Socket in a cupboard

[EFLImpudence]

I'm just being mischievous.

I thought point 1 on your side and
point 2 on Bas'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Could take the plug off and connect it to a FCU

I can't move the tumble drier - my hands are all soapy.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm just being mischievous. I thought point 1 on your side and point 2 on Bas'.

As I said, I agree with that. However, I also know whose side I think common sense is on!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Seriously -

I don't see the difference between a socket being in the cupboard and outside the shower room door.

In fact, it is less accessible being behind a tumble drier.

 

[JohnW2]

Seriously - I don't see the difference between a socket being in the cupboard and outside the shower room door. In fact, it is less accessible being behind a tumble drier.

Common sense-wise, I agree, but I presume it's regs we're talking about. I've never really been too sure of the thinking behind the 3m rule for sockets in bathrooms/shower rooms, have you? 3m is much further than would be necessary to avoid anyone being in simultaneous contact with socket any anything in zone 1, yet useless in relation to things plugged into the socket (which could have long leads, or even extensions). Is it therefore just about possible hazards to the socket of spray/splashes/steam (which a closed door would protect against), or what? If we understood what the 3m was all about, we might be in a better position to think rationally (in terms of regs) about the question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know the reason for three metres either. Typically illogical.
Wasn't it introduced/allowed at the same time as RCDs? Any connection?

What do people with large bathrooms plug in to them?

Why, anyway?
Was anyone particularly aggrieved by not being allowed sockets in a bathroom

In actual fact a socket in a corridor/passage/landing outside a usual sized bathroom will be a lot nearer than three metres from the bath.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I continue to regard it as ridiculous to suggest that a regular door handle (on a door) renders things on the other side of door 'accessible only by use of a tool', don't you?

With which of these do you disagree?:

1. A lever is a tool.
   
2. A door handle is a lever.

 

[JohnW2]

I continue to regard it as ridiculous to suggest that a regular door handle (on a door) renders things on the other side of door 'accessible only by use of a tool', don't you?

With which of these do you disagree?:

1. A lever is a tool.
2. A door handle is a lever.

You seem determined to carry on being silly about this - do I take it that you've had 'a good night'?

Since you appear to want to continue to play, there are numerous contexts in which I would disagree with (1). There are, for example, countless machines that have plenty of levers deep within their 'works', none of which any sane person would dream of describing as 'a tool'! A lever may, in some circumstances, be a tool - but very often won't be.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know the reason for three metres either. Typically illogical. Wasn't it introduced/allowed at the same time as RCDs? Any connection?

I think it's less tidy than that. IIRC, 16th Ed (with or without amendment) allowed sockets in rooms with showers but not baths, provided >2.5m from the shower (or something like that), provided that they were RCD protected. Also, is the 3m in some way a leftover from Zone 3 of 16th?

What do people with large bathrooms plug in to them?

Maybe one of the reasons was the increasing (albeit still fairly unusual) emergence of 'open plan' (i.e. doorless) en suites? With such an arrangement, presumably the totality ('bathroom' and 'bedroom') would qualify as 'a room containing a bath or shower' - hence prohibiting sockets in the bedroom if there were no 3m (or similar) rule.

Why, anyway? Was anyone particularly aggrieved by not being allowed sockets in a bathroom

I doubt it unless, as above, one had an 'open plan' bedroom/en suite which, without the 3m rule, would fall foul of the 'no sockets' rule.

In actual fact a socket in a corridor/passage/landing outside a usual sized bathroom will be a lot nearer than three metres from the bath.

As the (wall penetrating ) crow flies, even 'as the cable flies', certainly yes. However, I imagine the assumption was that once one was outside of the bathroom door, the risk of 'wetness' would be very much diminished, even if still in close proxility to the bathroom.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know the reason for three metres either. Typically illogical. Wasn't it introduced/allowed at the same time as RCDs? Any connection?

I think it's less tidy than that. IIRC, 16th Ed (with or without amendment) allowed sockets in rooms with showers but not baths, provided >2.5m from the shower (or something like that), provided that they were RCD protected. Also, is the 3m in some way a leftover from Zone 3 of 16th?

Ah, yes. I had forgotten that so nothing has changed.
I don't see a lot of large bathrooms.

What do people with large bathrooms plug in to them?

Maybe one of the reasons was the increasing (albeit still fairly unusual) emergence of 'open plan' (i.e. doorless) en suites? With such an arrangement, presumably the totality ('bathroom' and 'bedroom') would qualify as 'a room containing a bath or shower' - hence prohibiting sockets in the bedroom if there were no 3m (or similar) rule.

Why, anyway? Was anyone particularly aggrieved by not being allowed sockets in a bathroom

I doubt it unless, as above, one had an 'open plan' bedroom/en suite which, without the 3m rule, would fall foul of the 'no sockets' rule.

I must start mixing in palace circles.
Is such an arrangement considered desirable?

In actual fact a socket in a corridor/passage/landing outside a usual sized bathroom will be a lot nearer than three metres from the bath.

As the (wall penetrating ) crow flies, even 'as the cable flies', certainly yes. However, I imagine the assumption was that once one was outside of the bathroom door, the risk of 'wetness' would be very much diminished, even if still in close proxility to the bathroom.

So, it's not that you will be dry by the time you get there, then?

 

[JohnW2]

Ah, yes. I had forgotten that so nothing has changed.

IIRC, something has changed - if there were a bath (as opposed to just a shower) in the room, I don't think that the 16th Ed allowed any sockets, no matter how far from bath/shower.

Maybe one of the reasons was the increasing (albeit still fairly unusual) emergence of 'open plan' (i.e. doorless) en suites?

I must start mixing in palace circles. Is such an arrangement considered desirable?

I've experienced it in a good few up-market hotels over the years, and also remember seeing at least a couple like that when we were last house-hunting (about 25 years ago!). Whether it's desirable is a matter of personal opinion/taste, I suppose. With such an arrangement, it's quite common to have the loo separate (and 'private', with a door!) and, with that variant, I think that a good few people would probably be happy with the idea.

So, it's not that you will be dry by the time you get there, then?

Well, I suppose the expectation might have been that a person will usually be fairly dry by the time they leave the bathroom! As for using electrical appliances in a bathroom, the advent of extension leads will have killed any thoughts of preventing that by regs about sockets in bathrooms!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You seem determined to carry on being silly about this - do I take it that you've had 'a good night'?

I'm not being silly.

With which of these do you disagree?:

1. A lever used by hand in order to amplify force is a tool.
2. A door handle is a lever.

A lever may, in some circumstances, be a tool - but very often won't be.

Have you ever tried grasping that little square shaft and seeing how hard it is to open the door without the assistance of the leverage provided by the door handle?

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not being silly.

In context, you most certainly are. No sane person would believe that a door handle, or anything like it, was, alone, adequate to protect people from electrical hazards.

With which of these do you disagree?:

1. A lever used by hand in order to amplify force is a tool.
2. A door handle is a lever.

You've changed the question! In any event, my point remains, that if the lever is an integral part of the equipment/item/whatever, one does not call it a tool, even if it is operated by hand. No normal person would, say, call a handbrake operating thingy, or the operating bit of certain water taps, or the bit one uses to operate a CU main switch, a 'tool', even though they all act as levers - it's simply part of the item.

Have you ever tried grasping that little square shaft and seeing how hard it is to open the door without the assistance of the leverage provided by the door handle?

Sure. No-one is denying that the lever functionality of a door handle is almost essential. However, that does not mean that we call a door handle a tool.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In context, you most certainly are. No sane person would believe that a door handle, or anything like it, was, alone, adequate to protect people from electrical hazards.

Something either is a tool or it is not.

It does not change from being a tool to not being one, or vice-versa, just because a particular use of it is inappropriate.

A knife is a tool. A screwdriver is a tool. A knife does not stop being a tool if you try to use it on a screw.

A lever does not stop being a tool if you mount it on a door so that it can act as a force multiplier and make it possible for you to work the mechanism by hand.

Nor does it stop being a tool if something behind the door is hazardous.

You've changed the question!

I changed it because you decided to introduce an example of a lever which was inside a machine and therefore not a tool. I tightened the definition so that you could not do that, and had to stick to the situation of a lever operated by hand and used as a force multiplier in a manual operation.

In any event, my point remains, that if the lever is an integral part of the equipment/item/whatever, one does not call it a tool, even if it is operated by hand.

What if you buy it and then fit it yourself - is it still an integral part of the door?

What if you make it removable?

No normal person would, say, call a handbrake operating thingy, or the operating bit of certain water taps, or the bit one uses to operate a CU main switch, a 'tool', even though they all act as levers - it's simply part of the item.

Maybe they wouldn't. They might not call the tap a valve either.

Whether an item changes its nature because of what it is or is not called is something philosophers might like to debate, but, in context, my vote goes for "it doesn't".

Sure. No-one is denying that the lever functionality of a door handle is almost essential. However, that does not mean that we call a door handle a tool.

I suspect that we don't only because most people fail to recognise that it is a tool.

Is this a tool:

?

 

[JohnW2]

<lots of silly arguing for the sake of arguing> ending with ...

No-one is denying that the lever functionality of a door handle is almost essential. However, that does not mean that we call a door handle a tool.

I suspect that we don't only because most people fail to recognise that it is a tool.

This is all so silly because of the context and implications. As I understand it, you are trying to imply that if (in youir opinion) something can/should be regarded as 'a tool', then it necessarily satisfies a requirement for something to only be accessible with use of a tool in order to protect against a risk of electric shock. That is such a daft notion (as the door handle example admirably illustates) as to not warrant any repetition of the explanation as to why it is so daft.

Kind Regards, John