Code Compliant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
If I might be so bold, the reason it was allowed is either because the inspector is blind or there is nothing dangerous about it.

Sam, it really should have nothing to do with the danger factor. If it is not dangerous (and I am not saying it is) then the codes or rules should be changed. Until such time as the rules are changed the rules should be enforced.

The OP lost his chance to do this work because he priced it, and proposed doing it in a code compliant way. Instead the job went to a guy that violated at least 110.26. That is unfair and the local inspection dept should not allow that to happen.


Now we can let the lashings begin.

Statements like that make me want to ignore your posts, it makes you sound already set in your ways and not willing to look at things with an open mind.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Statements like that make me want to ignore your posts, it makes you sound already set in your ways and not willing to look at things with an open mind.

And statements like that make think that you are the taskmaster dishing out the first lashes:smile:

I think he is spot on ,..either blind or taking too many liberties with the authority he thinks he has ..it happens all the time,.. it should not but it does ..
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
And statements like that make think that you are the taskmaster dishing out the first lashes:smile:

I think he is spot on ,..either blind or taking too many liberties with the authority he thinks he has ..it happens all the time,.. it should not but it does ..

I am not following you, I was not talking about the inspector at all. It was a general statement about Sam's continuing statements in many threads that seem to say that only the codes that are truly needed should be followed.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
I am not following you, I was not talking about the inspector at all..

But he is ,.. he recognized the 110 violation ,. and gave an opinion as to why it was allowed by the enforcement official .


It was a general statement about Sam's continuing statements in many threads that seem to say that only the codes that are truly needed should be followed

It is a shame that there is more and more code written that is perceived as not truly needed.. this issue with rules becoming silly and enforcement becoming whimsical is getting worse and worse .. it undermines the whole industry from electricians to enforcement officials..

As I am unfamiliar with Sam's other statements I can only say that I did not get the same impression as you did from the statements I remember from this thread,.. perhaps I missed them
 
Last edited:

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
M. D. I think we are just focusing on different aspects of the same posts. Your beef seems to be with inspectors that are not all they should be. (I am not saying your wrong. :smile:) My beef is with ECs (and not just Sam :smile:) that appear to feel that some rules are silly and should be ignored at will. That said, maybe I have misunderstood Sam.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
. . . It is a shame that there is more and more code written that is perceived as not truly needed. . .
Take a look at the ROP and ROC for the history of some of the code rules. Except for some of the ones that the strong arm of the manufacturers or the perceived safety of some change, the rules are all there for a solid reason. It is only with the proper substantiation that these rules get into the code.

When I look at a proposal, my first thought is "how can I reject this proposal? If I find no reason to reject, then I have to accept the proposal. The other panel members are doing the same thing. After a panel has accepted or rejected a proposal, the results are published in the ROP along with the panel statement if it was reported as reject. This same process is repeated in the comment stage and printed in the ROC.

It seems to me that you (all of you, not just M.D., even though it is his post I picked on) need to get involved in the code making process and help stop these changes that are "not truly needed". :smile:
 

physis

Senior Member
Sam, it really should have nothing to do with the danger factor. If it is not dangerous (and I am not saying it is) then the codes or rules should be changed. Until such time as the rules are changed the rules should be enforced.

The OP lost his chance to do this work because he priced it, and proposed doing it in a code compliant way. Instead the job went to a guy that violated at least 110.26. That is unfair and the local inspection dept should not allow that to happen.

I can't argue with that, your logic is pretty much impecable. As it usually is.



Statements like that make me want to ignore your posts, it makes you sound already set in your ways and not willing to look at things with an open mind.

Well, Bob, I do beleive the code has to be followed, despite any of my particularly feelings about something. But I do not beleive that the code is perfect, in fact, it seems to have a stuborn tendency to remain imperfect. And I don't beleive it avails itself to change anywhere near as easily as it perhaps should. And I know it's not as easy as accepting every proposal.
 

physis

Senior Member
My beef is with ECs (and not just Sam :smile:) that appear to feel that some rules are silly and should be ignored at will. That said, maybe I have misunderstood Sam.

I just found this.

Wow Bob. My finding some "rules" to be silly, has never once caused me to ignore them. The last thing I want is a failed inspection or an incorrect installation. I just think that after enduring some things that at least I consider to be nonsense I have earned the right to gripe a little.

I know how much you love the code. And honestly, I do too. But you were talking about keeping an open mind, if "you" were, then you'd understand that it's not all that hard to have a couple of problems with the thing.
 

physis

Senior Member
It was a general statement about Sam's continuing statements in many threads that seem to say that only the codes that are truly needed should be followed.

I have never once said any such thing. If you have actually read my posts Bob then you'd know that I really don't have any tolerance for non-code-compliance, only an understading that it's sometimes goofy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top