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: email@example.com (Gibbo)
Date: 25 Oct 2002 19:32:04 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: 95/54/EC - Automotive Directive
firstname.lastname@example.org (john jardine) wrote:
>email@example.com (Gibbo) wrote in message
>> John Woodgate firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> >I read in sci.electronics.design that Gibbo
>> >wrote (in <email@example.com>) about '95/54/EC
>> >- Automotive Directive', on Thu, 24 Oct 2002:
>> >>One of the docs on that site does state that the entire automotive
>> >>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
>> find out what needs to be done ? Then buy the technical requirements ?
>> 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
What a brilliant use of words ! :)
> 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'. >>
Yes I noticed this.
>>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.
You seem to have had a very similar experience to me. We bought two directives
on the advice of a bloke at BSI. They cost about 70 GBP each. As you found,
nowhere in them was there any technical information. They were each basically
150 badly copied pages containging phrases such as "whereas it has been agreed
between the member states...... bla bla bla". Load of legal crap. Don't they
realise we're really not interested ? Or is it, as you seem to suggest,
something more sinister ?
I don't think the people involved with BSI realise just how impossible this
situation is for those not "in the club". Or perhaps they do.
If they think they are just "making a crust" I think they are mistaken. What
they're actually doing is stifling british industry.
Having said all that. Thanks to John Woodgate for helping to clarify a few
things. Pity he can't get BSI to do the same.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup