Jump to content

DONT STAY LURKING AS A GUEST,

JOIN TEF AND BENEFIT FROM MEMBERSHIP:

CLICK HERE TO JOIN.
Murdoch

521.10.202

Recommended Posts

Murdoch

I've got my annual CPS coming up soon so I'm thinking about jobs to use for the visit - 1 includes cables in trunking so I thought it may be a reasonable one to use ............ so I checked what the 18th Edition actually said:

 

367979220_BS18thEd521_10_202.jpg.2ec7a347cb8e17fea089cf1a988a6f9b.jpg

 

So bearing in mind NOTE 4: ......................... where is the guidance on "suitably space ..........."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™

just fit a steel support in the trunking every so often to support the cables. i fit 1 each side of a doorway, if its along a wall then not such an issue if they drop a little to maybe every metre or 2 depending on location. over a ceiling then closer together to limit any hanging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
Just now, Andy™ said:

just fit a steel support in the trunking every so often to support the cables. i fit 1 each side of a doorway, if its along a wall then not such an issue if they drop a little to maybe every metre or 2 depending on location. over a ceiling then closer together to limit any hanging

 

So no actual guidance in the 18th Edition then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™

quite clear tbh. you need to use enoguh to hold the cables up and stop escape route being blocked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
1 hour ago, Andy™ said:

quite clear tbh. you need to use enoguh to hold the cables up and stop escape route being blocked...

 

Funny

 

i showed this reg to a friend who teaches GCSE and A levels ..... he said “no way near enough information”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™

id expect youd get a similar response if you asked someone who isnt an electrician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
37 minutes ago, Andy™ said:

id expect youd get a similar response if you asked someone who isnt an electrician

 

I just think this goes to show how vague things are and then we wonder why things get done in an inconsistent manner

 

hopeless

 

every 3 meters then

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™

if you understand why the regulation is there and what its trying to achieve then you should know the answer

 

you need to look at the bigger picture and not just a short bit of text

Edited by Andy™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
1 hour ago, Andy™ said:

id expect youd get a similar response if you asked someone who isnt an electrician

 

 

Im playing devils advocate BUT this example  goes to explain why people read the regs and take the “cheaper” route.

 

if the IET really believed in this reg they would make it much clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™

its perfectly clear. cables shall be supported so they dont fall in a fire. how much clearer would you like? 'cables must be supported with a metallic support every 300mm regrdless of installation method and cable type'

 

1 method cannot apply to everything. many situations are different. so its upto the electrician doing the job to decide whats necessary for the specific job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
10 minutes ago, Andy™ said:

its perfectly clear. cables shall be supported so they dont fall in a fire. how much clearer would you like? 'cables must be supported with a metallic support every 300mm regrdless of installation method and cable type'

 

1 method cannot apply to everything. many situations are different. so its upto the electrician doing the job to decide whats necessary for the specific job

 

As I previously stated I’m playing devils advocate ........ but yes you could apply a method / table of recommendations or even refer to another existing table etc

 

its not that hard .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy™

book already has enough in there. common sense should be used, although many people do seem to lack that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
45 minutes ago, Andy™ said:

book already has enough in there. common sense should be used, although many people do seem to lack that

 

Which is sorely lacking these days ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phil d
2 hours ago, Andy™ said:

book already has enough in there. common sense should be used, although many people do seem to lack that

Ah, Andy, but these days since it is so lacking shouldn't it be called 'uncommon sense'? lol

Also it's quite possible, given the climate that has been created that when there is an incident, which we all know there will be, somebody will say "well, nobody told me that those cables needed supporting every metre", and try and blame it on someone else. Look at McDonalds coffee cups, 'warning contents may be hot' well who'd have thought it, hot coffee, what's next, cold ice cream!

If you look at things the construction industry has always had one of the worst records health and safety wise, and still does, years ago it was because people took risks with things that they shouldn't have done, now there's still a lot of accidents but now it's because 'nobody told me'. As in, ' well nobody told me that it wasn't a good idea to touch that metal that's just been welded', or 'nobody told me those overhead cables were live'.

it's worrying these days that society in general is supposed to be getting more intelligent, yet where basics are concerned in general we appear to be getting more stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff1946
36 minutes ago, phil d said:

 

it's worrying these days that society in general is supposed to be getting more intelligent, yet where basics are concerned in general we appear to be getting more stupid.  

I agree.

In my opinion it's the fault of the so called, "duty of care" culture, which means that it must be virtually impossible for kids to hurt themselves on playgrounds, always puts the blame for injury on someone else, such as the owner of property which has been broken into, or it's the council's fault when someone trips on a perfectly visible kerb stone, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phil d
14 hours ago, Geoff1946 said:

I agree.

In my opinion it's the fault of the so called, "duty of care" culture, which means that it must be virtually impossible for kids to hurt themselves on playgrounds, always puts the blame for injury on someone else, such as the owner of property which has been broken into, or it's the council's fault when someone trips on a perfectly visible kerb stone, etc

Funny you should mention kids, it's the school holidays now and I wonder how many parents will be making claims after some stupid person at the council left a swing in a park for their little Johnny to fall off and break his arm because he was acting stupid?

Remember when we were kids, your parents had mad little sayings like, 'if you fall off that wall and break your leg don't come running to me', and other such gems. If you were doing something stupid and got hurt then it was your own fault, and god help you if the injury was bad enough to need a hospital visit, because you'd get a right telling off when your old fella came home because, 'your mother's got better things to do that spend half a day at the local hospital with you'.

Nowadays I think it's a toss up between who they'd ring first, an ambulance or one of those claims company's, and all because little Johnny was doing something he shouldn't and has hurt himself. There was a family lived up the road from me a few years back, single parent and about 6 kids, one day one of the kids started leaping out from between parked cars, he was definitely trying to get hit. I drove a big Landrover at the time and if that had hit him he'd have been dead.

Anyway he did it one day and I got out to have a word with him, he was only about 7 or 8 years old, I asked why he kept doing it and what he told me really disturbed me. Apparently, he'd been hit by a car and his mother had made a claim, they'd got a few bob out of it and she'd told him that next time it happened he could have a new PlayStation! The first time had been a genuine accident fair enough, but he was actively trying to get himself run over now, because his mother had said if he did then he could have a new game with the compensation, how worrying is that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.