socket and light switch heights

Hi again, another question:

My builder is telling me that building regs now states that socket and switch heights should be greater than 450mm and less than 1200mm from the finished floor level.

Is this true? the switches look so low!

Laurie

Reply to
Laurie
Loading thread data ...

Yes.

formatting link
the details .andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

The reason is to make them easy to reach from a wheelchair.

-- snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

Reply to
Peter Crosland

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:50:56 +0100:

The requirements aren't there for the owners of the house; they are designed to allow people in wheelchairs and the infirm to be more able to visit people in their own homes.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

stricrtly regulations comr into force whenever any 'material alterations' are done. This does include the above.

In practice, if the building inspector doesn't know, ts no big deal.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

LOL. I'd never heard about this and my immediate thought was yes, it's the PC brigade gone mad again; but then I thought - with regard to light switches at least, what's wrong with positioning them at 1m height? 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?

David

Reply to
David

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, The Natural Philosopher wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:56:08 +0100:

No it doesn't. The limits on application to Part M of Schedule 1 state "The requirements of this Part do not apply to - (a) a material alteration; (b) an extension to a dwelling, or any other extension which does not include a ground storey"

formatting link

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

I'm not quite sure what business a visitor would have with my sockets? And if I had a disabled guest, the light and socket positions would be the least of their problems - the guest bedroom is on the first floor, and the bathroom on a half landing.

Reply to
Dave Plowman

And I bet your bathroom door is the incorrect size and you probably have a step to your front door not a slope.

Adam

Reply to
ARWadsworth

The door would be ok - they're double - but yes, three steps and a threshold bar, then a step down.

Reply to
Dave Plowman

Well, one thing that springs to mind is that it stops children, possibly with wet hands, playing with them.

Reply to
parish

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......

Andrew

formatting link

Reply to
Andrew McKay

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 has today.

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.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

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?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I stand corrected.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

"parish" wrote | 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.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

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 ;)

Andrew

formatting link

Reply to
Andrew McKay

And if you have an erection, you can always press a lower switch.

This could go on forever..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

"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.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

Yes Part M, for disabled access. Ground floor doors also have to be wider and front access without steps.

Reply to
IMM

HomeOwnersHub website 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.