Shaver socket

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know how much you have looked at the forum, but we spend a lot of time asking just the things you are.

A lot of the regulations are, as you say, silly, illogical, pointless and badly written and some are actually wrong electrically.

 

[JohnW2]

You could fit an ip44 light 2250mm from the floor and in theory put your shower tray on a platform of 1000mm (obviously exagerating) and so be 1250mm from the light. Is there another part to this rule I haven't understood?

Nope, you appear to understand perfectly! As EFLI has implied, it appears that some of these regulations are not intended to make any sense

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

701.32.1 says consideration should be made, in such instances. A bit of common needs to be applied. Would a shower tray or bathtub at a distance of 1.25m from the ceiling height be considered logically positioned in a usable place?

 

[Spooked]

I don't know how much you have looked at the forum, but we spend a lot of time asking just the things you are.

A lot of the regulations are, as you say, silly, illogical, pointless and badly written and some are actually wrong electrically.

I haven't EF. I had downlights but of course they had to be free of insulation which caused cold spots. I pulled my plaster ceiling down and decided on PVC and surface mounted lights so I can fully insulate. That's what got me to this point. I find it ludicrous that folk have to pay to pass exams so they can install electrical items when half the stuff they are being told makes little sense.
Now I'm convinced they should be giving reasons for the regulations.

Would a shower tray or bathtub at a distance of 1.25m from the ceiling height be considered logically positioned in a usable place?

Prentice, do read my post again, I stated "In theory" and "obviously exagerated". Of course no one is likely to do such a thing but they COULD. The elctrician could finish what he is doing, sign it off and the homeowner could change the layout of the bathroom, perfectly legally and no need to report the changes as they haven't touched the electrics.
As a roofer of many years I suddenly had to prove my 'competence' some years back to get a card that said I knew what I was doing so I could work on sites. A bloke half my age came to watch me work. He was there for 15 minutes max, saw me apply a few flashings, next thing I know I'm a 'skilled' worker. It's all bullsh*te!!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it is that important then like EF writes perhaps there needs to be some form of cable restraint so it can't be pushed out of position.

That is a requirement. If the accessory has no integral cable restraints then you have to use something external to keep the cables in place, such as cable clips.

I had downlights but of course they had to be free of insulation which caused cold spots.

If you got cold spots then they were not installed properly.

Prentice, do read my post again, I stated "In theory" and "obviously exagerated". Of course no one is likely to do such a thing but they COULD.

They could. But I do not think that a clearance between the bottom of the bath and the ceiling of 1.25m is reasonable, and you cannot have regulations written on the basis that they have to explicitly forbid everything unreasonable that somebody could do.

The elctrician could finish what he is doing, sign it off and the homeowner could change the layout of the bathroom, perfectly legally and no need to report the changes as they haven't touched the electrics.

Or they could turn a room which wasn't a bathroom into one.

Or they could install loft or cavity insulation and have their house burn down because cables overheated.

Or they could install a paint-spraying booth in their garage.

 

[JohnW2]

701.32.1 says consideration should be made, in such instances. A bit of common needs to be applied. Would a shower tray or bathtub at a distance of 1.25m from the ceiling height be considered logically positioned in a usable place?

I have difficulty in understand what the first sentence of 701.32.1 is trying to say. By saying that the definitions of zones "should be taken into account" when applying "this section" (Section 701), it almost seems to be indicate that nothing that Section 701 says about zones is actually 'mandatory', but merely should be "taken into account" - which surely is not their intention.

However, as we have discussed a good few times before, Spooked has a valid point. One can but presume that the whole point of the upper limits of zones 1 and 2 relates to what people can touch (usually on ceilings). My son-in-law (who is pretty tall!) cannot quite touch a ceiling which is 2.25m above the floor he is standing on, but he can touch a ceiling at 2.25m above "finished floor level" if he steps into almost any standard bath or shower tray which is standing on that floor. It would have been so easy for them to define Zone 1 (and maybe also Zone 2, since some parts are immediately adjacent to bath/shower) in terms of height above the base of the bath or shower tray, and that would, at least to me, have made more sense.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[JohnW2]

<a photo showing a situation in which referencing the upper bound of zones 1 and 2 to 'finished floor level' seems to be neither very sensible nor necessarily safe>

Quite so.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Spooked]

If the accessory has no integral cable restraints then you have to use something external to keep the cables in place, such as cable clips.

Then I, and possibly every homeowner in the country, has wiring that is unsafe. Every light, switch, socket that I have changed has wiring that can be pushed or pulled so is obviously not clipped.

If you got cold spots then they were not installed properly.

If you can't put insulation over them how can you avoid cold spots? No room for hoods as it is a 140mm flat roof void above and no way to fit them any way without removing the flat roof.

They could. But I do not think that a clearance between the bottom of the bath and the ceiling of 1.25m is reasonable, and you cannot have regulations written on the basis that they have to explicitly forbid everything unreasonable that somebody could do.

As stated to Prentice, it was an EXAGERATED example to show how ludicrous the regulations are. I COULD have a shower with the shower head pointed at the light, that would be my stupid fault.
Taking a measuremnt from the floor to decide where zone 2 is is ridiculous. Let me tone down the exageration for those that don't get it. Lets say a person has their bath on a 150mm platform.
Yes, people do. Originally the light was 2350mm from the floor. The light is still 2350mm from the floor but the person showering/bathing is 150mm nearer the light. It is non sensical to take the measurement from the fixed floor.

Or they could turn a room which wasn't a bathroom into one.

And that's non notifiable??

Or they could install loft or cavity insulation and have their house burn down because cables overheated.

Then their insulation is non BS

Or they could install a paint-spraying booth in their garage.

No idea what that means.

 

[Spooked]

Or what John wrote
At least he did till he removed it?
It's back, some glitch or other, bloody regs.

 

[JohnW2]

Or what John wrote At least he did till he removed it? It's back, some glitch or other, bloody regs.

I never touched it after posting - blame the Internet gremlins!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then I, and possibly every homeowner in the country, has wiring that is unsafe. Every light, switch, socket that I have changed has wiring that can be pushed or pulled so is obviously not clipped.

Yesterday I saw someone obviously breaking the speed limit.

Does that mean that it's OK for me to do it? Does it mean that the "driving regulations" are nonsense?

If you can't put insulation over them how can you avoid cold spots? No room for hoods as it is a 140mm flat roof void above and no way to fit them any way without removing the flat roof.

Then installing them was illegal.

Not sure why you think that complaining about the outcome of illegal actions is a valid criticism of regulations.

As stated to Prentice, it was an EXAGERATED example to show how ludicrous the regulations are. I COULD have a shower with the shower head pointed at the light, that would be my stupid fault.
Taking a measuremnt from the floor to decide where zone 2 is is ridiculous. Let me tone down the exageration for those that don't get it. Lets say a person has their bath on a 150mm platform.
Yes, people do. Originally the light was 2350mm from the floor. The light is still 2350mm from the floor but the person showering/bathing is 150mm nearer the light. It is non sensical to take the measurement from the fixed floor.

I agree.

Do you agree that people who design electrical installations should actually know what they are doing?

And that's non notifiable??

Electrically, yes, AFAIK.

Then their insulation is non BS

What about their timbers?

No idea what that means.

It might create an explosive atmosphere.

 

[Spooked]

Yesterday I saw someone obviously breaking the speed limit.

Strange comparison.

Then installing them was illegal.

Not sure why you think that complaining about the outcome of illegal actions is a valid criticism of regulations.

Why was it illegal? Where did I complain about any regulation causing cold spots?

I agree.

At last.

Do you agree that people who design electrical installations should actually know what they are doing?

Don't know where that has been discussed/denied??

Electrically, yes, AFAIK.

Really, so it gets crazier. I can put a shower below a standard light fitting as long as it was there before it was a bathroom and all the existing sockets in that room would be fine, yep the regs are nuts.

What about their timbers?

Shivering no doubt.

It might create an explosive atmosphere.

It might, on that point you are correct, but you do seem to have an issue sticking to the subject, elctrical regulations.
Speeding in cars, paint spraying booth in the garage? Nothing to do with power hungry mentalists making things up that don't help any one.
I understand why the speed limits are in place but I don't know, and neither do others on here, why regulations that make zero sense are allowed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I thought I'd take issue with you over this here.

Nope, you appear to understand perfectly! As EFLI has implied, it appears that some of these regulations are not intended to make any sense

1. No, he did not imply that. Saying that "A lot of the regulations are, as you say, silly, illogical, pointless and badly written and some are actually wrong electrically" does not imply that they are intended to be like that.
2. I suggest you look at the Spooked's posts here, and what they betoken about his fundamental attitude to regulatory regimes per se, and consider whether saying what you did was helpful, or not. IMO not, as I don't think it helpful to send someone like him away with the message that some of the regulations are intentionally nonsensical.
3. I also suggest that you do not attempt to dismiss this on the grounds of when I wrote it, or what else I might or might not be doing today

 

[JohnW2]

... I don't think it helpful to send someone like him away with the message that some of the regulations are intentionally nonsensical.

Good grief! Unlike some people, he is clearly not stupid enough to regard my comment as a serious suggestion that the regulations are "intentionally nonsensical".

I've had enough of this.

Kind Regards, John