In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

On 12 Oct 2004 01:17:50 -0700, (TimD) wrote:

In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

Fact is, there are many incredibly stupid people out there who will
just drill a hole without thinking about what is underneath. Perhaps
they are those who never received an accidental jolt as a child. Once
felt, you never, ever forget it. Could it be that all school children
need to be exposed to, say, an electric fence at least once during
their education?

MM

"TimD" wrote in message
om...
In the Evening Standard last night.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

Many new house builders give these free in the starter pack.

"TimD" wrote in message
om...
In the Evening Standard last night.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ening%20Standa
rd

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

In The Times this morning the story hinted that they might sue the builders.
Sigh.

"Bob" wrote in message
...

"TimD" wrote in message
om...
In the Evening Standard last night.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ening%20Standa
rd

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

In The Times this morning the story hinted that they might sue the
builders.
Sigh.

The builders may be at fault to some degree, but the man who installed the
rack, when cable detectors have been around for along time now, is the
culprit. I doubt the builders would be roasted.

The builders may be at fault to some degree, but the man who installed the
rack, when cable detectors have been around for along time now, is the
culprit. I doubt the builders would be roasted.

Except that you are supposed to install vertically from fittings or more
than 50mm deep for the precise reason to avoid electrocution when fixing to
the wall. They must bear partial responsibility.

Christian.

In article , TimD
writes
In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

If they'd been a whole house RCD on that system then she'd still be
alive, as it would have tripped on the main event, and very likely would
have started tripping when other shocks or tingles were noticed.....
--
Tony Sayer

TimD wrote:
In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

The electrical cable which led from a fuse box to the extractor fan
hood above the cooker was not covered with any protective layer
and was only 10mm deep into the wall instead of the recommended 50mm.

Is 5cm deep really the recommended depth? I tend to just go as deep as
the plaster is. Once I hit brick that is it.

And is this just a recommendation or compulsory.

Steve

In article ,
TimD wrote:
Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Possibly. However, it would be very difficult to check for depth of wiring
after the installation was complete. And extremely time consuming to check
the route of every cable with a detector - and not that reliably either.

The existing regs if observed would have prevented this. But no regs can
prevent bodging - unless they provide for a thorough independant
inspection.

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

Or protecting with a RCD - although I know this can cause problems with
kitchen appliances.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Christian McArdle wrote:
The builders may be at fault to some degree, but the man who installed the
rack, when cable detectors have been around for along time now, is the
culprit. I doubt the builders would be roasted.


Except that you are supposed to install vertically from fittings or more
than 50mm deep for the precise reason to avoid electrocution when fixing to
the wall. They must bear partial responsibility.

Christian.


The Standard report is quite detailed, and supports Christian's point.
The original fitters were the primary cause of this death, by cavalier
routing of a mains cable which "meandered across the wall instead of
being fitted in strict horizontal or vertical lines". This was the
cooker hood feed cable. The metal rack which became live was put up some
time later by the householder: "Mrs Wherry's husband Jake put up the
rack three years ago and thought he had positioned it away from any
cables, although he did not check."

You could call his failure to check contributory negligence, or (in less
lawyerly speak) what happens when you assume - "it makes an ASS out of U
and ME" in the trite health-and-safety mantra. Another bit of
householderly incomplete cluefulness comes across in the next paragraph:
"Evidence to the inquest from electrical engineer David Latimer, who
examined the kitchen, was that a screw from the rack had caught the side
of the electrical cable. Over the years the rack and screw had moved
slightly so that eventually the screw touched the live wire in the
cable. Every time a metal object was put on the rack there was a small
electric shock."

You'd-a-thunk that 'this rack gives me a tingle every time I touch it'
would serve as a Clue that there was something wrong. Sadly, it didn't
raise enough of a response: an earlier portion of the report says, "Mrs
Wherry's family became suspicious that something was wrong in the
kitchen after a family friend tried to put something onto the same rack,
which was under the cooker hood, that same day and received a small
shock." We can't tell from the report whether such tingles had been felt
on previous occasions.

That "small shock" became fatal for this victim when she was in
simultaneous contact with the live rack and a good earth: "But Mrs
Wherry's shock was fatal because her ankle is believed to have been
touching the metalfronted open door of the dishwasher." (A sadly
persuasive illustration of the downside of bonding everything to a good
earth, as raised not an hour ago in the "bond the kitchen sink"
discussion). The "believed" in the quote is a bit of journalistic
silliness, as the next para goes on to describe the 2.5-inch
discolouration around the victim's ankle, making it all too clear what
path the fatal current had taken.

The coroner seems to agree that the primary fault is with those who
installed this cable in a non-obvious, regs-defying route: "Coroner
Alison Thompson said that Mrs Wherry would have survived if the cable
had been properly installed. Recording a verdict of accidental death she
said: 'The cable had not been fitted in accordance with regulations from
the Institute of Electrical Engineers.'"

The final comment reported by the coroner leaves it ambiguous, though,
whether she felt some blame attached to the householder too: "I am going
to record that the death was the consequence of home improvement work."
- from which I, at least, can't tell whether the coroner has in mind the
earlier kitchen fitting work with its misrouted cable, or the husband's
fitting of the metal rack.

An RCD on the kitchen circuit would've prevented this particular
fatality; the not-well-earthed tingle reported earlier in the day might
have been enough to trip it, with the inconvenience possibly giving the
occupants more reason to investigate the fault, and certainly the victim
would've been massively unlikely to have received a fatal shock, rather
than a stiff belt strongly suggesting a need to Get It Fixed.

And - as others have pointed out - cable/metal detectors before drilling
are A Good Thing, as is a healthy scpeticism and a curiousity about
where cables and pipes are running - 'just where does that cooker hood
get its power from, huh?'. This cable might not have registered as Live
(rather than just Metal) without the cooker hood being switched on, mind
you...

Stefek

Is 5cm deep really the recommended depth? I tend to just go as deep as
the plaster is. Once I hit brick that is it.

And is this just a recommendation or compulsory.


For cables not running in the "standard" routes, it's mandated by the
Regs: 5cm (2 of your earth inches) is what the regs-writers consider to
be deeper than a casual picture-hook or small-fitting-wallplug will go.
If the cable runs in the "standard" routes (once again: a 6-inch/15cm
band vertically and horizontally from each visible fitting, and a
similar-width band around the top and side BUT NOT BOTTOM corners of
each room), the 5cm depth is *not* required.

The other approved way of running cables in the non-standard routes is
to provide hefty additional protection: in practice that would mean
serious metal (which would need to be earthed), such as heavy-duty
conduit or trunking. Galvanised capping isn't protection enough - it's
easily penetrated by a nail (which is how you usually fix it!).

HTH - Stefek

TimD wrote:

In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

Well the fact is the dickhead D-I-Y er put a screw through a cable, and
didn't earth the appliance.

Hey presto. What happened to te RCD, and all teh earths on everything else?

Stefek Zaba wrote:

Is 5cm deep really the recommended depth? I tend to just go as deep as
the plaster is. Once I hit brick that is it.

And is this just a recommendation or compulsory.


For cables not running in the "standard" routes, it's mandated by the
Regs: 5cm (2 of your earth inches) is what the regs-writers consider to
be deeper than a casual picture-hook or small-fitting-wallplug will go.
If the cable runs in the "standard" routes (once again: a 6-inch/15cm
band vertically and horizontally from each visible fitting, and a
similar-width band around the top and side BUT NOT BOTTOM corners of
each room), the 5cm depth is *not* required.

The other approved way of running cables in the non-standard routes is
to provide hefty additional protection: in practice that would mean
serious metal (which would need to be earthed), such as heavy-duty
conduit or trunking. Galvanised capping isn't protection enough - it's
easily penetrated by a nail (which is how you usually fix it!).

HTH - Stefek

once again: a 6-inch/15cm band vertically and horizontally from each
visible fitting.

Is this from the centre of the fitting or from the edges?

Steve

In article , Bob wrote:
In The Times this morning the story hinted that they might sue
the builders. Sigh.

Last night's London Evening Standard said the same. It also said
that people had been getting small shocks from this rack well
before the accident, but unfortunately for the victim her leg was
touching the dishwasher when she touched the rack. The
'electrician' who installed the hood may have done a poor job but
this looks to be an accident that should not have happened.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

TimD wrote:
In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

My take on this is "Death by lack of common sense":

1) Fitter of wire rack not checking for cables beforehand.

2) Getting a small shock from the wire rack but ignoring it.

You can have all the regulations in the world but none will protect
against a lack of common sense. Surely it is common sense to assume that
a cable could be anywhere in the vicinity of a cooker hood. Also why the
hell would anyone ignore an electric shock, were they hoping the problem
would just go away?

Why not just wrap everybody in bubble wrap the moment they are born and
earth them! Jesus!


Steve

"IMM" wrote in message ...

In The Times this morning the story hinted that they might sue the
builders.
Sigh.

The builders may be at fault to some degree, but the man who installed the
rack, when cable detectors have been around for along time now, is the
culprit. I doubt the builders would be roasted.

I normally use rawlplugs, or equivalent and have always assumed that most of the
risk was to the electric drill operator - though much of the drill is plastic.
Post installation the rawlplug itself would provide some insulation.

It just shows that if you ever get an unexpected electric shock, the cause
should be investigated.

My experience of an electric wiring detector was that it did not work as well as
I would have liked.

Michael Chare

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:08:02 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

The builders may be at fault to some degree, but the man who installed the
rack, when cable detectors have been around for along time now, is the
culprit. I doubt the builders would be roasted.

Except that you are supposed to install vertically from fittings or more
than 50mm deep for the precise reason to avoid electrocution when fixing to
the wall. They must bear partial responsibility.

Christian.

"More than 50mm" would be over half way through many of my walls and
dangerous from the other side.

Stefek Zaba wrote:

The Standard report is quite detailed, and supports Christian's point.
The original fitters were the primary cause of this death, by cavalier
routing of a mains cable which "meandered across the wall instead of
being fitted in strict horizontal or vertical lines". This was the
cooker hood feed cable. The metal rack which became live was put up some
time later by the householder: "Mrs Wherry's husband Jake put up the
rack three years ago and thought he had positioned it away from any
cables, although he did not check."

You could call his failure to check contributory negligence, or (in less
lawyerly speak) what happens when you assume - "it makes an ASS out of U
and ME" in the trite health-and-safety mantra. Another bit of
householderly incomplete cluefulness comes across in the next paragraph:
"Evidence to the inquest from electrical engineer David Latimer, who
examined the kitchen, was that a screw from the rack had caught the side
of the electrical cable. Over the years the rack and screw had moved
slightly so that eventually the screw touched the live wire in the
cable. Every time a metal object was put on the rack there was a small
electric shock."


I think an interesting and telling question is "what if the cable had
followed the correct path? Does your avearge weekend shelf-putter-upper
even know about where cable runs are allowed to go? Would he have
avoided putting a hole there, thinking "ah, I'm within the 150mm band,
there might be a cable here"? I'm willing to bet 9/10 wouldn't.

I think if you aren't inclined to check for cables then you're unlikely
to think about where they might be in the first place.

I think the only solution is to require all cables to be enclosed in
1.5mm wall galvanised conduit. You wait, it'll come.

Related but OT - I installed a replacement extractor fan in the
downstairs toilet this weekend. The instructions said that it must only
be fitted by a qualified electrician. Fair enough. Then there was a
section about cleaning, which said that the cover should be removed, and
the motor cleaned once a month. It then went on to say that this
should only be done by a qualified electrician!! So I'm supposed to book
a qualified electrician to come round once a month to clean all my
extractor fans??

--
Grunff

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...

My experience of an electric wiring detector was that it did not work as
well as
I would have liked.

Michael Chare


I've never got on with those things - I must either have metal walls, or 2ft
wide cables running through them.
Luckily whoever rewired the house wasn't that great a plasterer, so it is
possible to make out the vertical runs up the walls as a slight uneven
ridge!

Bob

Is this from the centre of the fitting or from the edges?

Steve

Looking at the merely-suggestive pictures in the OSG, the 6-inch-wide
band is shown only for the top and side corners, while the
horiz-and-vert from visible accessories is drawn a little narrower than
the visible accessory's own size. I think Good Sense is what's indicated
he no-one's going to condemn an install if the "horizontal" line dips
by an inch below the bottom of the accessory; running cables willy-nilly
is clearly Right Out; keeping them within or very close to the Expected
Routes is absolutely the Right Way To Go. Remember the overall
requirement for "good workmanship"; if an otherwise compliant
installation has one bit of cable routing which strays 5cm beyond a
Permitted Route, no-one's going to moan; if the installation is full of
little corner-cutting tricks, compliant-but-non-standard tricks, and so
on, such routing deviations are all grist to an inspector's mill - who
in a case like this is coroner-appointed and not looking to be
overcharitable...

On 12 Oct 2004 MM wrote:

On 12 Oct 2004 01:17:50 -0700, (TimD) wrote:

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

Fact is, there are many incredibly stupid people out there who will
just drill a hole without thinking about what is underneath. ...

Yes, when I moved into this house I found that the previous owner had
managed to drill through the ring main just a foot or so vertically
above a socket. He'd also drilled through the tv aerial cable. Later I
discovered that some sheving in the kitchen had been put up with dummy
screw heads in two of the brackets because of cables underneath.

I'd always thought cables should run horizointally and vertically but
not diagonally across a wall. My meter and CU are under the stairs, and
most of the cabling up to the first floor runs parallel to the
staircase i.e. at about 45 deg. in the kitchen wall. Having worked out
where the trunking went I was able to reposition the shelf brackets.

--
Richard Porter
Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:33:13 GMT, EricP
wrote:

"More than 50mm" would be over half way through many of my walls and
dangerous from the other side.



Also explains a long wondered at mystery!

Why none of my internal walls has a socket on!

My sparse socket provision has all of them placed on external, and
therefore thick walls.

I wanted to put more sockets in, now I must rethink.

Anyway, thanks for sorting a long outstanding mystery.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Well the fact is the dickhead D-I-Y er put a screw through a cable, and
didn't earth the appliance.

Not quite: they put a screw through a cable, but it wasn't holding an
Appliance, just a bit of metalwork (some fancy-pantsy chromed cutlery
rack, mfg cost 2 squid, yours-at-Heals-for-only-40-notes or some such).
And it was the all-too-effective earthing of a nearby appliance which
provided a low-impedance path to earth for the fatal current.

Hey presto. What happened to t[h]e RCD [...] ?

RCDs good. RCDs sensible. RCDs not definitely required for kitchen
sockets, though - a damn good idea, but currently only required for
"sockets reasonably foreseeably used for powering portable appliances
outside the house"...

Me with coroner he main chunk of blame on kitchen installer
misrouting cable, with contributory lack of care from later householder
putting screw into wall without cable-detector (10? 15? quid from your
d-i-y emporium) and from family members going "ooh, it tingles" but
doing sod-all about it...

Stefek

On 12 Oct 2004 01:17:50 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(TimD) randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

In the Evening Standard last night.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

The wiring (by the report) wasn't installed correctly, but how is a
BCO or any electrical inspector to know that after it's been covered
over? Admittedly, probably the route of the wiring may be easy to
spot or detect, but what about the depth?
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:03:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Well the fact is the D-I-Y er

Yeah, lets make the poor guy suffer for his sins. How about having his
wife die ? - that'll teach him ! 8-(

Maybe he screwed up (and to be honest, I don;t think he did more than
a tiny amount of extra-caution). But he wasn't the major cause here
and it's grossly callous to gloat.


put a screw through a cable, and
didn't earth the appliance.

You earth your kitchen pan racks ?

--
Smert' spamionam

EricP wrote:

"More than 50mm" would be over half way through many of my walls and
dangerous from the other side.

No, it's permitted to run cables in walls at less than 50mm depth when
they're in the "standard" places: vertically or horizontally in line
with visible electric fittings, and within 150mm of top and side
corners. So your plans to cable new sockets on your internal walls are
fine; just run the cable in the "conventional" routes. Otherwise, few
Barrat boxes could have sockets on their internal walls!

Stefek

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:09:00 +0100, Stefek Zaba
wrote:

EricP wrote:

"More than 50mm" would be over half way through many of my walls and
dangerous from the other side.

No, it's permitted to run cables in walls at less than 50mm depth when
they're in the "standard" places: vertically or horizontally in line
with visible electric fittings, and within 150mm of top and side
corners. So your plans to cable new sockets on your internal walls are
fine; just run the cable in the "conventional" routes. Otherwise, few
Barrat boxes could have sockets on their internal walls!

Stefek

ROFL!!

Cheers

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Or protecting with a RCD - although I know this can cause problems with
kitchen appliances.


We have a whole house 30ma RCD, which I know is deprecated but we have
no intention of changing.
Arguments aside, the only problems we have had is with a leaky washing
machine motor and leaky elements.

All of which would have later failed anyway, possibly in slightly more
dramatic fashion

Lee
--
Email address is valid, but is unlikely to be read.

Visited one of my friends at the weekend - he bought his house brand new
about a year ago. He was putting in an outside tap at the weekend, and after
consulting the diagrams showing where all the pipework ran underneath the
surface of the wall, and making use of his wire/metal/stud detector thing he
started drilling.... straight through the Hep2O running diagonally
underneath the plasterboard.

He was not happy.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"TimD" wrote in message
om...
In the Evening Standard last night.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ening%20Standa
rd

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

Made me think to invest in a good wiring detector for drilling holes
etc.

Many new house builders give these free in the starter pack.

In article , EricP
wrote:
Also explains a long wondered at mystery!

Why none of my internal walls has a socket on!

My sparse socket provision has all of them placed on external,
and therefore thick walls.

I wanted to put more sockets in, now I must rethink.

As the other posts state you can do it. You just have to put the
cables in the prescribed zone.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Grunff wrote:
Stefek Zaba wrote:

I think an interesting and telling question is "what if the cable had
followed the correct path? Does your avearge weekend shelf-putter-upper

Another interesting question is woulp part P make any difference.

If this was not a "New Circuit" it wouldnt have needed any checking anyway!

In article , Mike
wrote:
Another interesting question is woulp part P make any difference.

No, but the new Part Q requiring all plate racks to be wooden will
g.

If this was not a "New Circuit" it wouldnt have needed any checking
anyway!

It does appear that in the absence of any other faults you could have
had an electrical report done on this house the day before the
accident and it would have been clean.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well the fact is the dickhead D-I-Y er put a screw through a cable, and
didn't earth the appliance.

You'd earth a kitchen tool rack?

Hey presto. What happened to te RCD, and all teh earths on everything
else?

Having just changed my CU to a split load one, I've not included the
kitchen ring on the RCD side - due to possible leakage from the various
heating elements in appliances.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob wrote:
I've never got on with those things - I must either have metal walls, or
2ft wide cables running through them. Luckily whoever rewired the house
wasn't that great a plasterer, so it is possible to make out the
vertical runs up the walls as a slight uneven ridge!

But in this case, kitchens are frequently tiled.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
EricP wrote:
"More than 50mm" would be over half way through many of my walls and
dangerous from the other side.



Also explains a long wondered at mystery!

Why none of my internal walls has a socket on!

My sparse socket provision has all of them placed on external, and
therefore thick walls.

I wanted to put more sockets in, now I must rethink.

Not at all. You may have cables just below the surface provided they
follow the approved runs. Or are properly protected.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
On 12 Oct 2004 01:17:50 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(TimD) randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

In the Evening Standard last night.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...vening%20Stand
ard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

The wiring (by the report) wasn't installed correctly, but how is a
BCO or any electrical inspector to know that after it's been covered
over? Admittedly, probably the route of the wiring may be easy to
spot or detect, but what about the depth?
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

NEWS FLASH___NATIONAL GRID TO BE REPLACED TOMORROW WITH DIRECT CURRENT
SYSTEM. Failing that--all contractors and DIYers shall be excecuted at
sunrise.
Signed by--Couldn't Resist'it MP

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:07:01 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

My sparse socket provision has all of them placed on external, and
therefore thick walls.

I wanted to put more sockets in, now I must rethink.

Not at all. You may have cables just below the surface provided they
follow the approved runs.

But if you don't have a matching fitting on the other side of the wall
you have to go for your next statement:

Or are properly protected.

Which is a bit tricky to do... without dismantling the wall.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:54:24 +0000 (UTC), "Jimbo"
(remove $ ) wrote:


"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
.. .
On 12 Oct 2004 01:17:50 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named
(TimD) randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

In the Evening Standard last night.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...vening%20Stand
ard

Very sad story, but no doubt will be seized upon as justification for
changes to the Electrical Wiring Regulations (Part P)

The wiring (by the report) wasn't installed correctly, but how is a
BCO or any electrical inspector to know that after it's been covered
over? Admittedly, probably the route of the wiring may be easy to
spot or detect, but what about the depth?
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

NEWS FLASH___NATIONAL GRID TO BE REPLACED TOMORROW WITH DIRECT CURRENT
SYSTEM. Failing that--all contractors and DIYers shall be excecuted at
sunrise.
Signed by--Couldn't Resist'it MP

I'm waiting for:

"In the interests of safety, all electricity is to be removed from
private homes and only Professional Places will be exempt from this
requirement.(Creosote may also be used in these places)"

Mike wrote:

Another interesting question is woulp part P make any difference.

If this was not a "New Circuit" it wouldnt have needed any checking
anyway!

Yes it would: all electrical work in kitchens and bathrooms will
notifiable under Part P - see
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...reg_029960.pdf
Table 1.

--
Andy

"EricP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:54:24 +0000 (UTC), "Jimbo"
(remove $ ) wrote:


NEWS FLASH___NATIONAL GRID TO BE REPLACED TOMORROW WITH DIRECT CURRENT
SYSTEM. Failing that--all contractors and DIYers shall be excecuted at
sunrise.
Signed by--Couldn't Resist'it MP

I'm waiting for:

"In the interests of safety, all electricity is to be removed from
private homes and only Professional Places will be exempt from this
requirement.(Creosote may also be used in these places)"



I think we just need to accept that just as driving cars mean that sometimes
people will get run over, so electricity in the home will sometimes lead to
electrocution. In both cases the usefulness of the killer is deemed to
outweigh the loss of life it causes.

Certainly there are rules things that could imposed to reduce the toll - 30
mph everywhere maximum speed for a car, visible conduits for wiring - but
those kind of limits would be unacceptable to most people.

Out of interest, does anyone know just how many people get electrocuted in
the home each year in this country? Is it really enough to warrent these
new regulations?

Bob