Originally Posted by Brian_Rock
No, the Code change itself was motivated by servicer injuries. This is noted in that ROP and ROC elsewhere in the Substantiations and in the CMP's Statements.



Yes, i understand the CMP have substantiations they base code changes on Brian

but i question those service injuries, and would wager many are the sign guys, or maintenance men

Certain electrical equipment are manufactured with these sorts in mind, like fusible disconnects that have an interlocking door mechanism cutting power to the fuses

Yet here we have a code requesting these same sorts, who will never own a copy of the NEC, install a safety device

So their substaintiation is rather cyclical logic

just imho....

further still, i bought a tin of these>

[Linked Image from lighting-gallery.net]

i'm less than impressed

~S~