Another thread, about switch legs, brought up the old issue of 'code minimum' vs. 'design.' Maybe we need to think about that again.
How often does someone tell you they ;just want what the code requires?' How often do you find yourself arguing that something 'meets code?' Or, that 'code allows' something? Why, I ask, is there all this focus on "code?"
That one must follow the law is assumed. Yet, simply not having any electric work done at all will 'meet code.' I don't think we really want our customers to make that choice!
Conversely, we're often cast as the 'bad guy' when our 'customer' isn't the guy who actually has to live with our installation. Receptacle in a bad spot? Well, the GC we were hired by didn't ask / care / know what the homeowner wanted. Or, the 'manager' who hired us didn't have the least interest in the cares of those who would actually sit in the office we remodeled - how were we to know that the file cabinet would go in front of the switch? Or that something would block the occupancy sensor?
Future needs is another concern. Code makes no allowance - does that mean we should also ignore the topic? Are we simply traind chimps with tool belts, doing simply what we're told?
This is not only an academic discussion. It goes to the heart of our jobs, and the role the NEC plays in them. The past several code editions have made many 'design' choices for us - sometimes directly, and sometimes 'steering us' in certain directions. (For example, who ever separated bedroom circuits from the rest of the house, before the NEC mandated AFCI's for bedrooms?)
Let the discussion begin.
