Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[ban-all-sheds]

Wittering on about whether there should first be a standard for socket covers in place, or whether the minister and/or officials are competent to make a regulation serves no honourable purpose.

It does, actually, assuming you want the legislation to work.

Because that's the way that legislation has to work, there really is no viable alternative.

If you want something new in addition to the existing legislation which can deal with products not fit for purpose then you have to have it defined before you can enforce it.

If you want it compulsory for socket covers etc to conform to the dimensional requirements of BS 1363, then who is going to test products for compliance?

What tests will they do?

You could have something with the right sized pins but too flexible, so who is going to define what degree of flexibility is acceptable in each direction/plane?

How would the tests for that be developed?

Who would design the test rigs required for the tests?

How would the existing BS 1363 standard be altered to incorporate these devices?

And ones which are not socket covers but items of test equipment?

Or any plug-in devices such as adapters, power supplies, air fresheners, night lights, ethernet adapters.....?

What would be marked on something which was just a socket cover, since it clearly could not be BS 1363, as not all of the tests could be done?

Just saying to makers "it's got to be dimensionally correct" (a) isn't enough (flexibility for instance, heat resistance would be another) and (b) doesn't put into place any framework in which makers can have their assertion of compliance verified and by which products can be labelled so that a law prohibiting non-compliant products has something to refer to, so that Trading Standards bodies can identify non-compliant ones and buyers can identify compliant ones.

You are either going to need a whole new standard, or several new sections in BS 1363, BS 1363-6, -7 etc.

If you say "We urge the government to extend regulation to include all plug in devices intended for use in BS1363 sockets." it's no use not being able to answer, with sufficient detail and precision that a law could be drafted, the question "OK, how?"

 

[JohnW2]

Wittering on about whether there should first be a standard for socket covers in place, or whether the minister and/or officials are competent to make a regulation serves no honourable purpose.

I admire your good intentions, enthusiasm and tenacity, but that alone is not enough. Realities also have to be considered.

Kind Regards, John

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Decrease (slightly)

Has any child ever opened a socket with one of these; really?

Yes they have, without doubt. See http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/user_comments.html

.

Any independently documented cases that you are aware of?

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Decrease (slightly)

Has any child ever opened a socket with one of these; really?

Yes they have, without doubt. See http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/user_comments.html

Any independently documented cases that you are aware of?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by independent.

When the IET reported on the founding of FatallyFlawed (see http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2009/05/analysis-sockets.cfm ) they named Graham Kenyon's 2002 socket cover posting on their site as the earliest documented concern, you can see that thread here:
http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=1370
Graham is both a chartered Electrical Engineer and a JIB Approved Electrician. Please read that thread, you will see Graham's original concern centred on insulation. That thread was re-opened 6 years later, one of the results was that Graham related his story of his 1st child inverting the socket cover which had been installed to protect his second child. Only after that did Graham decalare his support for FatallyFlawed.

Wendy Shippham related her personal story to us as a result of seeing our video on YouTube. Neither of those stories was canvassed by FatallyFlawed, but both people kindly gave their permission for us to use them.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Graham related his story of his 1st child inverting the socket cover which had been installed to protect his second child. Only after that did Graham decalare his support for FatallyFlawed.

No one seems to be taking any notice of the fact that the same can be done with a 'proper plug'

It would seem to be significant to me.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Graham related his story of his 1st child inverting the socket cover which had been installed to protect his second child. Only after that did Graham decalare his support for FatallyFlawed.

No one seems to be taking any notice of the fact that the same can be done with a 'proper plug'

It would seem to be significant to me.

Here is one of the FAQ's from our site:

"If I can open the shutters in a socket by using a socket cover upside down, surely I can do the same thing with a proper plug?

Firstly, you should always ensure that you do not leave any mains device with a plug attached within reach of children.

Secondly, it is possible, but much more difficult, to defeat the safety shutters with a proper plug. There are several reasons for this additional difficulty. The earth pins of socket covers are normally the same size as a plug, but the other pins tend to be between 2mm and 5mm shorter than standard. This means that it is possible to insert an upside down socket cover significantly deeper into the earth socket than is possible with a plug. A plug will always be of rigid construction, so when the shorter pins of an upside down plug hit the surface of the socket, you cannot force it any further. Contrast this with a socket cover which, being of fairly flimsy construction will have a much greater degree of flexibility than a plug, thus allowing an even greater degree of penetration.

Even if you do succeed in opening the shutters with an inverted plug you will find that is much less likely to stay in place than is an inverted socket cover. This is because the penetration, and therefore the resistance to removal, is so much less, and the significantly heavier plug, together with its cable, will tend to fall out. Of course, an inverted plug with the cable going up rather than down will also be much more obvious to an adult."

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thanks.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Firstly, you should always ensure that you do not leave any mains device with a plug attached within reach of children.

What about ones which are plugged in?

Contrast this with a socket cover which, being of fairly flimsy construction will have a much greater degree of flexibility than a plug, thus allowing an even greater degree of penetration.

You could have something with the right sized pins but too flexible, so who is going to define what degree of flexibility is acceptable in each direction/plane?

How would the tests for that be developed?

Who would design the test rigs required for the tests?

Of course, an inverted plug with the cable going up rather than down will also be much more obvious to an adult.

The one on the right, BTW, is scarcely any larger than a plain plug.

 

[ricicle]

I think the chances of a child pulling out a plastic guard, inverting it, forcing it in and then finding a small metallic object to insert into the receptors is far smaller (and hence the danger smaller) than finding a dangerous appliance to plug in and switch on as they can copy this action from their guardians.

 

[clifford1]

Like this you mean?

 

[JohnW2]

I think the chances of a child pulling out a plastic guard, inverting it, forcing it in and then finding a small metallic object to insert into the receptors is far smaller (and hence the danger smaller) than finding a dangerous appliance to plug in and switch on as they can copy this action from their guardians.

Indeed - common sense suggests that the former risk would be very much smaller. As you say, the main issue is that children tend to copy, and they won't have seen adults opening shutters with inverted covers and then poking things in. ... and, as you imply, the number of 'dangerous appliances' around the average home is high.

I am still waiting, as I have been for months/years, for someone to point me towards even a single well-documented case of a child having been seriously injured or killed as a result of the use of a socket cover.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[SimonH2]

I think the chances of a child pulling out a plastic guard, inverting it, forcing it in and then finding a small metallic object to insert into the receptors is far smaller (and hence the danger smaller) than finding a dangerous appliance to plug in and switch on as they can copy this action from their guardians.

I would agree if you add the words "in one session" or similar.

I think many scenarios people are thinking about are where the child plays with the cover and in doing so reinserts it upside down or breaks off the 'earth' pin. For them to now look for something to stuff in the holes is quite unlikely - I'd agree with that.
But you now have a socket with open holes, ie something the shutters are supposed to avoid, for as long it it takes for an adult to notice.

Then all you need is child (not necessarily the same one) to be playing with something small and conductive - they shouldn't, but they do. There's now an open hole that's so inviting as a receptacle for the object they have in their hand.


Children (of all ages !) will play with anything. I recall many years ago working on a farm. Looked round, and the toddler had picked up a pair of pliers, and just as he'd seen us using them to cut something, he had them round ... the extension lead. And this was before the days when RCDs were considered a good idea.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the chances of a child pulling out a plastic guard, inverting it, forcing it in and then finding a small metallic object to insert into the receptors is far smaller (and hence the danger smaller) than finding a dangerous appliance to plug in and switch on as they can copy this action from their guardians.

I would agree if you add the words "in one session" or similar.

I have to say that I would agree even without those added words. Although your 'two session' scenario is obviously possible (and may sometimes happen), I still think that the plugging in of a dangerous appliance (by definition a 'one session' activity) is almost certainly more common - not the least because it represents the mimicing of everyday adult behaviour.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I still think that the plugging in of a dangerous appliance (by definition a 'one session' activity) is almost certainly more common - not the least because it represents the mimicing of everyday adult behaviour.

Very probably, but at least those appliances have a reason to be there - ie they are there as they are required to do a job. Having seen all the arguments both ways, I don't think the same can be said about these so called "safety covers".

Hopefully most responsible and thinking adults could see the risks inherent in appliances - eg an iron has the potential to cause injuries if it's dropped or pulled off it's resting place (ie it's something heavy with sharp corners), and it has the potential to cause burns.
From all the anecdotes, it;s clear that most adults don't see the potential issues with "safety covers".