| David wrote:
| > It's just that we're conditioned to light switches being at
| > shoulder height, for no good reason that I can see (cue for somebody
| > to post a good reason!). So why not?
| Well, one thing that springs to mind is that it stops children, possibly
| with wet hands, playing with them.
And if you've got both hands full a shoulder height switch is easier to
press with your nose.
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote
| Owain wrote:
| > And if you've got both hands full a shoulder height switch
| > is easier to press with your nose.
| And if you have an erection, you can always press a lower switch.
But some people would need a lower switch than others ... Now the height of
my light switches would not be a source of embarrassment to me, but it might
be to some.
Can you imagine looking round houses to buy, and the missus turning round to
you in front of the sellers and saying "Now then Mr P., you'll have to get
your black and decker out and move all these light switches." -- "'Appen
you're right, Mrs P., I don't think it's worth the bother, we'll just go
back to the estate agents and tell them we want a house with light switches
positioned for the smaller man."
| This could go on forever..
Then it'd turn blue and drop off.
On 23 Aug 2003 08:09:52 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (David)
You enter a dark room and are forced to find the light switch by hand.
Your starter for 10 is that the switch will be just inside the doorway
on the wall opposite the door hinges.
Dang, where's that light switch......
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:39:53 +0100, Hugo Nebula <Send-My-Spam-To:
Except that it's going to take an extremely long time before a large
proportion of houses have wiring accessories fitted in this way.
I have a pretty fair appreciation for the needs of people with limited
mobility - my father is disabled - however this requirement does very
little to help, even when it has been more widely implemented than it
It would be far better to invest in providing better forms of
wheelchairs and other forms of assistance for the people involved.
The problem is that this costs money which is typically derived from
local or central government coffers.
It is far easier to push requirements like altered wiring accessory
heights on the community at large and then to be able to claim that
things are being done for those with special needs.
It's political correctness in its worst form.
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
This is balls! There is no extra cost in locating light fittings and
sockets at heights that are suitable for all, even disabled. Wider ground
floor doors are brilliant for all and little, if any at all, extra cost.
When the industry is geared up to it, not extra whatsoever.
All major kitchen applinaces should be on a switch central box, at
wheelchair height, instead of those stupid fused spur switches all around
the worktops. MEM do a v good one.
I don't want any more taxes thank you. We pay enough keeping the parasites
(monarchy, large land owners, Oxbridge, etc, etc) in clover. The snotty uni
fella and now this one want to tax the hell out of us all. Have one tax
Land Value Tax (LVT) and be done with it.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003
Once again you have missed the point.
I didn't say that there was a cost argument either way in having
wiring accessories at different heights, or, since you mention it
making doors wider.
My objection to this is that once again it is window dressing and
humbug - the government trying to pretend that by legislating
something like this, that it is really doing something important for
people with special needs.
Almost everybody that I know who has limited mobility (and I know
quite a few) is totally unimpressed with this kind of nonsense.
Yes, they do appreciate good access in public buildings but do not
expect or want the rest of the community to alter what it has to
accommodate them. They would much rather benefit from some of the
new mobility technology that makes it possible to participate as
closely as possible as anybody else and without feeling that things in
general have had to be changed to suit them.
This approach costs money, of course, and is not particularly sexy and
high profile. It's far easier for governments to legislate something
than to provide funds to do the job properly.
Then you're supporting the wrong players.
The parasites are the multiple levels of non-productive management in
the public services and specifically in socialised medicine.
Funnily enough we were discussing this last night with me mates old dad,
and he DOES find high sockets useful - he can hobble around on severely
arthritic knees etc, but bending is a tad hard.
As far as switches go, again its no big deal to put em lower down where
kids can reach them..
But the high electrical sockets do have a downside - cables no longer
lie along the floor. This may constitute a hazard in its own right.
Philosophically, I am concerned at the amount of money being spent on
generalised rules - things like this, speed humps, speed cameras - when
rough bacl of teh envelope calculations suggest that if the hidden costs
of all this normalisation of society to a 'one size fits all' were taken
into account, it would become pretty obvious that its cheaper to give
every elderly or disabled person a re-wire grant. And pay a few
policemen to catch flagrant dangerous drivers, rather than providing
jobs for magistrates courts, a steady income for the manufacturers od
GATSOS and replacement tryes, shock abosrbers and car exhausts.
The phrase 'being strangled by legislation' has been arournd a long time
as the cry of the sof tory business voter and frankly I had always heard
it as 'wolf'...but now, as an ordinary citizen, it is beginning to make
a terrifying sort of sense.
When compliance with regulations and achievement of arbitrary targets
becomes the raison d'etre of huge swathes of management in schools,
hospitals and every area of public life, rather than the achievement of
good medical care, education, or whatever the departments function is,
we are already in trouble.
When the way the average citizen is treated is more or less tantamount
to implying that they cannot, without enforcement of strict legislation,
be trusted to use their judgement in anything - EXCEPT OF COURSE VOTING
IN TEFLON TONE - one stumbles on a deeply cynical double standard that
seems to be at the heart of everything the current government does.
If you trust your electorate so little, what does that imply about the
government they have elected?
I deliberately put my garage sockets high on the basis that when
working in the garage I don't want to bend down to plug and unplug
power tools. I'd rather have the socket at eye height so that once
I've finished drilling or cutting I can get straight to the socket to
take the power off the device.
Not that I've seen that many garages equipped with sockets at the
normal level of a house of course ;)
A form of local income tax would have been better.
My mother was the definitive person who should have benefitted from the
poll tax versus rates. An elderly widow of small income living on her own
in the house she'd owned for a lifetime. But the practice was she paid
*more* when it was introduced than she did in rates, which had a
sophisticated rebate system.
This actually changed her from a lifetime Tory - she saw the poll tax for
what it was, a way of reducing taxation on wealthy property owners and
shifting it to the less well off and indeed downright poor.
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?
Dave Plowman email@example.com London SW 12
Not this time.
But what happens if you rewire a house that was built after the disabled
regs were introduced? You can rewire a 1980's house with sockets and
lightswitches at any height you like as there are no building regs
applicable to their height when they were built. If you buy a house that was
built today and rewire it can you put the switches and sockets where you
You are. I thought so to, and had to move the ***ing lot after the
Wheelchair access applies to one entrance on one storey and to get to
Electrical regs apply throughout. Presumably even in the loft. :-)
There have been "definitive" answers both ways now - so which is it?
I have a house built in 1950. I am re-wiring it. Can I put the
switches and sockets where I like, or do they have to be at the
heights suggested in the latest wiring and building regs?
My preference is to stick with the existing heights, which are
probably a bit too low for sockets and a bit too high for switches,
according to the regulations.
And another question: let's say (for argument's sake) that I've
already started re-wiring, and the new sockets (intentionally) don't
match the height regulations. What happens?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.