The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (john jardine)
Subject: Re: 95/54/EC - Automotive Directive
Date: 25 Oct 2002 10:39:48 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Oct 2002 17:39:48 GMT
email@example.com (Gibbo) wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> John Woodgate email@example.com wrote:
> >I read in sci.electronics.design that Gibbo
> >wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org>) about '95/54/EC
> >- Automotive Directive', on Thu, 24 Oct 2002:
> >>One of the docs on that site does state that the entire automotive directive
> >>an "old style" directive. Whatever that means. It seems to imply it means
> >>something else.
> >Among other exciting features, 'new style' Directives do not contain
> >detailed technical requirements but allow conformity with standards
> >designated ('notified') by the Commission to establish prima facie
> >evidence of compliance with the Directive. The EMC and Low Voltage
> >Directives are new-style.
> Thanks. So what's the normal procedure for "new style" ? Buy the directive to
> find out what needs to be done ? Then buy the technical requirements ? Hmmmmm.
> Is that right ?
> If so. Which documents contain the actual technical requirements ?
For a period of 18 months before the European EMC directives came into
force. I was deluged with high quality, glossy, expensively printed,
business "information and awareness " packs from the British
Department of trade and industry. I kept all these in a file that
ended up 10" deep. *Absolutely nowhere* in them was there any remote
reference, or mention, or ball park comparison, of what the standards
actually meant to someone who needed to know. I.e a uV or a Watt ect.
A subsequent *lot* of farting about with the British Standards
Institute, turned up a few, very badly photocopied pages with the word
"Draft" stamped over them, obliterating much of the text. These cost
200UKP, and provided very little useful technical information. The
implication was for us to spend lots more money purchasing other
technical documents referred to in the originals. Essentially the
needed tech info had been 'spread spectrum' over a host of supporting
documents. The only conclusion I could draw was that this was a money
making venture on behalf of BSI. (later admitted, 'off the record', by
one of their people).
Also ... *nowhere* in the DTI's awareness bumph was any overt mention
made that companies could 'self certify'. The suggestion was the use
of expensive test houses only.
This was in complete contrast to my Dutch and German contacts who had
just been issued with a couple of pamphlets that told them what they
needed to do and how to go about it, in a clear and useable manner.
It left a bad taste in my mouth re our BSI and DTI and made me wonder
how their significant fundings could be spent in better ways.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup