. law/standard/agreement/regulation all overlap


Cheshirechappie said:


> ............
> 
> Regulations are mandatory - you must comply, or face legal sanction. Steam boilers, for example - the regulations state that you must hold valid insurance to steam a boiler. It's the responsibility of the insurance company (not government or legal agencies) to ensure that your boiler meets the standards they specify; if you steam your boiler without satisfying their requirements, your insurance is invalid, and you can be prosecuted for using an uninsured boiler. The law does not specify which standards you must meet, just that you must hold valid insurance.
> .......


There you go! The regulation imposes an obligation to meet a standard.
Not sure why you want to make a distinction, they overlap, are commutable, regulations/agreements/laws may or may not be about standards. Some standards may be voluntary, others obligatory.


----------



## raffo (23 Dec 2020)

In my industry we follow the FDA laws and regulations. I don't know how you guys go about it in the UK, but when the guv'ment inspector shows up, he or she couldn't care less what exact standard we follow as long as it complies with the law.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> As I say. law/standard/agreement/regulation all overlap
> There you go! The regulation imposes an obligation to meet a standard.
> Not sure why you want to make a distinction, they overlap, are commutable, regulations/agreements/laws may or may not be about standards. Some standards may be voluntary, others obligatory.


Wrong. Read what was written carefully, Jacob. The regulation imposes an obligation to hold valid insurance - that's all.


----------



## no idea (23 Dec 2020)

I like the fact that my tablesaw blade has a standard blade arbor of 30mm and can buy blades from many suppliers with a 30mm standard bore. I like the fact my 1/2" routers can take standard 1/2" router bits from many suppliers. I don't like the fact that 1/2" plywood is neither 12.7mm or 12mm or consistently the same thickness from different suppliers despite being a nominal 12mm (same goes for 3/4" or 18mm ply). That's one element of what standards is about, which is getting heavily confused with legislation and regulations. Yes, standards can be mandated by law through directives, acts etc. and yes there are unhelpful standards but generally standards are a good thing from my point of view and certainly needed.


----------



## Jacob (23 Dec 2020)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Wrong. Read what was written carefully, Jacob. The regulation imposes an obligation to hold valid insurance - that's all.


That particular insurance may, but the insurer would expect the insured to meet a standard (if there is one). It's commonly called passing the buck.
Some hair splitting going on here. What point are you trying to make?


----------



## Jake (23 Dec 2020)

It's really complicated. I think we are hoping not to be thrown out of CEN, because as it stands we do not meet the membership criteria. I guess it will depend somewhat how much of a pariah we make ourselves. 

As for standards and the overall regulatory regime, the standards part is only a piece of the whole regulatory regime (for instance GDPR or MIFID are both going to be far more important economically than any european standard from CEN). Within the standards sphere it is not as simple as saying that they are voluntary whereas regulations are mandatory because many standards are embodied in EU regulations (non technical sense) and are mandatory if you want to market in the EU (which goes back to the point about there being two and only two global regulatory behemoths, one of which is losing to the other).


----------



## SamTheJarvis (24 Dec 2020)

DBT85 said:


> But we no longer live in 1950s britain (much to chagrin of some).



Yes, of course. This example was used to refute the point specifically that the mere concept of money itself is the driver of fly-by-nightery.

Nothing to do with rose-tinted glasses, the above example was used as it should be tangible to most readers of this forum.

Pick any part of the world during an economic upturn and you see standards of work improve and the opposite with a downturn.


----------



## Davey44 (24 Dec 2020)

Jacob said:


> Ditching EU standards as we speak, finalised any day now. Less red tape should help speed up our trade with the whole world and possibly the universe! We'll soon see the results.


Ha, we'll remember that you said this, not that I'm cynical of course!


----------



## Richard_C (24 Dec 2020)

There is no law that says the 5th wheel, brake and electrical connections on the tractor units of lorries have to be standardized. The industry has adopted a standard throughout the EU

That's handy. For instance of your driver can't cross the channel, a UK tractor unit can put the trailer on a ferry, a French one can drag it off and a Polish one can take it to Krakow ..... 

Although I can't see when that would be any use. Oh, hang about ......

(To think that ditching EU standards will reduce 'red tape' is naive in the extreme. British standards for British customers maybe fine if your horizons are limited to a tiny corner of the world.)


----------



## sploo (24 Dec 2020)

Davey44, Richard_C; I rather suspect Jacob was being facetious with the "less red tape" comment; possibly in order to wind up a few individuals.


----------



## Jacob (24 Dec 2020)

sploo said:


> Davey44, Richard_C; I rather suspect Jacob was being facetious with the "less red tape" comment; possibly in order to wind up a few individuals.


Moi? As if!
Brexit will mean massive amounts of paper work, red tape, delays and general breakdown in smooth running with what was our largest trading partner. They'll get the blame of course.


----------



## Ollie78 (24 Dec 2020)

Woody2Shoes said:


> I think this whole anthithesis to EU rules is because powerful vested interests want us to eat their produce which meets lower standards in terms of food safety, animal welfare and environmental responsibility. It's not so much straight/bendy bananas as chlorinated chicken, pesticide residues etc.



This is likely true, there are many "foods" in America which contained substances banned by almost every other country in the world. Many of which are known to cause cancers and all sorts of problems in childrens development etc.
It is interesting when you look at the American sweets in tesco. All the labels have to be re - done to UK/Euro standard and they have paper labels over the originals. Many of the chocolate products are not legally chocolate and must be called "chocolate flavoured".

I also suspect that the NHS looks like an enormous cash in opportunity to the American healthcare providers and insurance groups/ drug companies.
All attempts to Americanise healthcare must be immediately stopped.

Standards are important for safety, quality control, continuity, ease of use and numerous other reasons.

Ollie


----------



## billw (24 Dec 2020)

Ollie78 said:


> It is interesting when you look at the American sweets in tesco. All the labels have to be re - done to UK/Euro standard and they have paper labels over the originals. Many of the chocolate products are not legally chocolate and must be called "chocolate flavoured".



American cheese is also not actually "cheese".


----------



## NetBlindPaul (25 Dec 2020)

The UK is not leaving ISO nor the IEC.
These are the parent standards bodies globally.
Many new BS standards are being issued as BS EN ISO, or BS EN IEC.
The last I heard from BEIS is that a deal had already been struck that BSI would remain part of CEN & CENELEC.
EN standards are primarily those which are harmonised to meet the EHSR‘s of the relevant new approach directives which UK manufacturers will still need to meet to ship into the EEA, and in the short term to meet UK legislation.
I very much doubt that there will be much divergence in BS from EN & there will be no divergence from ISO & IEC documents.
There is also a global effort to converge standards to globally utilise ISO & IEC documents, so it is likely that even if we drop the EN our standards will be for example BS ISO, and the European version will be EN ISO, and they will likely be identical.


----------



## pe2dave (25 Dec 2020)

Note how this thread drifted from (mutually agreed) standards to regulation. Selected standards vs legal obligations?


----------



## billw (25 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> Note how this thread drifted from (mutually agreed) standards to regulation. Selected standards vs legal obligations?



Legal obligations should be in place for standards where there's a threshold below which danger to consumers could occur. So there shouldn't be legal obligations for the accuracy of a slide rule for example.


----------



## NetBlindPaul (25 Dec 2020)

billw said:


> Legal obligations should be in place for standards where there's a threshold below which danger to consumers could occur. So there shouldn't be legal obligations for the accuracy of a slide rule for example.


I disagree, the slide rule could be used for safety critical calculations, and any inaccuracy could result in an error. That error if not controlled i.e. the accuracy of the slide rule were not controlled, could easily result in a danger to consumers due to the inaccuracies in the resultant calculation caused by inaccuracies in the slide rule because there arr no controls or standards to which the slide rule needs to be manufactured to.
Mind this is something of an academic argument because slide rules are virtually obsolete in design work these days. However that is one of the original and primary uses.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (26 Dec 2020)

There is a very strong argument for being compliant with European standards unless there is a very material reason to do otherwise.

Maintaining more than one standard simply adds cost and complexity to business and manufacturing processes.

For many (but not all) customers, often in the public sector, requiring compliance with standards is the cop out default for lazy purchasing. 

Buyers feel reassured that they have made the right purchasing decision. They don't worry about whether the standards are important or relevant. They are naive, but feel above criticism.

Cost is an important part of the buying decision. It often leads suppliers towards a tick box culture - they know they need to be compliant but are always being driven to reduce cost to be competitive.

There is of course a real need for adherence to standards in industries where safety and performance standards are critical - eg: aerospace, vehicle safety, electrical safety etc.


----------

