.
I'm confused about junction box rules
- Thread starter PotatoSoup
- Start date
Well, for what it's worth, I'm not particularly 'happy'!OK I'll start again, the box needs to be accessible not easily accessible.... Everyone happy
I live/work in a highly regulated environment. If one is going to have a rule, regulation or law, one really needs it to be explicitly clear what it says/requires - not the least because, otherwise, people will try to argue that the rule/regulation/law 'means' whatever suits them.
Neither "accessible" nor "easily accessible" have defined meanings, nor even meanings that 'most people' would agree on - so not really very satisfactory!
Been sensible!
Hardly.
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,345
- Reaction score
- 6,416
- Country
Using common sense is sensible
particularly if it comes up with the correct result
Using "Common Sense" is uncommon to some folk though.
We all might stretch points a little bit if we think it entirely reasonable in all/almost all circumstances.
But some might stretch same far too much just to "prove their point" and justify their existence.
I can forgive anyone who is attempting to do the right thing even though I might think they are actually wrong a little/mostly/a lot/completely .
I do hope that nobody now asks me to define my own interpretation of "a little/mostly/a lot/completely " or I will be completely snookered.
True.
Indeed - and it often comes down to matters of 'putting things into perspective' (or not). There's at least one person here who appears to sincerely believe that it is appropriate to 'be concerned' about incredibly small 'risks' (whether in an electrical installation or anything else).
It always amuses me when I hear smokers, heavy drinkers or those who spend their spare time climbing mountains expressing concern about some unbelievably small 'risk'
Kind Regards, John
LOLIt always amuses me when I hear smokers, heavy drinkers or those who spend their spare time climbing mountains expressing concern about some unbelievably small 'risk'
They are probably conspiracy theorists anyway John.
And you no doubt know how they tend to do things ! (no not all of them but a damn lot of them reach the most absurd of conclusions and state them as "Fact!") others follow.
A shame really because if they do raise a valid thought then other folk tend to disbelieve because of past mistakes, cry wolf syndrome plays against them and increases the risk we do not heed a genuine concern.
They bring it on themselves.
A good saying I`ve seen on here is "Just Because you are Paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you"
And you no doubt know how they tend to do things ! (no not all of them but a damn lot of them reach the most absurd of conclusions and state them as "Fact!") others follow.
A shame really because if they do raise a valid thought then other folk tend to disbelieve because of past mistakes, cry wolf syndrome plays against them and increases the risk we do not heed a genuine concern.
They bring it on themselves.
A good saying I`ve seen on here is "Just Because you are Paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you"
This 'keeping things in perspective' issue is often exacerbated when people talk about 'percentage changes' (or 'doubling'/'halving' etc.) of incredibly small risks.
We've seen that a number of times in relation too 'Pill scares', which have resulted in anxiety in countless woman and an awful lot of hassle for those who give them medical advice (and similarly with 'vaccine scares')... to say that research has just been published that indicates that the risk of death due to some cause is "doubled" in those taking a certain pill (or having a certain vaccination) sounds dramatic, and an obvious cause for 'anxiety' etc. However, when they go on to read and discover that the risk has "doubled" from '1 in 4 million' to '1 in 2 million', they may come to put the information 'into perspective' ... and all that, of course, before they even start thinking about the balancing 'benefits' of taking the Pill or having the vaccination (the other side of the 'risk-benefit' exercise)
Decades ago, I saw a dramatic and rather sad demonstration of that ...
The police came across an extremely disturbed, distressed and irrational lady (who lived in a very dodgy part of town) running around the streets screaming and pleading for help. She was apparently saying that all her neighbours were trying to kill her and destroy her house, set dogs on her and goodness knows what else. They took her to hospital where she was 'sectioned' with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.
A good while later, when she was deemed to have nearly recovered enough as a result of treatment (of her alleged schizophrenia) for her to go home, so a social worker was sent to her home to 'assess it' fir suitability for her to return to it. On attempting to enter the house, the social worker was confronted by aggressive neighbours, who threatened her with their dogs. What windows were not smashed were covered in graffiti etc. and a strong smell of petrol was coming through the letterbox! The police were again called, but this time for a different reason - and I think it was decided that the woman no longer needed any treatment for her 'schizophrenia'!!
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,850
- Reaction score
- 3,513
- Country
Obviously there are differing degrees of accessible.
In free air with no obstacles: eg Junction box with nothing covering it.
In free air with portable obstacles obstructing: eg junction box concealed by unfitted furniture.
In free air with fixed obstacles obstructing: eg junction box concealed by fitted furniture, flooring, plasterboard, and such-like.
Underground, with fixed obstacles obstructing: eg buried in soil, aggregate or concrete.
They are all accessible, but some need demolition in order to gain access.
I think most spark's definition of accessible is that which can be done without the need for making good.
Edited.
In free air with no obstacles: eg Junction box with nothing covering it.
In free air with portable obstacles obstructing: eg junction box concealed by unfitted furniture.
In free air with fixed obstacles obstructing: eg junction box concealed by fitted furniture, flooring, plasterboard, and such-like.
Underground, with fixed obstacles obstructing: eg buried in soil, aggregate or concrete.
They are all accessible, but some need demolition in order to gain access.
I think most spark's definition of accessible is that which can be done without the need for making good.
Edited.
Last edited:
As you say, "obviously" - but the point is that (in the absence of definitions) opinions will vary as to what would be regarded as accessible.
I suggested that a reasonable test would be whether or not an (e.g. EICR) inspector would bother to achieve the access. As an alternative, you now suggest ...
... which doesn't sound unreasonable, but you would need to decide what counted as "making good". It's straightforward enough if one has had to do 'destructive' things to gain access but what, for example would you say about lifting (and then replacing) floor coverings and then undoing (and then replacing) screws in an access panel - would you count that as 'making good'?
Nobody has (that I've noticed in this long thread), the main issue - which is how might anyone even find a JB, which was in an accessible place, though hidden from obvious view? Finding one, under a floor, and a carpet, would be much, much more difficult. So in my opinion, a JB should not only be accessible, but located where it could be easily found.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
