Jacob
What goes around comes around.
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?
Are standards necessary / useful in the UK?
- Thread starter pe2dave
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
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
Established Member
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
What goes around comes around.
As I say. law/standard/agreement/regulation all overlap
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.
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
Established Member
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
Established Member
Wrong. Read what was written carefully, Jacob. The regulation imposes an obligation to hold valid insurance - that's all.
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
What goes around comes around.
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?
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).
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
Established Member
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
Established Member
Ha, we'll remember that you said this, not that I'm cynical of course!
Richard_C
Established Member
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.)
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
Somewhat extinguished member
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
What goes around comes around.
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
Established Member
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
The Tattooed One
American cheese is also not actually "cheese".
NetBlindPaul
Established Member
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.
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
Established Member
Note how this thread drifted from (mutually agreed) standards to regulation. Selected standards vs legal obligations?
billw
The Tattooed One
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
Established Member
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
Established Member
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.
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.
