Playing devil's advocate.
It's not immediately dangerous if someone doesn't stick their fingers in.
It is immediately dangerous because someone can touch a live part without a fault occurring, cover being removed etc.
The immediate danger is that a person could make contact with a live part.
An ES lamp in a holder without a big shroud will have an exposed live shell - waiting to zap people who would not expect it to be live.
Yes it will, but I don't see how that is relevant to the debate.
The debate is around the advice that reverse polarity at the incoming supply is a C1 but elsewhere in the installation is a C2.
The case of the exposed ES lamp cap would make it a C1 regardless of where the reverse polarity is in the installation.
So why isn't that immediately dangerous - it doesn't need a fault to be live. And it will still be live when switched off at the wall if it's a single pole switch.
It is immediately dangerous, I have not suggested it isn't.
I am not suggesting that a reversed polarity fault can't be immediately dangerous, I am saying that it is not always immediately dangerous.
In theory - but look at how many "discussions" we have here about coding !
Yes there are many discussions, that doesn't change the fact that the codes are clearly defined. The number of discussions, and the content of many of them, show something about the knowledge and understanding of some of the people carrying out EICRs and highlight the problems with some of the published guidance.
AND everything in the whole installation connected to neutral. Like ES lamp caps, and the pins in BC lampholders. Even when a reasonable user might expect things to be off because "switched off".
The pins in BC lamp holders are always there regardless of the polarity and are always a danger. The BC lampholder is only allowed because there is no reasonable way to get rid of it, if a lampholder with exposed pins like that was invented today it would never be allowed.
