Door blocks Light Switch

[Bruce Ramsey]

Working a draw inspection contract for a lender. They lender money to flippers. House is a 1960s brick ranch getting some lipstick.

GC ordered and recieved the correct interior doors for the house. Accidently switched two doors during install. When you open the bedroom door, it covers up the overhead light switch. Seems I remember that you aren't allowed to block switches.

Am I making up my own rules or is there something in NEC or IRC that says you can't do that?

[Rick Cantrell]

It's stupid, but not addressed in the code.

[Dan Harris]

Working a draw inspection contract for a lender. They lender money to flippers. House is a 1960s brick ranch getting some lipstick.

GC ordered and recieved the correct interior doors for the house. Accidently switched two doors during install. When you open the bedroom door, it covers up the overhead light switch. Seems I remember that you aren't allowed to block switches.

Am I making up my own rules or is there something in NEC or IRC that says you can't do that?


Arizona does adress this in the AZ workmanship standards.
Does the builders association address this in their standards ?

[Jim Port]

Not an NEC issue. In fact the switch does not even have to be in the room according to the NEC. You could have just about all the switches in the house in one location and meet the NEC. The one exception would be a switch for an attic light that needs to be near the entrance to the attic.

[Michael Garrity]

If you check your R code book you will find your answer.At least one wall switch in every habitable room and bathroom.Also look for the words"customary wall switch location"

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Working a draw inspection contract for a lender. They lender money to flippers. House is a 1960s brick ranch getting some lipstick.

GC ordered and recieved the correct interior doors for the house. Accidently switched two doors during install. When you open the bedroom door, it covers up the overhead light switch. Seems I remember that you aren't allowed to block switches.

Am I making up my own rules or is there something in NEC or IRC that says you can't do that?

BR: No, you aren't making up your own rules; and Yes, (its a three part construction not just a single citation...) its in the NEC; see below for citations and quotes from 2005 NEC.


It's stupid, but not addressed in the code.

RC: I disagree, IMO it IS addressed, in the readily accessible requirement for the switch location, which is required to be IN the habital (Bed)room and controlling the required lighting outlet. If entry to the room (necessary to open at least partially the existing door) creates an obstruction to the required readily accessible place of the switch, and the door blank orientation must be removed from the location of access to the switch in order to access the switch; then: that switch LOCATION would NOT be a readily accessible place.


Not an NEC issue. In fact the switch does not even have to be in the room according to the NEC. You could have just about all the switches in the house in one location and meet the NEC. The one exception would be a switch for an attic light that needs to be near the entrance to the attic.

JP: I believe that the NEC DOES cover this issue! The ROOM is a BEDROOM, NOT a hallway, stairway, or outdoor entrance which is the ONLY exception to a switch or switch override location via automation. The NEC Clearly REQUIRES the Switch for the lighting outlet be IN the Bedroom, which IS habital space.


BR (and others) here goes (I'm using 2005 NEC because that's what was handy):

First, we look at the requirements to having lighting outlets for bedrooms, and how they can be accomplished {note that 270.70(A)(1) REQUIRES the wall switch be IN the BEDROOM, despite Jim Ports claim otherwise}:


210 Branch Circuits,
Part III Required Outlets,




210.70 Lighting Outlets Required. Lighting outlets shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), and (C).
(A) Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
(1) Habital Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled ligting outlet shall be installed in every habital room and bathroom.


Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.
Exception No. 2: Lighting outlets shall be permitted to be controlled by occupancy sensors that are (1) in addition to wall switches or (2) located at a customary wall switch location and equipped with a manual override that will allow the sensor to function as a wall switch.
(2) Additional Locations. Additional lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with (A)(2)(a), (A)(2)(b), and (A)(2)(c).
(a) At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in hallways, stairways, attached garages, and detached garages with electric power.

(b) For dwelling units, attached garages, and detached garabes with electric power, at least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed to provide illuminiation on the exterior side of outdoor entrances or exits with grade level access. A vehicle door in a garage shall not be considered as an outdoor entrance or exit.
(c) Where one or more lighting outlet(s) are installed for interior stairways, there shall be a wall switch at each floor level, and landing level that includes an entryway, to control the lighting outlet(s) where the stairway between floor levels has six risers or more.
Exception to (A)(2)(a), (A)(2)(b), and (A)(2)(c): In hallways, stairways, and at outdoor entrances, remote, central, or automatic control of lighting shall be permitted. (3) Storage or Equipment Spaces. For attics, underfloor spaces, utility rooms, and basements, at least one lighting outlet containing a switch or controlled by a wall switch shall be installed where these spaces are used for storage or contain equipment requiring servicing. At least one point of control shall be at the usual point of entry to these spaces. The lighting outlet shall be provided at or near the equipment requiring servicing.




Next we backtrack to Article 100, Definitions, Part I, General at:


Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable laders, and so forth.

With this definition in mind we can better understand the phrase "readily accessible place" as it appears in 404.8(A) which I will quote later below.

Having to swing a door closed in order to access is IMHO requiring the removal from the place of the switch access, i.e. relocation/movement of the obstacle, (the door blank) which by one's entrance to the room and the purpose for the required switch location, is obstructed by the door blank, and requires removal/movement of the obstical, by operation of the hinge (to close or partially close the door, in the dark, for the purpose of accessing and operating the switch to the required lighting outlet.

Next, we address the requirement of ready access to the place of the switch from Article 404, Switches (in case there is doubt, included the Scope as well):




404.1 Scope. The provisions of this article shall apply to all switches, switching devices, and circuit breakers where used as switches.



404.8 Accessibility and Grouping
(A) Location. All switches and circuit breakers used as switches shall be located so that they may be operated from a readily accessible place. They shall be installed such that the center of the grip of the operating handle of the switch or circuit breaker, when in its highest position, is no mroe than 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) above the floor or working platform.

Exception No. 1: On busway installations, fused switches and circuit breakers shall be permitted to be located at the same level as the busway. Suitable means shall be provided to operate the handle of the device from the floor.

Exception No. 2: Switches and circuit breakers installed adjacent to motors, appliances, or other equipment that they supply shall be permitted to be located higher than 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) and to be accessible by portable means.
Exception No. 3: Hookstick operable isolating switches shall be permitted at greater heights.


Thus, the wall switch location, as you described it, for the required lighting outlet (or substitute switch controlled receptacle/s) in the room, is not readily accessible, or in a location which provides ready access upon entry to the room in question via the door; as required by the article(s) section(s) referenced above.

[A.D. Miller]

HG: Good call.

[Rick Cantrell]

H.G.
I must say. That is the best rebuttal I can remember you posting. You did not put down, or demean anyone. It was well thought out, with a clear direction of what you wanted the reader to understand.
Good job.

[brian schmitt]

hg,
would you approve a clapper?:D

[A.D. Miller]

hg,
would you approve a clapper?:D


Exception No. 2: Lighting outlets shall be permitted to be controlled by occupancy sensors that are (1) in addition to wall switches or (2) located at a customary wall switch location and equipped with a manual override that will allow the sensor to function as a wall switch.

[Wayne Carlisle]

HG: Good call.


H.G.
I must say. That is the best rebuttal I can remember you posting. You did not put down, or demean anyone. It was well thought out, with a clear direction of what you wanted the reader to understand.
Good job.

I agree it was well thought out, however.....I don't agree with you. You don't have to "remove" the door to access the switch. I believe this section means that you can't have the switch in an area that requires you to climb over anything, you don't have to remove an obstacles, you may need to close the door a little but you're not removing it. It's still there! or to resort to portable laders, and so forth.

Not addressed in the code IMO.

[A.D. Miller]

I agree it was well thought out, however.....I don't agree with you. You don't have to "remove" the door to access the switch. I believe this section means that you can't have the switch in an area that requires you to climb over anything, you don't have to remove an obstacles, you may need to close the door a little but you're not removing it. It's still there! or to resort to portable laders, and so forth.

Not addressed in the code IMO.

WC: Only a building official would argue against a common sense interpretation of the code. Any idiot who installs a switch behind a door is no worse than one who approves that sort of hair-brained installation. Present company excepted - of course . . .:D

[dana1028]

Wow!! Whew!!

May I give you a real life perspective on this, from an electrical inspector's view...i.e. what authority I have to actually enforce the electrical code.

1. readily accessible - whew! Having to close a door makes this not readily accessible?? No way - having to close a door when entering a room to access a switch does not violate the electrical code ... period.

2. Requiring the light switch to be inside the 'habitable room'....sorry, have some bad news folks.

Per NEC 210.70(A)(1) - Habitable Rooms - 'at least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room...'

The 'lighting outlet' must be in the room....not the switch.... a switch is not an 'outlet' as defined by the NEC.

Outlet - 'a point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utlization equipment.' - a switch does not utilize current [a light bulb does]...the 'outlet' is where current is utilized.

So - believe it or not, the switch really can be outside the room; sometimes this is a better location than inside the room; depending on how the room is layed out, where built in cabinets are placed, door swing, etc....it just might be more convenient for the occupant to have the switch just outside the door rather than inside the room behind the door.

I know you all have your opinions, but my opinions must be supported by the code - when I have questions about code application I look at the ROPs, ask members of the code making panels to the NEC, or other experts in that field.

Have you had an inspector make you do something 'because he thinks so' or 'I like it this way', 'this is how we do it in Dodge', of course you have; that doesn't make it right. Push come to shove, when a contractor complains up through the chain of command, up to the Board of Appeals if necessary these types of 'corrections' or 'cowboy calls' are not enforcable.

[A.D. Miller]

Push come to shove, when a contractor complains up through the chain of command, up to the Board of Appeals if necessary these types of 'corrections' or 'cowboy calls' are not enforcable.

HG presented the argument eloquently, but that sort of reasoning never seems to stop AHJs or their lackeys from carrying on as if their anachronistic asses were on fire. :eek:

Being on the Building and Fire Codes Board of the tenth largest city in Texas, I would have to take exception with your last statement. If this one comes across my desk, the switch will be moved. Additionally, the inspector who green-tagged the installation will get a rather pointed note from me that will be CC'd to the AHJ and the city council.

[Wayne Carlisle]

It's all in the interpretation! And guess what? A HI's interpretation don't count! A HI can only give an opinion.

Is it stupid to put a switch behind a door? Yes! Is it against code? No!

[Michael Garrity]

So what does "customary wall switch location" mean.I believe in most places the custom would be to place the switch inside as you enter the room.

[A.D. Miller]

It's all in the interpretation! And guess what? A HI's interpretation don't count! A HI can only give an opinion.

Is it stupid to put a switch behind a door? Yes! Is it against code? No!

WC: Either English is not your first language or you simply inherited the AHJ (Anti Heuristic Judgment) gene. And, stupid is as stupid does, either installing or approving.

As for the inability of an HI to render an interpretation, on the street, maybe you are right. That is, until you meet up with a competent one on the other side of the court room from you.:D

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The phrase "remove obstacles" is actually saying exactly that.

"obstacles" is the example object in plural.

"remove" can be found in the dictionary, you will not find it defined in the NEC.

remove means to position again or move again.

I invite you to peruse your dictionary, take notice of the use of the verb remove with an object,

The prefix "re" when used with a verb

And the verb "move" when used with an object ("to move").

The object requiring re-positioning or adjusting its position or placement AGAIN is the obstacle, in this case the door blank. Just because it remains attached to the door frame via the hinge does not mean it has not had to be removed from the area required for the "readily accessible place".

There is more than one definition for access, readily in the NEC, key is knowing WHICH one applies to WHICH use of the phrase. Application and construction, as per the style manual, etc.

Furthermore, one can review prior editions of the code, in addition to the ROP discussions to "devine" the history, intent, and application. One needs also to keep in mind the introduction of the code itself, its purpose and scope. The intent is to increase minimum safety not reduce. The safety is not just in how the equipment is installed and maintaining the safety of the equipment and the structure it is in, but safety in its approach, use and operation by persons.

The days of wandering through a vast dark room waving ones arms in the air feeling for a pull string (without a special knowledge of the floor plan of the items contained there-in and special knowledge of just where and how high or low that pull chain/string would be encountered, falling down stairs in the dark before a switch is encountered are supposed to be in the past.

The phrase was "switch controlled lightiing outlet" and that field assembled and installed object system - must be IN the (bed) ROOM, A portion - the "lighting outlet" may be substituted for switch controlled receptacle, which also must be IN the ROOM. Both the "switch controll" and the "Lighting Outlet" are required to be in the room. There is nothing which prohibits an alternate controll (as long as there is an override IN the room) or switch (such as a 3-way or 4-way switch loop) to be in the room or outside the room but there must be one IN the HABITAL room.

Occupied, but not habital spaces have their own rule construction regarding required SWITCH(es) location(s), should there be one (or two, etc.), ex. storage spaces, closets, hallways, entrances, stairways, etc. and bathrooms.

We can approach it from another direction regarding a room with more than one entryway requiring more than one switch to control a required lighting outlet, or more than one switch controlled lighting outlets (if the multiple switch locations do not share the same lighting outlet).

Door openings and door swing directions are noted on electrical plans. The OP indicates the plans were correct and the contractor inadvertantly swapped a LH door with a RH door, both doors indicated in the supply list and plans, but installed in the wrong door openings.

Door swing, path of travel, egress paths, these are all reviewed during the plan review/permitting process. The door is in violation - and a deviation from plans. Natural light would not necessarily be available for example in the middle of a dark, cloudy, and moonless night.

We can also approach it from yet another direction; would a receptacle be required along the wall space which is obstructed by the door blank when the door is fully open, and why or why not?

[Wayne Carlisle]

As for the inability of an HI to render an interpretation, on the street, maybe you are right. That is, until you meet up with a competent one on the other side of the court room from you.:D

I know several who think they are competent..........:rolleyes:

Yes sir....I allowed that switch to be installed behind the door! Well it's not actually behind the door if you are on the inside and the door is closed! :p

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I know several who think they are competent..........:rolleyes:

Yes sir....I allowed that switch to be installed behind the door! Well it's not actually behind the door if you are on the inside and the door is closed! :p

Flies in the face of the logic that is behind the code provisions in the first place.

The primary function of the "switch controlled lighting outlet" requirement in the first place is to assist one's (especially one who does not have special knowledge as to everything's placement within the room [or area] and its overall floor plan & contents) entrance into the room (or area) safely, when no natural light is available, and to safely navigate one's path of travel within the area.

[A.D. Miller]

[quote=Wayne Carlisle;124684]I know several who think they are competent..........:rolleyes:

WC: I can introduce you to a couple of AHJs here in my area who have been successfully sued based solely upon a home inspector's interpretations of their nasty selective code enforcement tactics. You could always move up here to Nosebleed North Texas and try your luck . . .:D

Or, perhaps you would rather remain ensconced in the part of the State where it is more than rumored that at least 70% of the new homes have not even been inspected by the AHJs responsible for them in the past few years.

[ken horak]

Based on the ORIGINAL post ...
The electrician did not screw up, the Carpenter did. Make him put the correct doors in the correct locations.

[Jerry Peck]

H.G.,

Good post and good use of the NEC, albeit an incorrect post and incorrect use of the NEC.

To wit: (I've changed the highlighting)
- 210.70 Lighting Outlets Required. Lighting outlets shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), and (C).
- - (A) Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
- - - (1) Habital Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled ligting outlet shall be installed in every habital room and bathroom.

The above only requires the lighting OUTLET to be located IN every habitable room and bathroom. That section does not address the SWITCH location at all - it only states that the OUTLET must be SWITCHED ... wherever the switch may be located.

Next we have:
- Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

If applying that to doors, which swing "out of the way", and calling them "obstacles", then, but that application, no ... yes, NO ... panel would be allowed to have a door as that door would be an "obstacle" the "readily accessible place" where the overcurrent devices are located.

That section simply does not fly, or, should I say, it flies in the face of over 110 years of NEC application, interpretation, and use.

Finally we have:
- 404.8 Accessibility and Grouping
- - (A) Location. All switches and circuit breakers used as switches shall be located so that they may be operated from a readily accessible place. They shall be installed such that the center of the grip of the operating handle of the switch or circuit breaker, when in its highest position, is no more than 2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) above the floor or working platform.

The switch itself does not have to be "readily accessible", just the location of the switch must be "readily accessible", and that space is "readily accessible", otherwise no door would be allowed to be installed anywhere as one would not be able to be required to open a door to turn a light on or off. Thus, if a bedroom light, as in this example, were left on and the door closed, then the door ... er ... "obstacle" would need to be "removed" before the switch could be accessed.

Nope, there is nothing in the NEC which requires a switch to be in the same room as the switched lighting OUTLET.

And, yes, the above is from someone who would like to have the code specify that a switch should be located within the same room as the wall- switch controlled lighting outlet, but, alas, it does not.

[A.D. Miller]

JP: That is mere nonsense. Well written, but nonsense nevertheless. The "door" on an electrical panel, as you refer to it, is an integral part of the panel as it was tested for its listing and labeling. The door in the wall is not a part of the electrical panel, but rather in this case, it is an obstacle, installed by a skilled carpenter just to confuse an electrician (something nearly anyone can do with no practice) and provide us with fodder for the current discussion.:D

As for your ultimate statement regarding location, location, location - more blather, I fear. How was it? Only the switch's location and not the switch itself must be readily accessible? If this is some Flahidian's backhanded attempt at holding forth on quantum physics (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_print), it is not working . . . Look at it from this perspective: You demand access to your money, right? Maybe even ready access? Not to worry. Send it to me. After all, it is not its location that is important, but just its location's access. And, I am always readily accessible. Email me for a bank account number and we'll begin the transfer of funds . . .

I'll play along for a moment, though. Since you were obviously thinking with the wrong head, it is not your logic that is faulty, just the location from whence it came.:rolleyes:

http://firasd.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cunningplan.gif

[Wayne Carlisle]

WC: I can introduce you to a couple of AHJs here in my area who have been successfully sued based solely upon a home inspector's interpretations of their nasty selective code enforcement tactics. You could always move up here to Nosebleed North Texas and try your luck . . .:D

Or, perhaps you would rather remain ensconced in the part of the State where it is more than rumored that at least 70% of the new homes have not even been inspected by the AHJs responsible for them in the past few years.

I can agree with your comment where AHJ's have been successfully sued for their nasty selective code enforcement and they should be.

However as long as you apply all of your policies and interpretations uniformly to contractors, that is not being selective.

And as far as it's rumored that at least 70% of the new homes have not even been inspected by the AHJs responsible for them in the past few years. I've never heard that one before! That's quite a large number. Is this your rumor?

[brian schmitt]

Working a draw inspection contract for a lender. They lender money to flippers. House is a 1960s brick ranch getting some lipstick.

GC ordered and recieved the correct interior doors for the house. Accidently switched two doors during install. When you open the bedroom door, it covers up the overhead light switch. Seems I remember that you aren't allowed to block switches.

Am I making up my own rules or is there something in NEC or IRC that says you can't do that?
i have no problem with that arrangement. for those who feel otherwise for anal reasons simply remove the door and let the owner put it back on the hinges later,or change the swing and patch the jamb!:D

[Michael Garrity]

It's only anal if you think it is OK to have a light switch behind a door or any other obstacle regardless of your interpretation of the code.If you think other wise you should be flipping burgers.

[A.D. Miller]

I can agree with your comment where AHJ's have been successfully sued for their nasty selective code enforcement and they should be.

However as long as you apply all of your policies and interpretations uniformly to contractors, that is not being selective.

And as far as it's rumored that at least 70% of the new homes have not even been inspected by the AHJs responsible for them in the past few years. I've never heard that one before! That's quite a large number. Is this your rumor?

WC: It's not from me and is apparently not a rumor . . .

[Bruce Ramsey]

While at the last inspection, I mentioned to the carpenter the doors covered the light switches. His response was "it is the same way in my house." I also pointed out he recieved the correct doors, they were just installed in the wrong bedrooms.

Perfomed another draw inspection this morning. The carpenter swapped the doors and the light switches are no longer blocked or inaccessible.

Thanks for all the spirited debate. All it took was to mention the error to the carpenter and investor. Things got better.

[Wayne Carlisle]

Or, perhaps you would rather remain ensconced in the part of the State where it is more than rumored that at least 70% of the new homes have not even been inspected by the AHJs responsible for them in the past few years.

You made it sound like 70% of all the homes constructed in Texas was not inspected. From the article you posted San Antonio didn't make all inspections required. That's a little different than 70% of all homes constructed didn't even get inspected. just a tad bit of difference.

I'll agree there are some corrupted AHJ inspectors out there however I would be willing to bet you a dollar to a donut that there are more good inspectors than bad ones. just like in the HI profession, you've got your good one and your bad ones.

I like to know how many HI's are actually qualified to make code inspections. Not the ones that perform the inspections, but those actually qualified. And I'll include you in those HI's that are qualified.

[Michael Garrity]

From what I've read if I were living in Texas, I would be worried about the inspectors who are qualified and working for my local government.It's easy to get the piece of paper.How you perform your duties,well that's a different matter.

[A.D. Miller]

You made it sound like 70% of all the homes constructed in Texas was not inspected. From the article you posted San Antonio didn't make all inspections required. That's a little different than 70% of all homes constructed didn't even get inspected. just a tad bit of difference.

WC: No, I did not "make it sound like" that. You read what you wanted to read, while I wrote what I wrote. Big difference between those, huh?:D


I'll agree there are some corrupted AHJ inspectors out there however I would be willing to bet you a dollar to a donut that there are more good inspectors than bad ones.

WC: I have no way of confirming those statistics. What I can do is speak from my personal 35 years of experience. I believe the above-board municipal inspectors to be a small minority of the whole.



I like to know how many HI's are actually qualified to make code inspections. Not the ones that perform the inspections, but those actually qualified.


WC: Unfortunately the TREC allows any schmuck who passes their simplistic coloring book exam to inspect whatever they want to. Are they qualified? Not likely. Entry level qualifications to inspect new builds in Texas should be an ICC R-5 ticket and a minimum of 5 years of construction experience. The same is true of municipal inspectors.

[Wayne Carlisle]

From what I've read if I were living in Texas, I would be worried about the inspectors who are qualified and working for my local government.It's easy to get the piece of paper.How you perform your duties,well that's a different matter.

It is a bad situation where the only license an inspector needs is to inspect plumbing. I'm sure there are plenty of inspectors that rely on the tradesmen to do the "right thing". But for the most part most tradesmen are honest and try to do what's right. Yes there are the crappy ones, just like in every state, but hopefully those are the ones who get busted and hammered for shoddy work.

I for one feel like our inspection department does a good job. Do we catch it all? Nope, but we do our very best too. Take this week for instance, I had around 30 inspections, 12 of those inspections were turned down for various violations. In fact it scares me a little when they ask when the "other" inspector is going to be back. Maybe I'm just a little tougher than what they are used too. I'll definitely have a talk with the other inspector when he gets back!

[A.D. Miller]

WC: I empathize with your plight. Budget cuts, political pressure, et al. . . not for me. I'll stick to this side of the equation where I have a bit more control over things and I do not have to be PC. That, for me, would be the death knoll.:D

[Jim Port]

JP: I believe that the NEC DOES cover this issue! The ROOM is a BEDROOM, NOT a hallway, stairway, or outdoor entrance which is the ONLY exception to a switch or switch override location via automation. The NEC Clearly REQUIRES the Switch for the lighting outlet be IN the Bedroom, which IS habital space.


BR (and others) here goes (I'm using 2005 NEC because that's what was handy):

First, we look at the requirements to having lighting outlets for bedrooms, and how they can be accomplished {note that 210.70(A)(1) REQUIRES the wall switch be IN the BEDROOM, despite Jim Ports claim otherwise}:

Nice try but 210.70 deal with the lighting outlet, not a switch. Read Dana's post #13 or Jerrys in post #23. Only the location of the lighting outlet, not the switch is required to be in the room. I will accept your apology.

Reading and understanding are two different things entirely.

I will comment as someone else did that you managed to present your side without your usual derogatory comments. Good job.

[brian schmitt]

It's only anal if you think it is OK to have a light switch behind a door or any other obstacle regardless of your interpretation of the code.If you think other wise you should be flipping burgers.
michael,
would you approve the installation of a jamp switch?:D

[Michael Garrity]

210.70 [1] exception No.2 [2] located at a customary wall switch location -------

Now is it custom to put the wall switch in the same room as the lighting outlet?yes or no?

[Michael Garrity]

jamp switch?

[Jerry McCarthy]

My 1897 NEC mentions nada about lighting switches not being located behind entry doors. Also, did we not have this same discussion about 5 - 6 years ago or was that on another BB?

Contrary to popular belief I did not provide the string for Ben’s kite.

BTW, it was the 1962 NEC that first required new 120 V residential receptacle outlets for general use be both grounded and polarized.

[brian schmitt]

jamp switch?
make that jamb switch! well would ya punk? go ahead make my day!:D (channeling eastwood in dirty harry) no offense intended!

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

210 Branch Circuits,

III Required Outlets,

210.70 Lighting Outlets Required. Lighting outlets shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), and (C).
(A) Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
(1) Habital Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled ligting outletshall be installed in every habital room and bathroom.

Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.
Exception No. 2: Lighting outlets shall be permitted to be controlled by occupancy sensors that are (1) in addition to wall switches or (2) located at a customary wall switch location and equipped with a manual override that will allow the sensor to function as a wall switch.


Lets take a look at that sentance again:

210 Branch Circuits,
Part III Required Outlets,

210.70 Lighting Outlets Required.
(A) Dwelling Units.
(1) Habital Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled ligting outlet shall be installed in every habital room and bathroom.

Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.
Exception No. 2: Lighting outlets shall be permitted to be controlled by occupancy sensors that are (1) in addition to wall switches or (2) located at a customary wall switch location and equipped with a manual override that will allow the sensor to function as a wall switch.




At least one
wall switch-controlled ligting outlet
shall be installed
in every habital room and bathroom

The subject of this requirement is compound.

The subject IS "wall switch-controlled lighting outlet".

The subject object IS to be installed
IN the ROOM.

In our applied case the habital room within the dwelling IS A BEDROOM.

The subject of the requirement is not just the lighting outlet itself. It is the REQUIRED CONTROL for the lighting outlet - the SWITCH control (or OVERRIDE for the OCCUPANCY SENSOR) for the lighting outlet which MUST withOUT exception BE IN THE HABITAL ROOM. The LIGHTING OUTLET is ALLOWED to be substituted for a receptacle outlet within the room which is controlled by the required switch which must STILL BE IN THE ROOM.

Beyond the face of the door along the room side wall when opened or on the latch side, inside wall of the room. Never behind the door.

The builder needs to swap the prehung doors and install them where they were intended and to plan.

[Jim Port]

Try again HG,

This article is about lighting outlets, not switches.

The wall-switch is a modifier of the subject lighting outlet. It defines how the lighting outlet is controlled, ie it cannot be an pull chain switch controlled outlet.

[Jim Port]

210.70 [1] exception No.2 [2] located at a customary wall switch location -------

Now is it custom to put the wall switch in the same room as the lighting outlet?yes or no?


Exception No. 2: Lighting outlets shall be permitted to be controlled by occupancy sensors that are (1) in addition to wall switches or (2) located at a customary wall switch location and equipped with a manual override that will allow the sensor to function as a wall switch.

This only applies if occupancy sensors are used. If the sensors were not located at the entrance to the room it could turn off while you were in the room as it would not see you.

[Jerry McCarthy]

The NEC does not state; above, below, in front of, behind, around the corner, or on the ceiling or floor and never has. In other words, no loction is stipulated within the room, only that it controls a lighting or receptacle outlet!
Time to move on as this subject is now a very dead horse.

[Jerry Peck]

At least one
wall switch-controlled ligting outlet
shall be installed
in every habital room and bathroom

The subject of this requirement is compound.

The subject IS "wall switch-controlled lighting outlet".

The subject object IS to be installed
IN the ROOM.


H.G.,

Try again.

This is what it says and how it reads:
At least one
wall switch-controlled lighting outlet
shall be installed
in every habitable room and bathroom

The subject of this requirement is compound.

The subject IS "lighting outlet", which is further defined as required to be "wall switch-controlled" ... i.e. "wall switch controlled" is simply a descriptive requirement for the "lighting outlet".

The subject object IS to be installed
IN the ROOM.[/quote]

The lighting outlet is to be installed IN the ROOM, yes.

The "wall switch-control" for that lighting outlet is not addressed other than to state that it is required to have that type of control (controlled by a wall switch). The "location" of the "wall switch control" is not addressed at all.

[Michael Garrity]

Exception 2 states that you can use a sensor along with a wall switch.If you want to use the sensor instead of the wall switch then it must have a manual override and be placed where a wall switch would normally be.As in the customary location.Now the customary location for a switch in the northeast is just inside the door,not behind.Now I have never been to every state in the union but I cannot imagine that there is much of a difference from state to state.
Now the NEC does not tell us where exactly to put the switch,but it does say it should conform to local custom.

Time to move on

jamp switch,I knew what you meant.;)

[A.D. Miller]

There seem to be only two or three people contributing to this thread that:

(1) Understand the English language.

(2) Have a shred of common sense.

(3) Know anything at all about building houses that are livable for the occupants.

Those who would argue for the illogical, inconvenient, and possibly unsafe location of light switches behind doors are not counted among these.

Please put your switches where ever you like. I have some suggestions for locations that might be appropriate.:D

[Jerry Peck]

There seem to be only two or three people contributing to this thread that:

(1) Understand the English language.

(2) Have a shred of common sense.

(3) Know anything at all about building houses that are livable for the occupants.

Those who would argue for the illogical, inconvenient, and possibly unsafe location of light switches behind doors are not counted among these.


Likewise there seem to only be two or three people contributing to this thread WHO (not "that"):

(1) Understand the English language ... enough to know that "people" are "who", not "that", and understand the English language enough to see that (3) above is not applicable to the question at hand, to wit:
"Am I making up my own rules or is there something in NEC or IRC that says you can't do that?"

For those who do understand the English language, the question at hand was NOT whether some location does or does not have (as stated in (2) above by Aaron) have or relate to "common sense", but relates to "is there something in the NEC or IRC that says you can't do that?"

For those who understand the English language, the question is, quite obviously, does the NEC or IRC address the LOCATION of the switches which control the LIGHTING OUTLETS IN the rooms, and they also understand the answer to that question is, quite simply, "No, neither the NEC nor the IRC addresses switch LOCATION with regard to within or outside *the room*."

[Michael Garrity]

what does customary location mean?

[Jerry Peck]

what does customary location mean?

To whom?
"Customary location" would, at best, mean "near a point of use", but even that has a problem in that you walk into a bedroom and turn the light on with a switch by the door and lay down in bed, and where is the switch by the bed to turn the light off? In that example, "by the bed" would be "near a point of use", yet that is not required, is it?

How about walking into a laundry room from a garage and turning a light on, then walking through the laundry room into the kitchen and turning the light off ... no 3-way switch is required, but that sure would be a "customary location" for anyone addressing this with Aaron's "common sense" aspect.

Code does not address "common sense", code only addresses "minimum" requirements, and, thus, code is silent on the location as "minimum" requirements simply states that the light be "wall switch-controlled" versus having to go to the light and turn it on with a pull chain hanging from the light in the center of the room (like was done in the old days).

[A.D. Miller]

JP: Dream on, Flahdah.

[Phil Brody]

sweet AD

[Jim Port]

JP: Dream on, Flahdah.

Should be a short book for you to read since switch locations aren't mandated, except for attic lighting and stairways with landings that require switches.

Do you now understand how you were incorrect?

[Ted Menelly]

I write it up if I find it but.............................The light has to be controlled by a switch. It does not say it has to be in the room with the light. As far as the sensor theory........It can be used along with a switch.

No matter what the code says I write it up for common sense convenience and yes it is just simply stupid to have the switch behind the door.The carpenter that installed the doors needs to come back and switch the doors out.

I write switches up behind doors in existing homes. This is just to make folks aware that it is behind the door. I do feel it is an accessibility issue but that issue is just for the first time someone walks in the room to find it. It's just a pain in the ass but no longer an accessibility issue.
AHHHH yup, the switch is behind the door. :confused:

Got that one figured out :rolleyes:

[A.D. Miller]

Should be a short book for you to read since switch locations aren't mandated, except for attic lighting and stairways with landings that require switches.

Do you now understand how you were incorrect?

JP: Being correct supersedes being logical in your world. Thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll remain in mine.

[Michael Garrity]

customary location

customary location

keep repeating these words

customary location

customary location

again

customary location

customary location

[A.D. Miller]

customary location

customary location

keep repeating these words

customary location

customary location

again

customary location

customary location

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - Emerson

[Michael Garrity]

I was just saying the exact same thing to my dog.

[Jerry Peck]

Do you now understand how you were incorrect?


JP: Being correct supersedes being logical in your world.


Jim,

Aaron keeps repeating his 'logical' and 'common sense' mantra and uses that to drown out the the original question of whether of not "code" requires lighting switches in those rooms.

Aaron's droning on is so he does not have to acknowledge that he screwed up and was incorrect. :rolleyes:

[Michael Garrity]

..."The light has to be controlled by a switch. It does not say it has to be in the room with the light. As far as the sensor theory........It can be used along with a switch."


Yes a sensor can be used along with a switch.But if you want to use a sensor instead of a switch it must have a manual over ride and placed in the customary light switch location.
Which is where?
Where is the customary light switch location?
The NEC tells us that the light switch should be in the customary location.
Now in your state where would you normally find a light switch?

[Jerry Peck]

..."The light has to be controlled by a switch. It does not say it has tYes a sensor can be used along with a switch.But if you want to use a sensor instead of a switch it must have a manual over ride and placed in the customary light switch location.
Which is where?
Where is the customary light switch location?
The NEC tells us that the light switch should be in the customary location.
Now in your state where would you normally find a light switch?

We keep telling you ... ANYWHERE ... anywhere the switch is "customarily installed". :)

It MAY be IN the room ... it MAY be NOT IN the room ... I am not sure how many other ways there are to tell you. :confused: ;)

[Jim Port]

In regards to placement of occupancy sensors it is better to locate them on the knob side of the door on the inside of the room. Due to the way the sensor "sees" the movement it is better to go across more than one segment of the beam. Walking straight at the sensor will result in poor performance.

Ceiling mounts should "see" you anywhere in the room, unless you were blocked by a partition like in an office cubicle or the stall.


JP: Being correct supersedes being logical in your world. Thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll remain in mine.

Being correct is different than being logical. Myself and others clearly explained to you how our answers were correct and yours were not. Heck, a simple adjective seemed to confuse you so logic does not appear to be one of your strong suits.

Would I ever install a switch not near its' point of function? Being logical I doubt it. Could I, yes and I would be correct and completely satisfy the code. Since post #4 you have been told that you were misinterpreting the Code . However, IMO being correct and logical is even better than being correct, and certainly better than being incorrect. AD, you need to read the part about the Code not being a design manual.

BTW thanks for staying in your world. I prefer people who can learn from others and are not close-minded.


Jim,

Aaron keeps repeating his 'logical' and 'common sense' mantra and uses that to drown out the the original question of whether of not "code" requires lighting switches in those rooms.

I feel sorry that he has apparently missed this oppurtunity to expand his knowledge of the code and to learn the difference between a requirement and a design issue.

[Michael Garrity]

Is it not the custom in most states, if not all states, that the light switch is in the room where the light is?
It has to conform to local custom.
Not anywhere but in the customary location.

C-U-S-T-O-M-A-R-Y

YOU CAN FIND OUT WHAT THE WORD MEANS IN A BIG BOOK CALLED A DICTIONARY

I'm sorry I thought you were hard of hearing.

[Jim Port]

MG,

Customary is one thing. Having the location mandated by code is something else. Switch location, with few exceptions, is a design issue. The NEC clearly states that it is not a design manual.

You are also trying to apply a requirement that only applies to occupancy sensors, not all switches. You were also told why this applied to occupancy sensors.

[John Kogel]

I'll call it incorrect. Concealed by the open door - Repair. Period. JMO. :)
If it's out past the edge of the open door, verbal comment, maybe.

I had a living room lightswitch a couple of days ago, older condo unit, no light fixture and no wall outlets were on the switch.
I suspect someone replaced a receptacle and screwed up the hookups, but that's just an opinion.
I called for an electrician to repair. I know it's a code requirement for that switch to be hooked to an outlet, but I don't use the "C" word, just call for a repair.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

While at the last inspection, I mentioned to the carpenter the doors covered the light switches. His response was "it is the same way in my house." I also pointed out he recieved the correct doors, they were just installed in the wrong bedrooms.

Perfomed another draw inspection this morning. The carpenter swapped the doors and the light switches are no longer blocked or inaccessible.

Thanks for all the spirited debate. All it took was to mention the error to the carpenter and investor. Things got better.

Glad to hear it got corrected. Thanks for the update.

IIRC the language for the switched controlled lighting outlet got changed back in the late 80s. It read differently prior. Changing the swing on a door as mentioned can have consequences other than the ability to locate and operate a wall swich - primary exit path for example - can be compromised, as mentioned previously.

[A.D. Miller]

Aaron's droning on is so he does not have to acknowledge that he screwed up and was incorrect.

JP: Actually, it is your seeming inability to grasp the idea that not everyone interprets English in the Flahidian fashion that is the problem. Should you find yourself able to make a convincing argument, you might find me supporting your rather odd notions on this subject. Until then, I am simply professing to understand that installing light switches behind doors is (1) counterintuitive, (2) unnecessary, (3) illogical, (4) inconvenient, (5) potentially unsafe, and (6) not code-compliant; just like your argument supporting this sort of installation.:D

[Michael Garrity]

Jim Port,forget about sensors.If you want to use a device other than a regular light switch to operate the room light,then that device should be where a switch should normally be.In its customary location.
If it's the custom in Maryland to have the light switch on the ceiling then that is where you would put the replacement device.

[Jim Port]

AD,

I don't think too many here wouldn't agree that the switches could be placed in a more convenient and logical location. However, your contention that there is some Code mandate requiring them to be located there does not hold water. You are wrong, get over it.

It is not Jerrys Flahidian interpretation of what is written. It is what the words actually say. Just because it does not say what you want it to does not make it against the Code.

Perhaps you don't like tradespeople because they have a better understanding of what the codes actually require?

[A.D. Miller]

Perhaps you don't like tradespeople because they have a better understanding of what the codes actually require?

JP: I never said I did not like tradesmen. That is your contention that you have managed to pull directly out of a dark place situated between your lower cheeks.:D

What I do not care for is tradesmen, building officials, or anyone else who expends great amounts of effort in an attempt to interpret something in the code so that it supports old, tired, outdated ideas and flies in the face of the spirit of the code.:mad:

[Jim Port]

What I do not care for is tradesmen, building officials, or anyone else who expends great amounts of effort in an attempt to interpret something in the code so that it supports old, tired, outdated ideas and flies in the face of the spirit of the code.:mad:

The difference between the above and what you are trying to pull is that the rules are in black and white and can be enforced. Yours are just wishes.

If you don't like the rules you are free to submit a proposal to have the rules change. However, and I repeat again, the Code clearly tells you it is not a design manual. Your chances of getting this through are probably less than a snowball in that warm place.

[A.D. Miller]

The difference between the above and what you are trying to pull is that the rules are in black and white and can be enforced. Yours are just wishes.

JP: That's where we will just have to agree to disagree. You and the other JP have yet to mount a convincing argument.



the Code clearly tells you it is not a design manual.


JP: The possibility of someone being injured from an asinine installation such as this is great. The code states:

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

So then, the authors have stated their purpose and that is to safeguard persons and property. Only then do they arrive at the statement you refer to:

(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

While you may think that they have conveyed the message that unsafe locations of switches is somehow a "design specification", I find no support in the code for that statement. Neither do you.

It is expressly stated in no uncertain terms that the intent (purpose) of the code authors to protect life and limb. Placement of switches behind doors does not serve that purpose. It is in direct contravention of the intent and purpose of the code. Any other reading is erroneous and made by those with a lack of understanding and merely for the sake of attempting to support an unsupportable argument.

[Joe Klampfer]

Based on the ORIGINAL post ...
The electrician did not screw up, the Carpenter did. Make him put the correct doors in the correct locations.



The carpenter swapped the doors and the light switches are no longer blocked or inaccessible.
.

WOW ! A simple problem with a simple solution, yet the banter continues. Many good points brought up but I can't help but wonder how some of you get through an inspection with this much debate over such a simple concern.

IMHO of course :)

[Jim Port]

AD.

Switches behind the door are no less safe than beside the door or outside the room they serve. They may be less convenient, but not less safe. This would satisfy 90.1(A).

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

90.1(B) clearly leaves out convenience and efficiency.

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

As has been discussed many times intent cannot be enforced. Only what is written. Years ago, GFI protection was only required on surfaces with grade level access. Did this mean that a exterior receptacle without GFI protection on a second floor was safer? I doubt it. Could the GFI protection be required, NO as there was no requirement for it.


The possibility of someone being injured from an asinine installation such as this is great

Maybe we should leave out doors as someone could walk into a closed door or get it slammed in their face during an argument. Maybe we should ban steps as someone could fall down them. Maybe we should ban electric in the house to prevent the misuse something so dangerous. Ban heating equipment that uses flammable gases to prevent fires too.


That's where we will just have to agree to disagree. You and the other JP have yet to mount a convincing argument.

You are reaching, and have yet to show a direct quote of any NEC requirement for the switches to be located in the room served and on the knob side. Myself and Mr. Peck, and others, have told you that you are incorrect. This has been backed up with direct quotes of the Article.

Your assertion that this is not a design issue is not backed up in any of your posts. If this was so dangerous it would have been spelled out clearly like the workspace requirements in Article 110, or any other numerous locations. In another example exterior doors are required to have illumination. Typically this is installed next to the door. This is not required either. It could be a floodlight simply aimed at the door. Again this is a design issue.

[A.D. Miller]

Mr. Port:

As you continue to find safe harbor in your ignorance of the facts, I cannot justify spending more time on this discussion.:D

[Jerry Peck]

As you continue to find safe harbor in your ignorance of the facts, I cannot justify spending more time on this discussion.:D


Aaron,

"I cannot justify spending more time on this discussion", very good as that will now give you the opportunity to step back from "the discussion" and read and comprehend was has been stated ... many times over ... that the question was one regarding "code" and not "design", thus no matter how many times you want to say that it is not a safe, logical, whatever "design" the answer remains that "code" does not require the switch to be in the same room with the light.

Again, I am glad that you are finally taking time out from discussing this to ponder and absorb what has been stated. :D

[Jim Port]

Mr. Port:

As you continue to find safe harbor in your ignorance of the facts, I cannot justify spending more time on this discussion.:D

Good, since trying to sway me against the printed word in the NEC won't work. You have been shown the facts, yet refuse to read and understand them. I told the OP back in post #4 that there was no NEC issue with the switches behind the door. . I can and have justified my statements quoting the NEC verbatim. I don't consider this as ignorance of the facts. I am sorry to see that you remain too myoptic to see your errors.

Perhaps you could write your own code and include in all the design issues the NFPA does not feel are necessary.

[Michael Garrity]

but the code does say the switch should be in the customary location.It only means one thing.So get over it.Even the average high school student knows what customary location means.In fact my even dog knows what customary location means.But then again he is smarter than the average home inspector.
Good night

[brent lerwill]

Maybe somebody already addressed this; but as far as I know home inspectors don't inspect based on code anyway. That's the jurisdiction of the local building authority. I would just state that it is not customary and will be an inconvenience.

[Jim Port]

but the code does say the switch should be in the customary location.It only means one thing.So get over it.Even the average high school student knows what customary location means.In fact my even dog knows what customary location means.But then again he is smarter than the average home inspector.
Good night

Well my dog can't type better than you, but my fifth grader certainly knows that spaces are required between sentences.

I am also sorry that you feel that the HI industry that you are part of suffers such a lack of intelligence. But the lack of understanding of some in this thread could certainly make one wonder.

Customary is different than a mandated location. That has been the sticking point that both yourself and ADM have ignored throughout this entire thread. That Exception is also dealing with occupancy sensors, not regular toggle switches. You were also given the reason for this which you may or may not have understood.

[Michael Garrity]

A man with a white stick could type better than me.Your the only person to mention "mandated location".Did anyone mention mandated?
If you want to nit pick on grammar or spelling go ahead.Just brush up on your comprehension skills first.
Again.If you want to replace a light switch with another device,ok the code book does mention sensors,then that device must be placed where the light switch would normally be.As is the custom and customs can vary from place to place.
Customary location = where the light switch would normally be.
Nothing said about being mandated.
But it does give us an idea of where to put it.The light switch of course.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Maybe it is difficult to understand?
Send my report card to my usual address.
It's time for me to drop out.

[A.D. Miller]

I am also sorry that you feel that the HI industry that you are part of suffers such a lack of intelligence. But the lack of understanding of some in this thread could certainly make one wonder.

JP: From the horse's mouth.

[Jerry Peck]

but the code does say the switch should be in the customary location.It only means one thing.So get over it.Even the average high school student knows what customary location means.In fact my even dog knows what customary location means.But then again he is smarter than the average home inspector.
Good night


Michael,You really need to:a)learn to read;b)learn to understand what you read;c)learn to accept what you cannot learn to read or understand.The code DOES NOT say that the switch needs to be in a customary location.The code only states that the sensor needs to be in the location where the switch would customarily be located - which is "anywhere" the designers/owners/etc., wanted the switch to be located.Additionally, the code does not, nor does anything else, define what and where a customary location is.To refresh your memory for you - THE SENSOR is to be located where the switch would customarily be located.Hopefully you can wrap your head around that idea and, as you said "It only means one thing." - yeppers, it means THE SENSOR is to be located where the switch would customarily be located.You then added "So get over it.", which would be excellent advice you should follow.You also added "Even the average high school student knows what customary location means.", are you stating that you do not understand as much as the average high school student?After all, you are stating that the average high school student would understand that the code is saying the THE SENSOR needs to be installed where the switch would be customarily installed, that the switch itself is not being referred to as having a customary location within the room.

Maybe Aaron has not picked up on the above either? I thought for sure that someone as smart as Aaron would have picked that up long before I had to point it out to him - maybe I was wrong and I simply should have pointed that out to him sooner? :confused: :rolleyes:

[A.D. Miller]

Maybe Aaron has not picked up on the above either? I thought for sure that someone as smart as Aaron would have picked that up long before I had to point it out to him - maybe I was wrong and I simply should have pointed that out to him sooner?

JP: Due primarily to the fact that you "live" in Flahdah, I understand the handicap that accrues, and am doing my dead level best to remain civil with you and your shadow - the other JP. Kindly leave me out of the remainder of this discussion and I will continue in this vein.

:D Otherwise . . .

[Jerry Peck]

JP: Due primarily to the fact that you "live" in Flahdah, I understand the handicap that accrues,


Just because some people here cannot count ballots and figure out what "chads" are and what the intent is of a punched hole, with a "hanging chad" or not, ... or fail to understand that "butterflies" and "ballots" do not go together very well, ... does not mean that all residents of Florida are incapable of reading, writing, counting, and understanding what is written and why it is written. :p

[A.D. Miller]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0810/floridians-elections-bush-mccain-obama-politics-voting-voter-demotivational-poster-1225401643.jpeg

[Michael Garrity]

The customary location is where it is the custom to place the switch.Here in NY it would be the custom to place the switch in the room where the light is.
A sensor with a manual override would be replacing the light switch which would be in the customary location.
Don't think too much about the sensor,think light switch at a customary location.
This thread has been the funniest yet.
I'll be back after some more yard work.
I

[Jerry Peck]

The customary location is where it is the custom to place the switch.Here in NY it would be the custom to place the switch in the room where the light is.
A sensor with a manual override would be replacing the light switch which would be in the customary location.
Don't think too much about the sensor,think light switch at a customary location.
This thread has been the funniest yet.
I'll be back after some more yard work.
I

Michael,

I w-i-l-l s-p-e-a-k s-l-o-w-l-y f-o-r y-o-u.

T-h-e c-o-d-e d-o-e-s n-o-t a-d-d-r-e-s-s t-h-e l-o-c-a-t-i-o-n o-f t-h-e s-w-i-t-c-h.

The code allows (I do hope I am not going too fast for you) the switch to be located "wherever".

"Wherever" any particular switch would be located, which is not required to be in the same room as the lighting outlet (are you still with me or am I going to fast?) and "wherever" *that* switch would normally ("customarily") be located for *that* particular installation, t-h-e s-e-n-s-o-r is allowed to be located at the location of where *that* particular switch would normally be located.

If that switch was normally located in the hallway side of the wall and it operated the living room light, a sensor would be allowed to be installed at the same location as the switch *would have been installed*.

Jeez, my 4 year old granddaughter understands things quicker than explaining this to you. :rolleyes:

[A.D. Miller]

Michael:

Pay no attention to JP. It is, after all, the weekend. He is into his high and mighty thing . . . just go with it . . .:D

http://www.openjesus.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/jesus_smokes.jpg

[Ted Menelly]

Michael:

Pay no attention to JP. It is, after all, the weekend. He is into his high and mighty thing . . . just go with it . . .:D

http://www.openjesus.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/jesus_smokes.jpg

The man in the picture looks as though he has visited Jamaica

[Gary Bottomley]

While at the last inspection, I mentioned to the carpenter the doors covered the light switches. His response was "it is the same way in my house." I also pointed out he recieved the correct doors, they were just installed in the wrong bedrooms.

Perfomed another draw inspection this morning. The carpenter swapped the doors and the light switches are no longer blocked or inaccessible.

Thanks for all the spirited debate. All it took was to mention the error to the carpenter and investor. Things got better.
Bruce, I also liked the "spirited debate" and for a change, rather controlled!!!
It seems to me that a less expensive "fix" would have been for the carpenter to by an occupancy sensor and put it at the switch location which would turn on the light when the door opened.

[Philip]

I think some of you would have been happier being lawyers or English teachers. Following JP logic, could I put cut off valves for water any where I wanted, say the kitchen sink water supply have the shut off valve in a hallway? The term 'switch controlled outlet' puts these in the same room. Once again, how many states require HIs to inspect to code? In KY, we are not lto inspect to code.

[Rick Cantrell]

" Following JP logic, could I put cut off valves for water any where I wanted, say the kitchen sink water supply have the shut off valve in a hallway?"

No, unless the fixture or manifold is located in the hallway.

P2903.8.5 Valving. Fixture valves, when installed, shall be
located either at the fixture or at the manifold. If valves are
installed at the manifold, they shall be labeled indicating the
fixture served.

[A.D. Miller]

Following JP's "logic", I suppose that even this switch would need to be behind a door?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/25/turn_jesus_on.jpg

[Philip]

Let me see if I got this straight. I could run all my water supply outlets from a central manifold located anywhere I wanted as long as I labeled them, hot kitchen sink, hot bath tub, cold water laundry....etc. In doing so I would not be violating any code, except the one on supreme stupidity.

[Michael Garrity]

Gerry,I am so glad that you agree with me.If that switch is normally located in the hallway then it is in the customary position.Well done.


"Wherever" any particular switch would be located, which is not required to be in the same room as the lighting outlet (are you still with me or am I going to fast?) and "wherever" *that* switch would normally ("customarily") be located for *that* particular installation, t-h-e s-e-n-s-o-r is allowed to be located at the location of where *that* particular switch would normally be located.

If that switch was normally located in the hallway side of the wall and it operated the living room light, a sensor would be allowed to be installed at the same location as the switch *would have been installed*.

[Jim Port]

Gerry,I am so glad that you agree with me.If that switch is normally located in the hallway then it is in the customary position.Well done.


"Wherever" any particular switch would be located, which is not required to be in the same room as the lighting outlet (are you still with me or am I going to fast?) and "wherever" *that* switch would normally ("customarily") be located for *that* particular installation, t-h-e s-e-n-s-o-r is allowed to be located at the location of where *that* particular switch would normally be located.

If that switch was normally located in the hallway side of the wall and it operated the living room light, a sensor would be allowed to be installed at the same location as the switch *would have been installed*.

You are getting closer MG, good job.

A regular toggle type switch can be anywhere, not just the customary location. You could install them all at the front door if you liked, except for the exception that have been pointed out prior.

However, if an occupancy sensor is used it needs to be installed in the customary location.

Sorry to confuse you with my use of "mandated location". I simply meant that there was no code requirement as to the location.

[Michael Garrity]

"A regular toggle type switch can be anywhere, not just the customary location. You could install them all at the front door if you liked, except for the exception that have been pointed out prior.

However, if an occupancy sensor is used it needs to be installed in the customary location.

Sorry to confuse you with my use of "mandated location". I simply meant that there was no code requirement as to the location"


you poor man,you really are confused.At least your good for a laugh.Keep posting.When I come back next week I might need a laugh so keep writing.Way too funny.
See you on another thread.
Sorry, can't stop laughing.Even my wife is laughing.

[Jim Port]

I have shown you numerous times and backed up my assertions with direct Code quotes and I am the one confused? Let me know the next itme you visit reality. You really should try it.

Sorry that you have so little grasp of what what presented in several different ways to help you understand your misinterpretation of the actual NEC requirements.

[A.D. Miller]

I am the one confused?

JP: Most assuredly.:D


Let me know the next itme you visit reality. You really should try it.

JP: I'll venture to say that some of us might no care too much for your "reality", such as it is.

[Jim Port]

JP: I'll venture to say that some of us might no care too much for your "reality", such as it is.

Really nice to see such disregard for a national consensus code.

Do you think making up your own rules would be as widely accepted? Could you justify your distorted interpretations if it came to a lawsuit?

My realities are printed in black and white.

[Ted Menelly]

Could someone tell me where I could find the thread on the light switch behind the door!

Now that was funny. I don't care who you are :):p:D;):rolleyes:

[bob smit]

WoW, I've been away too long.....this is good stuff :)
Unfortunately, Jerry is correct in all his posts in this thread, which means that there is not a specific requirements regarding switch locations except as obviously noted.
I wish Jerry was incorrect in his interpretation as I would love to write this one (violation), if only I had a code leg to stand on-as it were.

When I first started out as an AHJ, I wrote this only to find that: Just because I had installed switches in logical locations all these years, did not mean that the logical requirement was in the code as I had thought, ugg!

Trust me when I say, 'I feel your pain'!
Bob Smit, County EI

[Jim Port]

WoW, I've been away too long.....this is good stuff :)
Unfortunately, Jerry is correct in all his posts in this thread, which means that there is not a specific requirements regarding switch locations except as obviously noted.
I wish Jerry was incorrect in his interpretation as I would love to write this one (violation), if only I had a code leg to stand on-as it were.

When I first started out as an AHJ, I wrote this only to find that: Just because I had installed switches in logical locations all these years, did not mean that the logical requirement was in the code as I had thought, ugg!

Trust me when I say, 'I feel your pain'!
Bob Smit, County EI

Thanks for the support and acknowledgement from yet another person Bob, but I doubt that it will change some peoples opinion. They are still looking for that NEC unicorn that doesn't exist.

[Rich Goeken]

What a long list of comments---codes flying everywhere. "Standards" aside, when you enter a dark room where do you reach to turn on the light? Next to the door. I believe this can be called a de facto standard and should be commented on by the inspector if the switch is not readily assessable next to the door, in or out of the room. In my wildest dreams I would not think of closing the door and then feeling around in the dark to find the switch.

[dana1028]

What a long list of comments---codes flying everywhere. "Standards" aside, when you enter a dark room where do you reach to turn on the light? Next to the door. I believe this can be called a de facto standard and should be commented on by the inspector if the switch is not readily assessable next to the door, in or out of the room. In my wildest dreams I would not think of closing the door and then feeling around in the dark to find the switch.

The code is not made to satisfy your wildest dreams or these imaginery 'de facto' standards.

[Jerry Peck]

I would not think of closing the door and then feeling around in the dark to find the switch.


Which is why, at one time, many, if not most, light switches were located OUTSIDE the room ... so the light could be turned on BEFORE entering the room.

Yes, that did create a problem once you were in the room, but ... that was a "customary" location for quite some time.

"Customary" is based on "customs" and "customs" change. The code, which is what the original question was asking about (how many times have we had to take this back to that original question?), ... the code ... yes, "the code" ... *does not* require a switch to be in the same room as the light.

We can all add our druthers, I'druther have 3-way and 4-way switches all over, heck, why not simply say '6' and the light you have designated as '6' turns on/off? Then say 'all' and they all turn on/off'. Heck, it would even be nice if I could be in another city and say 'Dang, I forgot to turn the outdoor front light on when I left this morning.', so I get on my cell phone and yell '11' and my outdoor light turns on.

Now THAT would be "convenient", but the code does not address convenience.

[Rick Cantrell]

"Heck, it would even be nice if I could be in another city and say 'Dang, I forgot to turn the outdoor front light on when I left this morning.', so I get on my cell phone and yell '11' and my outdoor light turns on."

Hey, if you want that, I can do it.
Well cept maybe for the "yell '11'" part.
Whatta ya say?;)

[Thom Walker]

Which is why, at one time, many, if not most, light switches were located OUTSIDE the room ... so the light could be turned on BEFORE entering the room.

Yes, that did create a problem once you were in the room, but ... that was a "customary" location for quite some time.

"Customary" is based on "customs" and "customs" change. The code, which is what the original question was asking about (how many times have we had to take this back to that original question?), ... the code ... yes, "the code" ... *does not* require a switch to be in the same room as the light.

We can all add our druthers, I'druther have 3-way and 4-way switches all over, heck, why not simply say '6' and the light you have designated as '6' turns on/off? Then say 'all' and they all turn on/off'. Heck, it would even be nice if I could be in another city and say 'Dang, I forgot to turn the outdoor front light on when I left this morning.', so I get on my cell phone and yell '11' and my outdoor light turns on.

Now THAT would be "convenient", but the code does not address convenience.

Would you please turn off my mother's iron while you're on the phone? I'm sure my Dad would be grateful.

[Rich Goeken]

The code is not made to satisfy your wildest dreams or these imaginery 'de facto' standards.

In my wildest dreams the installing wall switches next to the door is actually in practice, but not within the code, therefore the "imaginary" term 'de facto' applies. It indicates that it is being currently done, but is not in the code---thus a "de facto" standard. Sorry if you don't like the use of the term, but is applicable here. The codes try to cover all items related to health, safety, and quality of life, but obviously cannot encompass every detail. Therefore "de facto" or "customary" "standards may be applied, such as placing the switch next to the door, in or out---not behind the door.

If you still feel that this is not correct, then could you explain without being so snippy why switches are next to the door in a room, and not behind?

[dana1028]

Therefore "de facto" or "customary" "standards may be applied, such as placing the switch next to the door, in or out---not behind the door.

If you still feel that this is not correct, then could you explain without being so snippy why switches are next to the door in a room, and not behind?

Placing switches next to a door may be a customary practice, however that does not establish a standard. NECA has an entire library of electrical installation 'standards' - standards typically establish quality of materials, installation and workmanship - not convenient placement of devices.

As others have said, placing a switch outside the room was customary, now it's not. I still see switches placed outside the room in new construction; Saturday I saw a switch behind a door in new construction - so be it.

[Ted Menelly]

Is that damn switch still behind the door?

Could someone please fix it :confused:

[bob smit]

Please submit to the CMP a suggestion that would enable the AHJ: a code article that states where the switch should be (in addition to storage/crawls and the like), and I will happily enforce it.

In Mi at least, it is illegal to write a violation w/o the code reference.
Bob Smit, County EI