Running Cables in Safe Zones

[securespark]

Not even galv conduit?

 

[JohnW2]

I've never come across any cable protection that would prevent my drill going straight through it, so while theory seems reasonable in practice common sense and caution should prevail.

Common sense and caution obviously must prevail (not the least because their can be no guarantee that any 'rules' have been adhered to) - but is that not the point of these 'zones'?

In other words, although one has to be cautious about taking a drill to any part of any wall, the 'zones' in question ("Unsafe Zones", from the P-o-V of the person with the drill!) are places where one definitely should avoid drilling?

[Steel conduit will generally afford adequate protection, but that's a different matter.]

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Re: your previous quote: Didn't I say most of that?

One point perhaps worthy of comment/question is that most people seem to regard the 150mm zone created by the angle between two adjoining walls as applying only to 'internal corners', whereas it would seem that the wording of the regulations, from 15th through to 18th eds., could probably be interpreted as also applying to 'external corners'. What do people think about that?

I read the regs as either internal or external. But loads of people have told me otherwise. My assessor at work once even told me I was wrong! I got out my regs, but he wouldn't have it!

 

[JohnW2]

Re: your previous quote: Didn't I say most of that?

You did - but, as I said, although you wrote it as 'clarification', I personally found it potentially confusing (i.e. making the situation sound more complicated than it is) - given that the simple truth is that nothing has actually changed throughout the four eds of regs (15th, 16th, 17th & 18th) since the concept of ('Safe' or Unsafe' ) Zones was introduced.

I read the regs as either internal or external. But loads of people have told me otherwise. My assessor at work once even told me I was wrong! I got out my regs, but he wouldn't have it!

Quite so. The wording of the regs has always been such as to not exclude external corners, yet I have come across few people (and no published 'diagrams') who seem to believe that there are ('Safe' or 'Unsafe'!) Zones at external corners!

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

and the 150mm within the angle formed by two adjacent walls

Not very precise. It is 150mm from the angle in each direction.

The wording of the regs has always been such as to not exclude external corners, yet I have come across few people (and no published 'diagrams') who seem to believe that there are ('Safe' or 'Unsafe'!) Zones at external corners!

I find this statement very ambiguous/confused.

 

[333rocky333]

Not even galv conduit?

I once had to fit a call point on a pillar back in the 80's i only had a mains sds drill and conveniently there was a socket below, after the first hole the drill conked out, after taking the drill to bits i then realised the socket was dead, I had drilled through the conduit in the wall and hit the single core cable.
I think the regs not intended to stop you drilling through it and more to increase the chance of tripping the circuit off.

 

[securespark]

Fair point. I have hit conduit a couple of times. Both times the bit skidded sideways.

 

[JohnW2]

Not very precise. It is 150mm from the angle in each direction.

Indeed - so do I take it that you are commenting on the precision of the regulations, rather than 'shooting the messenger'? - as you will realise, I was merely quoting the wording used in 15th, 16th, 17th & 18th eds of the regs.

I find this statement very ambiguous/confused.

Talking of ambiguity, again, do I take it that you are referring to the regulations (rather than my statement, which is what you quoted) as being 'ambiguous/confused'?

As regards the issue of internal/external corners, I wouldn't personally say that there was any ambiguity or confusion. In that respect, it seems very clear, since there appears to be absolutely nothing in the wording which suggests that it is not referring to both 'internal' and external' corners.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Indeed - so do I take it that you are commenting on the precision of the regulations, rather than 'shooting the messenger'? - as you will realise, I was merely quoting the wording used in 15th, 16th, 17th & 18th eds of the regs.

Sorry I had assumed you were trying to make things clear for later readers of the thread. I don't think that quote helped. (Actually, whoever wrote it should be shot.)

Talking of ambiguity, again, do I take it that you are referring to the regulations (rather than my statement, which is what you quoted) as being 'ambiguous/confused'?

No I was referring to your statement. I agree that both internal and external corners count equally. It just seems to me that there is one too few or too many negatives in your statement to mean what you intended. Probably means I'm too thick.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry I had assumed you were trying to make things clear for later readers of the thread.

I was (and no need to 'assume', since I stated that intent). I'm sure that neither of us is 'thick', but we do seem to be doing quite well at confusing and/or misunderstanding each other

I don't think that quote helped. (Actually, whoever wrote it should be shot.)

I don't really understand. In an attempt 'to create clarity for later readers of the thread', I was indicating the wording which is used, and has always been used, without any change, through four editions of the regs, in describing the 'zones' in question, and I can't really see how I could have done that without 'quoting' (at least, using) the wording concerned.

No I was referring to your statement. I agree that both internal and external corners count equally. It just seems to me that there is one too few or too many negatives in your statement to mean what you intended. Probably means I'm too thick.

Oh, I see. I have to say that, having just re-read it several times, it seems clear and unambiguous to me (but I suppose that "it would, wouldn't it?" ). Would you perhaps not have seen it as "very ambiguous/confused" if I had written "include" rather than "not exclude"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Maybe!