Machinery Directive and CE marking

[Rod RenshawParticipant @rodrenshaw28584]

I am getting rather tired of all this willy waving

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Posted by Rod Renshaw on 06/04/2019 17:48:43:

I am getting rather tired of all this willy waving

Thats good…………..coming from a bloke called …..ROD

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

My Grandfather believed in keeping your head down and hope that ‘Officialdom’ would not notice you!

My own experience over the decades suggests that he had the right idea!

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Posted by V8Eng on 06/04/2019 19:41:15:

My Grandfather believed in keeping your head down and hope that ‘Officialdom’ would not notice you!

My own experience over the decades suggests that he had the right idea!

I haven’t got a lathe or a mill or a workshop, just a shed and I just go there to read the paper

Mike

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Andy Carruthers on 06/04/2019 09:06:48:

FWIW

My genuine Moore and Wright digital calipers have the lower marking.

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by Mike Poole on 06/04/2019 21:02:34:

Posted by V8Eng on 06/04/2019 19:41:15:

My Grandfather believed in keeping your head down and hope that ‘Officialdom’ would not notice you!

My own experience over the decades suggests that he had the right idea!

I haven’t got a lathe or a mill or a workshop, just a shed and I just go there to read the paper

Mike

Yes likewise..

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Mike Poole on 06/04/2019 21:02:34:

…

I haven’t got a lathe or a mill or a workshop, just a shed and I just go there to read the paper

Mike

Well I sure hope you are disposing of those highly flammable newspapers in an appropriate manner in the correctly coloured recycling bin and not allowing them to build up into dangerous piles of firehazard material. If they catch fire and burn your neighbour's mansion down, fry his children alive and destroy his Rolls Royce collection, not only will your insurance refuse to pay up any you will be personally sued for millions, but you will be clapped in irons and sent to the colonies to hung drawn and quartered at HM's pleasure.

There's nothing more dangerous than a newspaper.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 06/04/2019 22:18:06:

Posted by Andy Carruthers on 06/04/2019 09:06:48:

FWIW

My genuine Moore and Wright digital calipers have the lower marking.

Again For What It's Worth: the CE Marking Association and the EU both say there is no such thing as a 'China Export' trademark. Anyone who believe the lower mark means 'China Export' is misled, it appears to be an urban myth.

Investigation of the 'China Export' mark showed that examples were either mis-drawn genuine CE marks as in Neil's example, or outright forgeries. No one recognises 'China Export' as a real mark.

My opinion is that CE marks are no different from any other brand-name or trade-mark. They are all unstable, and all liable to be forged, misapplied and misunderstood. The British Standard Kite-mark was abused here and abroad long before China came on the scene.

It's never safe to buy only on the basis that something carries a mark, or not. Consider the seller: a CE marked washing machine bought from Curry's is unlikely to be a fake; but an ultra-cheep bedside lamp from Bangood could well be a wrong'un. What a surprise!

Europeans have been careful for millennia not to 'buy a pig in a poke', 'die Katze im Sack kaufen' or 'vendre le meche'. It was good advice during the Dark Ages and it's good advice today.

Dave

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Hopper on 07/04/2019 02:03:04:

Posted by Mike Poole on 06/04/2019 21:02:34:

…

Mike

…

There's nothing more dangerous than a newspaper.

Apart from a politician…

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

SOD, Again For What It's Worth: the CE Marking Association and the EU both say there is no such thing as a 'China Export' trademark. Anyone who believe the lower mark means 'China Export' is misled, it appears to be an urban myth.

Well they would say that wouldnt they. The Chinese Export tale is just an excuse to dump goods on the European market which appear to carry a genuine CE mark, but are actually untraceable back to an original manufacturer, and have no paperwork compliance assurance available. realistically, you can only prosecute a manufacturer for non compliance if you know who and where he is! When was it first noticed that the accuracy checked paperwork included with Chinese machine tools was A) all identical, and B) bore no relevance whatever to the machine it was packed with? "When sleeping dragon wakes, whole world will tremble" may refer more to aggresive commercial techniques rather than outright aggression.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

We may be splitting hairs, Phil, but the Chinese are not guilty of inventing a 'China Export' mark for the purpose of misleading Europeans. Some Chinese makers, not all, are guilty of faking CE marks and documentation. In this they are not alone: I cannot think of any country that hasn't had a proportion of dishonest trading. In terms of value, British PPI mis-selling dwarfs naughty CE marks. I don't know how you go about buying stuff, but most of the CE marked stuff in my house appears to be genuine. How many examples of fake CE marks can you find in your home? (I'd expect you to find several, all of them on cheap tat, unless you've been very unlucky. I'll be surprised if you can find a major item bought in the UK that's a dud.)

I'm certain that some Chinese tools have been delivered in the past with bad documentation, and that it still happens. But I can confirm that the 'certificates' that came with my Warco Lathe and Mill both claimed numbers I was able to confirm by measurement. (To be pedantic I found the lathe's chuck run out to be slightly better than the certificate claimed.) But this proves nothing about the documentation provided with Chinese machines in general!

Chinese manufacturing is typical of the industrial development everywhere. Germany and Birmingham were once both notorious for cheap rubbish and false claims, but it's a phase that doesn't last. It allows people to make a start, but it's not sustainable – there are better ways of making money. China's economy is 'growing up' and tat will be soon be made somewhere else.

Although Chinese industrial activity and dodgy CE marks don't worry me much, their policy in other spheres does. Spratly Islands is but one example; I won't say more, it's politics.

Dave

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

If my own copy of the original Pressure Equipment Regulations is a guide, the bumph contains a helpful drawing of the CE mark, drawn on graph-paper and dimensioned to help you copy it!

Yes, the Regulations are by and for lawyers, but bodies like the Department for Trade also publish guides for people like company managers and design engineers to help them obey the UK's Government's versions of the Directives. These guides are by and for the technical people.

Actually the Learned Counsel's version is illuminating in that the safety of the product seems secondary to imports-control and keeping so-called "Notified Bodies" (the test laboratories and certificate-writers) in clover. As I recall the PER lists several criteria then adds something like "and has in fact to be safe" almost as an afterthought.

One thing you will never know is who is on the hidden EU committees which discuss and draught individual Directives. Minutes copies I have seen credit only by nationality, not personal names, not even in an introduction. They state things like, "France suggested […], Britain agreed and added […] but Sweden pointed out […] ". It is all anonymous….

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 06/04/2019 17:10:40:

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 05:00:49:

Phil,
the statement " let me clarify, CE marking is exclusively for goods offered for sale in the EEA " is incorrect. CE compliance (not just the mark) applies (with a few specific exceptions) to items "put into use" not just sold.
An item does not need a mecanisim to require compliance.

What was the Item your brother made that could not be marked (just the class is enough)?

I do have a through undersanding of this, unlike some. I do not think CE marking is great, thee process an enforcement is flawed but the underlying technical requirements are good.

Robert G8RPI.

Edited By Robert Atkinson 2 on 06/04/2019 05:17:59

My brother manufactures aircraft covers and associated ground equipment. http://www.cambraicovers.com

The type of equipment requiring CE marking is equipment which contains electrical or mechanical components which have to comply to standards, or have possible safety or environmental. implications .

this from https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product/ce-mark/index_en.htm

1. Identify the EU requirements for your product

The EU-wide requirements are laid down in directives that cover different products or product sectors, for example:

• Toys
• Electrical equipment
• Machinery
• Medical devices
• Lifts
• Personal Protective Equipment

These directives lay down the essential requirements that products have to fulfil.

I don't know where you get the "put into use" statement from, I can find no reference to it anywhere in the current CE legislation. Are you referring to equipment being put into use after purchase? As I said before purchase is the operative, if you offer for purchase an new item which is covered by CE requirements, in the EEA, it must carry a CE mark, but the onus to assure compliance is on the manufacturer, not on external independant testing, as it used to be in the UK with BSI etc. CE most certainly does not apply to things you make yourself, and then later may offer for sale as a one off used item, be it a model, a mechanism you have built, or a piece of used workshop machinery. Do you really imagine that the vast amount of used engineering and other equipment offered for sale on ebay for instance is all CE approved?

I concur with your brother, a fabric aircraft cover does not require CE marking and it would be illegal to put on on them. In fact they need no approval of any kind.

Put into use is in MD 1.7.1, 1.7.4, 4.1.3, and The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008v (UK implementation of directive section 3.9 says " A person who is not a responsible person shall not put machinery into service unless it satisfies the applicable essential health and safety requirements and is safe" i.e is CE compliant and section 7 says "
(1) No responsible person shall place machinery on the market or put it into service unless it is safe.
(2)Before machinery is placed on the market or put into service, the responsible person must— (a)ensure that the applicable essential health and safety requirements are satisfied in respect of it; (b)ensure that the technical file is compiled and made available in accordance with the requirements of Annex VII (Part 7 of Schedule 2), part A;

The other directives have similar provisions.

Robert G8RPI.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 06/04/2019 09:23:54:

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 04/04/2019 22:20:03:

Posted by Phil Whitley on 04/04/2019 20:24:46:

The operative here is "products SOLD" if you are not selling it, it does not need a CE mark

The formal phrase is placed on the market. But Phil is essentially correct, if you'e not producing items for sale to the general population then there is no requirement to CE mark. As far as I'm aware it is illegal to CE when it is not mandated.

Andrew

As someone who was actively involved as a UK representative on EU standards committees and UK expert on various working groups in the EU before retirement I can confirm that Andrew is correct.

As far as EU Directives are concerned, they are not aimed at individuals or even manufacturers. They direct national governments to enact certain legislation. Thus you have to refer to and conform to the UK legislation.

It is illegal to CE mark anything that does not require it.

Russell

Russell you are correct in te the core directives are transcribed to countries law, but Andrew and Phil are most certainly NOT correct. If the requirements only applied to selling you could build or import items which were unsafe. See my post above for put into use/service requirements.

Robert G8RPI.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Also from the official MD application guide

The cut of bit refers to used or modified equipment and references guidance on the amount of refubishment or modification that requires compliance.

Pretty clear.

Robert G8RPI.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Robert,

All that's happening here is that people are applying interpretations to regulations about circumstances they were never drafted to deal with.

My I suggest you contact the HSE and ask them what the situation is with regard to hobbyists?

Taking my lead from PUWER I think it's clear these rules apply to the self-employed and also volunteers working in the charge of an organisation, but PUWER says nothing about hobbyists.

Neil

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

If it is "pretty clear" Robert, why are you asking the question? You most certainly CAN import goods which are not CE marked, what you cannot do is offer them for sale , as importer, you are responsible for providing CE assurance if you resell. All equipment put into use in a workplace must be safe, however, this is only incidentally under the CE legislation, first and foremost is the HSE requirement. You can build or import items that are unsafe (should you want to), who would stop you? As has been said in this thread the mechanism and manpower required for enforcement does not exist, and the only requirement under CE is that you posess paper work that "assures compliance" If it is only you using it in a private workshop, it is no ones business but your own, and the risk ends with you. much of the electrical equipment from Bangood etc does not comply with CE, ( watch John Ward and bigclivelive on you tube to see some of it being tested) but it is sold worldwide, and anyone can order from them and import effectively into the EEA without certification. Whether that is a wise thing to do is another matter, but it does not change the fact that the mechanism to prevent this happening simply does not exist. My point is that CE marking does not prove safety or compliance, or that the goods have recieved any testing independantly of the manufacturers, it merely assures that the manufacturer, and the importer are in possesion of documentation that states that the item in question meets the required CE standard. Yesterday, I fixed my mothers vacuum cleaner, it is made in China, badged Morphy Richards, and some importer somewhere in the UK probably has a dusty shelf with a load of CE compliance paperwork on it pertaining to this product.The problem is that the actual product is a piece of shoddily made plastic trash that is barely able to perform its said function seems to be irrelevant. Your fawning deference to this supposed standard is rather odd, As I said before, we used to set the standards for the world, and we have let those standards slip terribly. CE is not a system to maintain or raise standards, or to ensure safety, it is an elaborate buck passing exercise where the responsibility for the safety of a product is shifted from the EU back onto the manufacturer, or the importer, which means, in the event of an accident, unless you can interest your (now virtually non existent) trading standards dept, you will end up suing the importer or manufacturer yourself to get compensation for the damage caused by their shoddily made goods. Good luck with that. It seems that you actually WANT to live in a police state where everything and everyone is "compliant" You should watch Terry Gilliams brilliant movie "Brazil". It is a very clear illustration of the type of world the EU is trying to create with this type of legislation. The sooner we are out the better, and then we can dump CE and set real standards and start refusing the piss poor quality we get from the far east, via European legislation, at the moment.

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

 

I concur with your brother, a fabric aircraft cover does not require CE marking and it would be illegal to put on on them. In fact they need no approval of any kind.

Put into use is in MD 1.7.1, 1.7.4, 4.1.3, and The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008v (UK implementation of directive section 3.9 says " A person who is not a responsible person shall not put machinery into service unless it satisfies the applicable essential health and safety requirements and is safe" i.e is CE compliant and section 7 says "
(1) No responsible person shall place machinery on the market or put it into service unless it is safe.
(2)Before machinery is placed on the market or put into service, the responsible person must— (a)ensure that the applicable essential health and safety requirements are satisfied in respect of it; (b)ensure that the technical file is compiled and made available in accordance with the requirements of Annex VII (Part 7 of Schedule 2), part A;

The other directives have similar provisions.

Robert G8RPI.

Here is an interesting though Robert, for the purpose of this document, what is the definition of "safe". Is that "safe under all circumstances", is it "not likely to cause an accident under normal use" then of course you would have to define "normal use". Why would you build a machine that you knew to be unsafe? Is it possible to build a machine that is safe in all circumstances? I would posit that it is not possible. It is still possible to have an accident on a lathe, even if it meets all the HSE requirements, so is it safe or not? What is the definition of "Responsible person", As I said, a buck passing excercise, have you ever wondered why HSE do not inspect a factory before it is put into use? I will tell you, if they had inspected and passed it as safe, they would be responsible for that safety, as it is, they neatly pass the buck to "the responsible person", and only inspect the workplace after an accident has happened, in order to decide who was at fault, ie apportion blame, and collect revenue, non of which is paid to the victim. CE compliance does not assure safety, it merely shifts the responsibility for safety. The above is a very badly drafted document, that any reasonably competent lawyer could drive a coach and horses through unless there are clear definitions of what constitues "safe" and "responsible person".  "i.e is CE compliant and section 7 says " is this wording part of the document, or are they your words?

Edited By Phil Whitley on 07/04/2019 18:23:30

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

I really do hope people will stop suggesting that HSE or the EU be contacted, that is likely to get people like Politicians etc who do not understand us investigating home workshops and hobbyists. Nothing good is likely to come from that!

Edited By V8Eng on 07/04/2019 18:20:21

Edited By V8Eng on 07/04/2019 18:23:24

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 07/04/2019 17:44:16:

….

It is a very clear illustration of the type of world the EU is trying to create with this type of legislation. The sooner we are out the better, and then we can dump CE and set real standards and start refusing the piss poor quality we get from the far east, via European legislation, at the moment.

Oh dear, and I was agreeing with what Phil said up to this point!

Problem is that there is nothing in EU legislation to stop the UK intervening to stop non-compliant products entering the country. Rather the EU enables such action to be taken both nationally and across all member states.

The reason non-compliant products are sneaking in is because the authorities choose not to enforce existing legislation. Leaving the EU won't fix Phil's problem with piss-poor quality imports from the Far East. Leaving might even make the problem worse because it removes any obligation on EU members to control goods or people en-route to the UK.

Dave

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 07/04/2019 18:16:54

what is the definition of "safe".

What is the definition of "Responsible person"

As usual in such regulations these definitions are in the "Interpretation" part of the Statutory Instrument. I already provided the exact link on page 1 of this thread but here it is again:

**LINK**

“responsible person” means, in relation to machinery or partly completed machinery—

(a) the manufacturer of that machinery or partly completed machinery; or
(b) the manufacturer’s authorised representative;

“safe” means, in relation to machinery, that when it is properly installed and maintained, and used for the purposes for which it is intended, or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it does not—
(a) endanger the health of, or result in death or injury to, any person; or
(b) where appropriate—
(i) endanger the health of, or result in death or injury to, domestic animals; or
(ii) endanger property;

[Cabinet EnforcerParticipant @cabinetenforcer]

Posted by V8Eng on 07/04/2019 18:19:26:

I really do hope people will stop suggesting that HSE or the EU be contacted, that is likely to get people like Politicians etc who do not understand us investigating home workshops and hobbyists. Nothing good is likely to come from that!

V8Eng, what makes you think they aren't already here watching us?

Anyway, I imagine the statistics for injuries would plonk model engineering into DIY injuries:

**LINK**

There's a big long list of things to be banned before they find us😂

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 08/04/2019 07:14:04:

…

Anyway, I imagine the statistics for injuries would plonk model engineering into DIY injuries:

**LINK**

There's a big long list of things to be banned before they find us😂

Wow that's an eye-opener. 1500 people a year injured putting up wallpaper? I'll be keeping away from that stuff then.

Meanwhile out in the real world, I think all the guys in this video are well in front of model engineers in the potential hazard queue. I don't think there is much to worry about fiddling with toy steam engines by comparison. Quite breath taking through to absolutely diabolical once it gets going. There outta be a law…

Edited By Hopper on 08/04/2019 08:27:27

Edited By Hopper on 08/04/2019 08:30:30

[BazParticipant @baz89810]

Hopper, excellent video, got me wondering if I can adapt my slotting head for wood splitting!

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

 

Posted by Cabinet Enforcer on 08/04/2019 07:14:04:

Posted by V8Eng on 07/04/2019 18:19:26:

I really do hope people will stop suggesting that HSE or the EU be contacted, that is likely to get people like Politicians etc who do not understand us investigating home workshops and hobbyists. Nothing good is likely to come from that!

V8Eng, what makes you think they aren't already here watching us?

Anyway, I imagine the statistics for injuries would plonk model engineering into DIY injuries:

**LINK**

There's a big long list of things to be banned before they find us😂

 

 

Of course we are being watched, the difference is between being watched and deliberately drawing the watchers attention to yourself.

We are watched on CCTV in many areas of life and not much notice is taken of us but if you start doing something that attracts the watchers attention then they will take an interest in you instead of not taking much notice.

Edited By V8Eng on 08/04/2019 13:12:14

Edited By V8Eng on 08/04/2019 13:12:49

[Author]

Posts