Hacker News Reader

Comment by hinkley | Hacker News Reader

I was going to post about code violations but I’ll just tuck it under yours here so we don’t flood the top level (although one could argue that this really deserves it).

I had to stop reading r/diy because half the stuff in there made me angry. Especially people building lofts to store heavy stuff without knowing anything about construction.

You can’t overlap rooflines like this. That’s how they allow people to build small outbuildings but make large projects have to get permits. If the roofs “touch” then you’re using a loophole to make an illegal addition to your house instead of a shed.

> The way I did it was to run both wires inside a 3/4 inch PVC conduit using 14/2 electrical wiring + 100ft cat6 ethernet cable.

You are going to get somebody killed. I didn’t see you dig a trench, which means you have a single plastic conduit carrying power and data and exposed to the air. It’s supposed to be grounded metal buried conduit to create a faraday cage that can’t be electrified by nearby lightning strikes or hit by a tree or debris in a wind storm. And deep enough the next owner doesn’t kill themselves planting a hydrangea.

I have half a mind to doxx you to your city planning office.

View on HN

I like your parent's explanation of why screws are not allowed by code in some places and also saying that yes, screws actually can be used, if you use the right ones, even if they aren't allowed by code in some places.

I really like that because just mentioning code doesn't do any good. Just because code says something doesn't mean that it makes sense. There's tons of omissions in codes or stuff that is unnecessarily restrictive or way not enough to be safe.

Screws are the perfect example. If code forbids screws but you are going to use the proper screws that are (with good reason) allowed in other jurisdictions that has a completely different vibe to it than someone blogging about using dry wall screws to frame a house. One is a safety concern and why inspections are a good thing, while another is a minor case of ignoring code without any concerns and where an inspection would suck (if you were the homeowner doing some work yourself). If they want to use something that is more expensive and let's them do something themselves that they wouldn't be able to do at all if they had to use nails, more power to them! Change code to allow the right type of screws!

Your second part of the reply does the same, it sort of explains why you think it's a bad idea (and I agree that it is for various reasons).

Could you explain why it is not a good idea to overlap roof lines?

Overlapping rooflines allow you to make a “detached” building that is functionally an addition to your house. The downside is that if you want to build a breezeway to a detached garage you’re going to have to get permits to do that. It sucks but otherwise you get people who make a long narrow house that’s a series of rooms that were built over time, and never inspected.

You may see properties that have three fairly large but separate buildings, this is often someone skirting building codes in such a way that they stay within the letter of the law.

This still doesn’t explain why overlapping rooflines are actually problematic, though. I have always wondered this myself, as I actually own a house with a detached garage where the previous owner and next door neighbor put an easement on file that allowed the next door neighbor (whose ground level is about 5 feet higher via a retaining wall) to build an outbuilding very close to the property line with the roofline hanging over my garage by about 6 inches. So far, the only practical downside is that my downspout ends up getting all the water from half of his roof, which means the problem is worse if I don’t keep it clear. Not a terribly big problem in my book, since I have to keep it clear anyway. What else am I missing?

(Note: there are other things that are suboptimal about my garage, namely that it was built 100 years ago right on the property line and when it was rebuilt sometime later, it was allowed to stay there despite normally having a 5 foot setback requirement. As a result, this concrete block structure itself actually serves as part of the retaining wall and has moisture seepage issues from the uphill side. I actually think having the neighbor’s outbuilding covering that patch of land and managing the rainwater via my downspout helps the matter, because the ground between them gets no rainfall at all.)

It’s a “this is why we can’t have nice things” situation. There’s no physics problem with overlapping that I know of, but it’s a giant loophole for people who are up to no good.

It’s not so much that you shouldn’t be able to do it as that there’s no way we can do it without a permit.

The water management issue is a bigger deal in some locations.

In the original post, he's sloped the new roof back towards the house - huge issue where I live (Atlanta - we got a lot of heavy rain) since that's going to cause water entry in the basement or erosion on the foundation.

It can also be a fire hazard in many situations. Ex - in my area there's a mandated 10ft gap between the property line and any structure. It's there to prevent people from building right up to the property line, essentially creating townhomes, but with none of the fire/safety planning those require.

All that said - I agree with you, this code is likely there to discourage people trying to skirt around inspections (and because it's easy to spot).

Rainfall treatment around foundations is the most bizarre "new city" difference.

Previously lived on clay soil above the freeze line: everything needed substantial gutters and routing away from home.

Now live in sandy soil below the freeze line: most people don't even have gutters.

No physics problem? I consider a fully equipment fireman carrying a person trying to squeeze between the house and the shed to be a physics problem. And yes, those situations are considered when codes are written.

Very true. The best I could come up with was humidity control, but ingress/egress issues make fire marshals demonstrably cranky.

So you think my garage is fine? Seeking anonymous expert-sounding internet validation :D

The thing to remember about building codes is that they're one solution to a problem. More often than not, one good solution. That isn't to say they're the only solution.

So for new construction or reno, absolutely follow code! Why not?

But for old construction that doesn't have obvious dangers and has served its purpose across decades? Why fix what ain't broke? It's entirely possibly it's a perfectly viable alternative solution.

Fire safety is a major motivation throughout the building code, and this rule is kind of a proxy to fire risk assessment. If you join rooflines then fire can jump from one to the other. Larger structures and structures used for residence are high risks for fatalities if a fire spreads too quickly and/or without adequate ability to evacuate. Structures assembled ad-hoc over time tend to be high fire risks for several reasons, and avoiding permitting and inspection requirements avoids any check on that.

In this case, the shed will have rain runoff into the house. Possibly not a problem, but generally not a good idea.

Also, as mentioned, sheds don’t usually need inspected. Sheds with power that act as extensions to the home should be (should = good idea) but might not be required, depending on location. Basically, some of these rules are to prevent uninspected/unpermitted extensions to the main dwelling.

I've heard it said that frugal home improvement is a very good reason to stay on very friendly terms with an electrician. You can frame and wire a new room in the basement, but not attach it to the mains, then have them come out and tell you if you did it right before anyone dies or burns the house down. You pay them for a couple hours instead of the whole project.

You could try chatting up your electrician on a simpler house call, or you might be able to chum around on a Habitat for Humanity project and get a hook-up.

Most people try to avoid electrical wiring or plumbing repairs (other than faucets), because the blast radius is so high. The bravest I've gotten is rewiring a light fixture, and I went extra slow to make sure I didn't end up flying off the ladder. I taped a cup over the light switches so nobody could help, and it still felt like when you're trying to fish something out of the garbage disposal and keeping one eye on the switch to make sure nobody even looks at it.

This is exactly the reason I asked for reasoning. A perfect example of a specific reason for something in code where depending on what you are doing yourself you can safely ignore the code violation (except for the legality part). If the reason you gave is indeed the reason and only reason.

I would argue that if inspections for safety reasons are why this is in code then code needs to remove this restriction and other rules should be put in place and inspections should become less expensive, easier to get done etc. Basically make it easier and less of a problem for people to get inspected. You will still get people that won't do one of course. Make it possible to inspect them anyway. Of course I understand that there are conflicting priorities at work here too. Meaning funding. The optimal way for everyone would be quite expensive. So we get suboptimal solutions that are sometimes "OK" to circumvent and sometimes not.

Here the bylaws for example allow one main structure, a shed and a detached garage (even if you have an attached one already). No need for roof overhang code stuff. The intent of the bylaw is also much more clear.

The guy in the article arguably is creating such a detached building. He is also in violation of rules about how far structures have to be from the property line assuming the rules in his place are like here and that fence is towards the neighbors.

> Basically make it easier and less of a problem for people to get inspected

Totally agreed, and this post is the perfect example of why: people should want to be inspected! The whole point of a city building code is to have rules to keep people safe in situations that aren't obvious to, e.g., the DIY shed-builder.

If I'm building a shed in the backyard, and I have the opportunity to call an employed expert to make sure I'm not gonna fuckin' kill somebody? Yes! Give me that!

Building codes are complex and nuanced creatures. Safety features prominently but it is certainly not "the whole point."

Some elements are for safety. Some elements are aesthetic: give the town a coherent look and feel. Some elements are economic: promote property value, ban what could be seen as ugly or low class. Some elements regulate interactions between neighboring lots: setbacks, placement of windows, rules for fences and trees, limits on combining adjoining properties. Some elements serve redistributive or consumer protection goals: minimum dwelling sizes and features, standards for light and air. Some elements seek to curate the community's demographics. Obviously we regulate plumbing for safety and sanitation reasons. We also regulate plumbing to prevent illegal second kitchens, which could bring renters or multigenerational (immigrant) households into homes meant for affluent (white) nuclear families.

It is multifaceted, overlapping (safety at all costs? or find a way to price out the dirty poors and blame it on safety?), and different people at different times may be intentionally lying or genuinely confused about the intentions behind and effects of different rules. And that's just in theory. In practice there are whole other layers regarding what goes on at the permit counter, in variance/discretionary review hearings, and in day to day enforcement operations.

Just want to say that I really enjoyed this comment, and found some very interesting insights in it. Thank you.

I’d be happy to have projects inspected. If the inspection only cost a modest fee covered by the permit.

Instead, permits are a way to find ways to raise assessments and therefore property taxes. Given the recurring costs, it’s no surprise at all that a lot of work is done without inspections.

Permits are for both safety _and_ tax reasons. Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased, by the same logic that people with more expensive houses should pay more in taxes than people with cheaper houses. And property taxes, if properly codified and enforced, are a good way to ensure rich people can’t avoid taxes by hiding it in real estate. They also incentivize people to actually use land for productive purposes rather than hoard.

So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically, I’ll argue that the permitting and inspection process in most cities is a good thing for society despite the personal hassle. It ensures that buildings are safe and helps the city assess the changing value of homes.

Quick edit: I will acknowledge that your point is correct that inspections and taxes cause a lot of work to be done without notifying the city and hoping they don’t notice.

> So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically

I could easily see (and probably agree with) the argument that we should be taxing land and not improvements. It feels a bit unfair to spend time and money to improve your own land, not be able to realize any gain/income from that improvement until you sell it, but meanwhile be on the hook for extra taxes every year.

To be clear, I think property taxes (or land-value taxes) are reasonable: desirable land is a scarce resource, and we should ensure landowners are doing productive things with it. But the current assessment process leaves much to be desired IMO. (And that's without even getting into California's Prop 13 nonsense.)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to make the case that property taxes are perfect, but they are what we have. There are some bad features such as discouraging maintenance to keep the taxable value down. But it does act partly as a land value tax, since the land value goes into the assessed value calculation.

I'm sure some people would disagree with this argument, but buildings do increase the value of the land, albeit in a temporary manner. I personally would pay more for an acre with a house on it than an otherwise comparable acre with nothing. Sure, land is truly permanent and finite while houses fall apart over a few decades and can be renewed. But for my human timescale, the presence of a building is a valid consideration in the taxable value of land, as much as other things such as the terrain and proximity to water. And if you take a land value tax and also consider the value of the buildings on it then you end up with property tax.

I'd support a different set of taxes in the US (I'm pretty sure that's where OP built the shed). I'd happily let go of property taxes in favor of a wealth tax and a land value tax. I'd even take an honest accounting of how much things cost and forcing the people and politicians to get our tax to align with our spending so we aren't passing ever increasing bills to our children. But with the current political system there is a 100% chance those ideas would be corrupted, so I'll settle with the inefficient taxes we have now and try to be a good sport about paying them.

> Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased

Thank you for a succinct explanation of the benefits of land value tax over the current system.

How many times have we seen a deck collapse on Reddit? Those are shockingly easy to get wrong. And even if you make it structurally sound, it may be attached to the house in such a way that the wall begins to rot. Water, screw, and wood physics dictate a lot of what's legal in a deck.

Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned that nails and screws are not interchangeable, but there are situations like decks where nails also aren't sufficient. You need carriage bolts.

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

It also looks like from the single angle shown here that the shed roof is pitched towards the house, so any water is going to be channeled towards the foundation. This is a terrible idea.

Keep in mind, while yes this is a huge code issue mixing low voltage and high voltage - ‘it depends’ in a lot of jurisdictions on other elements.

Following is for other folks running across this, in case it helps them.

At least in California, I’m pretty sure it’s code compliant to use rated non-metallic conduit for outside high voltage runs for instance. That conduit is made of PVC. It’s the grey plastic electrical conduit at every hardware store (if branded as UV resistant/outdoor rated).

Normal PVC pipe (for water) falls apart at too low a temperature and becomes super brittle when exposed to Sunlight surprisingly quickly.

It’s a much better idea to use EMT or even ‘hard’ conduit depending on how it’s exposed, but it’s not required. EMF protection is nice, but I haven’t seen a such a requirement for power feeds in residential anyway. If using 3 phase and some industrial equipment I imagine you’d be a jerk to not do so, but most residential neighborhoods here have overhead unshielded lines anyway.

Running to a separate detached building has a bunch of rules around grounding (for which you’ll find multiple mutually exclusive and conflicting codes across the county). Many areas don’t have lightning suppression rules though.

Depending on exactly how the building is constructed (technically ‘mobile’ vs ‘fixed) also changes codes a lot. Running the equivalent of an extension cord to a ‘mobile’ structure (which can be functionally fixed) is perfectly fine as long as it’s GFCI protected for instance. Not that he did that.

Ideally it would be a separate sub panel, grounded and protected as such, with proper rated conduit, etc.

But the bar is a lot lower than what you’re saying if someone follows some basic guidelines. And can be done safely.

But yeah, Article Author - you’re going to get someone killed. Jesus.

Ah yes, I know about the grey PVC but spaced on it. Typically this is for external runs bolted to the side of a building though. Or at least, that’s almost all I ever see it used for. Can you use it for open air horizontal runs? Say between two buildings?

Data you want shielded, for the reasons I stated. Stringing Ethernet between buildings often ends in tears.

I ran outdoor-rated cat6 in metal conduit between my house and shed, about 6 feet, and it has worked very well. What do you see as the problem?

The issue is not running cat6 in a conduit (per se).

Original poster was running cat6 in the same conduit as high voltage residential Wiring.

That’s scary. The wires in cat6 can carry a surprising amount of current at 120v and wires get chafed or damaged sometimes.

It can be thermal cycling from load, or weather, or a gorilla yanked on them too hard during installation, or whatever.

That can result in 120v or 240v mains voltage at BIGAMPS (most HACR type breakers and residential panels can sustain 10k Amps for a tiny bit) until the wire vaporizes. That’s routine during things like AC compressor startup.

That can make that random ‘should be harmless’ RJ45 plug an immediate danger to anyone nearby. And since the wire won’t vaporize until there is a sufficiently low impedance path to ground, it can stay dangerous for awhile.

Also, different buildings somewhat often have different ground potentials, so running something low voltage and sensitive to voltage spikes and net current imbalance between buildings like Ethernet tends to not go well sometimes. It’s really hard to tell this is happening too, so it sucks to debug.

6 ft away? Probably not a problem if both buildings are grounded decently. Metal conduit helps with that as it acts as a supplemental ground path to reduce any potential differences.

Hundreds of feet? Can be a problem if you do it much.

My parent wrote "stringing Ethernet between buildings often ends in tears", and I was responding to that.

(I agree that high-voltage wiring needs special care, and that you should follow code.)

The cat 6 is fine, it's the power cable that's an issue. Realistically in this scenario it's fine too, it should be branched off of a GFCI. The only issue with the network cable is that it picks up static from lightning and blows some equipment, you can put Ethernet breakers on both ends though.

Not the OP but my understanding is that you're probably fine if that metal conduit is grounded. If you're stringing ethernet around outside you want properly grounded surge suppressors on both ends.

UF-B. For a minute Lowes had their 100' mispriced by -$100 online. $80 wasn't bad for 100' of 10/3.

> It’s a much better idea to use EMT

You cannot bury EMT underground.

One of the nice things about actual metal conduit, depending on the nature of the soil where you live, is that it only needs to be buried 7" down to meet NEC rules. PVC conduit requires significantly more depth.

Yeah we had a couple of comments going back and forth with conflicting scenarios. The one I was responding too was stating exposed above ground conduit, where EMT is often better than PVC due to sun exposure. Ridged is of course even better from a durability perspective, but a real hassle to deal with.

Burying EMT in soil or concrete is generally a bad idea and quickly leads to some serious tears - sometimes in a year or two with the right soil or if the concrete is exposed to harsh conditions).

Most codes technically allow it though, sometimes with ‘supplementary corrosion protection’. NEC 358.10(b).

Some electricians use duct tape for the ‘protection’ which is terrible.

Proper pipe wrap is expensive and doing it on your own is a real hassle.

[https://www.electricallicenserenewal.com/Electrical-Continui...] random link with some pictures.

That is one of the areas where plastic really shines - I’ve had great luck with schedule 40 or 80 rated plastic conduit - always go up a step or two in size above what you think you’ll need unless you hate future you. Schedule 80 for anything exposed to impact or exiting/entering the ground or a building.

And if you’re burying something like conduit, it’s almost always better to bury 2 or 3 instead of 1.

6” to the top of the conduit for IMC and RMC.

18” to the top of PVC conduit (12” for 120V, GFCI protected, 20A max overcurrent protection). If you’re willing to put 2” of concrete over it, PVC drops to just 6”.

Putting signalling and power wires in the same conduit is about as bad as it gets.

The proper way to do this is to dig a trench and use armored cable suitable for burial without further protection and to use a plastic uninterrupted tube for the cat6 (which you can blow through).

That said, there isn't a lot of difference between a DIY person and a low grade contractor, and a competent DIY'er is probably better than most mid level contractors. The big difference is usually that they have the tools and they're with a couple of people and you're just by your lonesome.

It's short. Put a normal extension cord in the "conduit", with plugs on each end. At least here in California, electrical code ends at the receptacle. You can do practically anything you want on the other side, as long as it plugs in.

That trick won't work. An extension cord is only seen as such as long as it is not permanently attached to a structure, and definitely not when it powers a fixed structure. In other words, it needs to be temporary and to be disconnected when not in use. As soon as you connect it permanently affix it or bury it you are violating the electrical code.

Otherwise this would act as a giant loophole around the electrical code, you could simply use a high current plug to connect your distribution panel and call it a day.

https://plasticinehouse.com/can-i-use-an-extension-cord-to-p...

> Otherwise this would act as a giant loophole around the electrical code

...it basically is? People use it that way. All the time. Whether or not you like like that, it's the way it is.

Personally I'm pretty ok with it. This guy is not actually going to kill someone with his shed.

I'm pretty sure it's against code in CA to install an extension cord permanently inside a structure or conduit like that.

When I put all the cables in the wall for my TV, I ran Romex from the bottom junction box to the top junction box, despite the bottom junction box having a male electrical plug. An extension cord plugs into that from another outlet. (Ideally I would have just hardwired the upper outlet, but that would have been another can of worms.)

Just expose the armoured cable. Hardly an issue, and you know where it is.

Not a good idea. The outer layer is plastic, underneath that something that is best described as an oversized shower hose. Burying it will allow you to take vehicles, wheel barrows, lawnmowers etc over it without damaging it.

I bought a ton of this stuff surplus from a dam construction, that served me quite well in Canada, some of the outbuildings were quite far away from the main house. It's pretty easy to work with, though stripping it is a bit of an art (you really don't want to damage the inner wires).

The author's shed is about 2 feet from the house exterior, so he can wrap the steps around as decking (very tiny decking) and put the cable under the steps.

Then one day someone cuts up that decking with a sawzall and gets an unexpected surprise.

That's possible, but you'd need to clearly mark it.

For two feet it's overkill, but normally, especially if there is the possibility of going between the two structures, you'd dig down 4', lay down your cable so that it is going down vertically in both structures and is well below the frost line where you bury it horizontally.

You can get armoured cable specifically with UV rating for this. I'd only ever run it against a wall etc. But it is designed to be above ground.

Yes, true. That cable has a special marking and there are even kinds that are solid enough to be driven over with tired vehicles. But those are super expensive, far more expensive than the kind that can be buried, and they are serious work to strip and connect. In a lot of cable that I bought there was one chunk of that stuff, about 2" thick for what looked to be tri phase, 40A+ground (so five wires + the steel cover). Bending radius about a mile :)

I'm sure there are thinner more pliable versions of that stuff available as well and I sometimes see the equivalent tie wrapped for temporary industrial applications to cranes and bridges.

Ignoring the type of conduit, there’s NM-B and CM (hopefully) in the same conduit.

NM-B is not allowed outdoors (in “wet locations”) [0], and running your Ethernet cable and your power in the same conduit is no good. (Look up the code for feeders supplying structures — this is not even close to how it’s done. Maybe you can squeak by and consider this a structure supplied by a branch circuit, but there are still code requirements to pay attention to.)

Also, that weather resistant barrier…. Imagine you are a drop of rainwater on the outside of that WRB, following gravity. Where do you go? Straight to the exposed OSB sticking out at the bottom. The sheathing is toast in heavy rain.

[0] NM-B has paper running through it. Good old-fashioned water-wicking brown paper. If it gets a bit wet in a flooded conduit (hint: every outdoor conduit can be assumed to flood eventually), it will wick along the cable and never dry.

edit: there is absolutely no requirement that buried conduit be metal. In my experience, despite code allowing various types of galvanized steel conduit to be buried, they tend to corrode severely long before whatever wires are in them are safely disconnected, creating a hazardous situation. You can use PVC, HDPE, etc.

What is NM-B? What is CM? What is WRB? What is OSB?

If your point is to educate those without knowledge, a link or spelling some things out is helpful.

That's not the point. The point is that if you don't recognize the acronyms for non-metallic cable, comm multi, water resistant barrier, or oriented strand board, you should not be building a structure in a dense residential area.

On one hand, I know there are good reasons for safety codes. On the other, it's my property and I want a covered workshop with a power outlet.

The electrical code is surprisingly readable, and building a small shed with power, to code, is not substantially more expensive or time consuming than building it not to code. UF-B and plain THWN-2 wire are not very expensive, especially for a short run. A second conduit is cheap. Ground rods are cheap, although installing them can be annoying. A disconnect switch is maybe $150 and is an extremely polite thing to have if a firefighter shows up and wants to disconnect a structure.

Moldy Romex wire in a flooded conduit next to some random intended-for-indoor use Cat 6 cable with insulation that may degrade when wet is asking for trouble. 50mA leakage into that Cat 6 cable will kill you 100% dead under the wrong circumstances but will not trip a conventional breaker.

I mean the solution is straightforward: do what you want, just do it to (at least) minimum code.

Hire someone if you’re not interested in taking the time to learn what minimum code is. It’s not particularly complex and is generally intuitive, but every line is written in blood.

If you are interested, just start with each component. Building a powered workshop is not fundamentally different from building a house, and that’s not recommended for a first project.

Tackle one subsystem at a time. Replace some flooring, some siding, add a receptacle, etc.

Each one will let you learn best practices and minimum code for each part, and put you on the right path.

I can comment on the second portion of this issue- never run Cat cables in parallel with electric cable.

You are forcing low voltage and high voltage cables to share their electromagnetic field. That’s never a good thing. It can lead to unstable connection all the way to frying your Ethernet card.

Good news: he ran a 100ft cat6 cable so that he could plug in a wireless access point. His ethernet card should be fine.

… but isn’t there still a risk to whatever devices are on both ends of that cat6? ie the access point and the head-end router or switch?

Forget the devices -- the risk is to people. If the insulation fails on the power cable and your network cable is insufficiently insulated, then your network cable could end up live. People generally avoid playing with hot power conductors, but no one takes any care to avoid touching network cables or, for that matter, the devices plugged in to network cables.

If they did short I think those tiny diameter wires in the cat6 would pretty much vaporize at household current.

Imagine a short, so Cat6 is now at 120V. Then imagine someone repairing a Cat6 wall jack. Or a kid with a paper clip.

Household current levels don't need to be flowing for it to be dangerous.

Or just someone touching one end of a network cable. The pins on an 8P8C plug are not recessed very far.

Thank you both. The number of "Wow this is so cool!" encouragement-replies here is pretty scary. Building a shed is definitely something most people can DIY, but please don't make it hazardous! And, at least make an attempt to look up local building codes. Even if conformance is not required for your particular application, they can be used as a reference for best practices.

I believe some jurisdictions now occasionally check e.g. Google Maps to look for obvious things like sheds built too close to existing structures (which this one likely is), so it's possible he'll get an unrequested visit from code enforcement anyway.

> I had to stop reading r/diy

Same, I don’t want to rain on everyone’s parade, at the same time people should know “that might not be or ISN’T the way to do it…”

I was also wary of what I suspected were a lot of “Here are my before and after shots I took.” Where they didn’t do the work.

> The way I did it was to run both wires inside a 3/4 inch PVC conduit using 14/2 electrical wiring + 100ft cat6 ethernet cable.

should be SWA

You don't need to take power underground. Most midwestern construction doesn't and I usually see PVC conduit. There are hazards from breakage, but putting it in PVC conduit tends to exceed code.

You just went from concerned citizen, to person with anger management issues lashing out. If your thoughts here were in good faith, you would help the author learn about code compliance so that he could make the necessary modifications and learn about the real-world consequences of not being in compliance. Instead you're making a threat to send code enforcement after him so that he can be punished for being ignorant. Please try to re-evaluate the feelings you have and ask yourself if there is a more positive, less harmful way to use those feelings.

The punishment for building code violations is death. The building code enforcement is a lot more lenient in comparison.

All the people replying to this minimizing the concerns of the original comment need to go back and reread it. The point that really raised their hackles was the electrical issue, not insulation or overlapping rooflines.

Electricity can instantly kill you or start a fire, which could kill you and your neighbors. Look at what just happened in Boulder. Fire is dangerous, especially when combined with high winds. I personally saw that play out twice while living in Boston, one of which was determined to have been caused by sparks from unpermitted welding, the other by improper disposal of smoldering construction debris. Both small starts whipped up by winds, both times multiple people died.

The phrase I’ve heard is “regulations are written in blood.”

Also, the punishment isn’t necessarily meted out on the actual perpetrator.

That's a pretty big overstatement. For example, using insufficient insulation is a code violation, but it is not going to kill you.

Unless there’s an electrical outage during a big snowstorm or heat wave, and then lack of insulation can kill you. Maybe. Or the old people you sell your house to later.

But sometimes you are correct. Like in writing where it’s best to know the rules of grammar before you start breaking them, it’s best to know why the building codes exist before you break them as a DIYer.

Poster seemed most upset specifically about the electrical issues. Those kind of things absolutely can kill you (or the next homeowner), or start a fire that can kill you, or your neighbors.

Most building codes are not a life or death matter. Most of them are windowsill clearance, door clearance, minutia about the spacing of steps. In some locations you have really stupid proscriptions about load bearing structure types (so e.g. you can't use a metal frame for your house simply because they specify you must use wood).

Most electrical building codes are indeed a life and death matter, and that seems to be the focus of the original comment, or at least the part that got the poster so upset.

Help me to understand who dies when the rooflines overlap?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com