ZIG ZAG UnSAFE zone

[ban-all-sheds]

That would depend upon where somebody who has no idea about the concept was drilling, surely?

I really cannot grasp the idea that safe installation practices should not be advised, or even exist, because some people cannot be bothered to even think before drilling into a wall. Or that the whole concept is pointless because some people don't know about it.

It only needs one person who didn't know to stop and wonder, and take the trouble to find out, for it to be undeniably true that having recognised zones is better than a free-for-all.

Where has anybody said that they shouldn't?

There is somebody here quite clearly disparaging the whole idea:

I agree entirely. I've seen people advised about "safe zones" as though there's absolutely no chance of hitting a cable if one drills elsewhere, which, of course, is nonsense, for the reasons you've already mentioned. It would be interesting to know exactly how many people outside the trade and outside the more enlightened DIY circles have even heard of the concept. And I've even heard the advice offered without pointing out that the idea is a relatively new one anyway, so there are going to be plenty of homes which were wired completely to the current regulations at the time without cabling being in the so-called safe zones.

 

[PBC_1966]

It only needs one person who didn't know to stop and wonder, and take the trouble to find out, for it to be undeniably true that having recognised zones is better than a free-for-all.

And when that one person finds out about the supposed safe zones, and discovers that the places in which he wants to drill or cut should not have cables present if the wiring has been done within those zones, should he then just cut or drill without regard for the possibility that there might still be cables present anyway?

If he had not known about safe zones, should he just cut or drill without regard for the possibility of cables being present?

I'm assuming that in both cases your answer will be no. So how, exactly, should he proceed any differently whether or not he knows about the existence of safe-zone concept?

 

[JohnW2]

I'm assuming that in both cases your answer will be no. So how, exactly, should he proceed any differently whether or not he knows about the existence of safe-zone concept?

That was exactly my point. However, as I said, and as BAS repeated, if some people go drilling/cutting/nailing 'willy nilly' in what they know to theoretically be 'safe zones', then their probability of hitting cables will be lower if at least some people are respecting safe zones when installing cables than if no-one is respecting those zones. However, given the realities, drilling/cutting/nailing "willy nilly" (in the hope that there will be no cables outside of safe zones) is stupid in the extreme, so the point should be moot!

As you say, for the person who realises the real-world need to do as much as possible to exclude the presence of cables (whether in safe zones or not), what they would (should) do would be identical whether or not the concept of safe zones existed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And when that one person finds out about the supposed safe zones, and discovers that the places in which he wants to drill or cut should not have cables present if the wiring has been done within those zones, should he then just cut or drill without regard for the possibility that there might still be cables present anyway?

If he had not known about safe zones, should he just cut or drill without regard for the possibility of cables being present?

No and no.

So how, exactly, should he proceed any differently whether or not he knows about the existence of safe-zone concept?

He should not drill into the zones if it can be avoided.

But the drilling into walls is not the point.

I've seen people advised about "safe zones" as though there's absolutely no chance of hitting a cable if one drills elsewhere, which, of course, is nonsense, for the reasons you've already mentioned.

The point is that the advice in question is that of where to install cables, not where to drill. The fact that zones are imperfectly known, and not universally implemented is not a reason to say they shouldn't be bothered with.

 

[PBC_1966]

But the drilling into walls is not the point.

Isn't it? If the idea of defining the so-called safe zones isn't an attempt to make it safer for anyone cutting or drilling in the future, then what exactly is the idea of defining them?

Stones in rough stone walls can and do move, lime mortar is flexible, so over time a cable between stones could be crushed.

And that, to me, is of far more concern that the whole safe-zone issue. Not to mention that in bending the cable to fit and stuffing it into the gaps it's probably already quite beaten up to begin with.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The point is that people should be advised to install cables in the correct places.

The point is not that people should be advised that they can drill into walls outside zones without a care.

 

[JohnW2]

The point is that people should be advised to install cables in the correct places. The point is not that people should be advised that they can drill into walls outside zones without a care.

Both True. In practice, the problem is that, because 'safe zones' exist, at least some people will assume that they can do the latter, even though that have not been "advised" so to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of this forum, people are advised about "safe zones" because that is where they should install cables.

This is an electrical forum, not a drilling holes one, so the point of the advice is that of cable installation, not drilling holes. The fact that they are neither sufficiently well known nor observed has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the advice.

 

[JohnW2]

In the context of this forum, people are advised about "safe zones" because that is where they should install cables. This is an electrical forum, not a drilling holes one, so the point of the advice is that of cable installation, not drilling holes. The fact that they are neither sufficiently well known nor observed has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the advice.

I don't think that anyone has disagreed with that. Since safe zones exist, and are required by the regs to be adhered to, new buried cables should (unless protected etc.) be installed in safe zones, so that is, indeed, what people should be advised.

This side discussion arose because I observed that if the concept of (and requirement to comply with) safe zones did not exist, those 'hole drillers' who gave any thought at all to the possibility of buried cables would be obliged to be careful/vigilant (as hopefully they always have been), even outside of safe zones, whilst those who didn't give any thought to such matters (and probably hadn't even heard of safe zones) would presumably just carry on as they always have.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

The point is that people should be advised to install cables in the correct places.

Yes, but the debate is about whether the whole concept of the "safe zone" rule might be flawed in some way and is thereby limiting unnecessarily what are considered to be correct places.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but the debate is about whether the whole concept of the "safe zone" rule might be flawed in some way and is thereby limiting unnecessarily what are considered to be correct places.

I don't know whether it pre-dates the formalisation of 'safe zones' in the regs (when was that?), but back it the 60s or early 70s, I was told/taught/advised by an electrician about 'common sense' practices for buried cable placement. Those 'common sense routes' included those vertically and horizontally aligned with visible accessories, with which we are still familiar today, but also included a 'diagonal' route between visible accessories on the same wall.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but the debate is about whether the whole concept of the "safe zone" rule might be flawed in some way and is thereby limiting unnecessarily what are considered to be correct places.

Only in the minds of people whose prime motivation is to disregard the Wiring Regulations.

 

[PBC_1966]

Only in the minds of people whose prime motivation is to disregard the Wiring Regulations.

I'm not following your line of reasoning. If one is questioning the need for a particular regulation, or whether or not that regulation might be flawed in some way either in what it sets out to achieve or in what might happen in practice because of it, then surely that is questioning whether that regulation should exist, at least in its current form? If we are to question whether a regulation is actually needed or being effective in its aims, then naturally in the practical sense that equates to questioning whether it is really that important to observe that particular regulation.

I don't know whether it pre-dates the formalisation of 'safe zones' in the regs (when was that?), but back it the 60s or early 70s,

Definitely way before the prescribed zones. I think that was during the 16th edition, or possibly a very late amendment to the 15th? By the way, there is nothing equivalent in the NEC here, although for cables run less than 1.25" from the front edge of studs, furring strips etc. it does require the use of a protective plate (min. 1/16" steel).

 

[stillp]

Only in the minds of people whose prime motivation is to disregard the Wiring Regulations.

I'm not following your line of reasoning. If one is questioning the need for a particular regulation, or whether or not that regulation might be flawed in some way either in what it sets out to achieve or in what might happen in practice because of it, then surely that is questioning whether that regulation should exist, at least in its current form? If we are to question whether a regulation is actually needed or being effective in its aims, then naturally in the practical sense that equates to questioning whether it is really that important to observe that particular regulation.

None of that matters though. The regulation exists and shall be complied with. Whether you agree with it or not.

 

[PBC_1966]

None of that matters though. The regulation exists and shall be complied with. Whether you agree with it or not.

Of course it matters if we're discussing whether there was (a) any need for the regulation in the first place, (b) whether it might not actually achieve the aim it was intended to address, and (c) whether it might actually have adverse side effects. And who says it shall be complied with? Not the law.