Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[JohnW2]

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".

I have no argument with any of that, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to the point being discussed. Given the ubiquity of potentially dangerous appliances (even if the parents realise they are potentially dangerous) and the almost daily 're-inforcement' of children seeing adults plug appliances into sockets, I would think that it would be far more likely that children would seek to mimic that activity than to play with socket covers or try to push odd items into orifices of opened-shutter sockets (something which, hopefully, they will never have seen an adult do) - don't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

.. I would think that it would be far more likely that children would seek to mimic that activity than to play with socket covers or try to push odd items into orifices of opened-shutter sockets (something which, hopefully, they will never have seen an adult do) - don't you?

I'm not so sure - children tend to be quite inquisitive and have a "what can I fit this into" attitude whether they have hold of anything. As for never stuffing anything into sockets, well I have some very vague memories from long ago that would disprove your hypothesis. I certainly remember learning by experience that 240V "stings a bit"

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not so sure - children tend to be quite inquisitive and have a "what can I fit this into" attitude whether they have hold of anything. As for never stuffing anything into sockets, well I have some very vague memories from long ago that would disprove your hypothesis. I certainly remember learning by experience that 240V "stings a bit"

All true (and, yes, I have similar memories) but I still think that plugging in appliances is likely to be much more common. However, that's based on nothing other than 'intuition', so you might be right.

Kindest Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

children tend to be quite inquisitive and have a "what can I fit this into" attitude whether they have hold of anything.

And are often given and encouraged to use shape-sorter toys.

 

[martinxxxxxx]

Wouldn't it be batter to campaign for a change to the standard so that the MK shutter system is the minimum standard for a socket. Then job done. MK patent should be compulsory purchased, like they do for a new by-pass

 

[johno12345]

when i was about 8 years old, i visited a neighbour with my mother who had the child coverrs in her sockets, i asked her why she had them, and was told its because the council said she had to as a childminder.

Even then, i pointed out how you couldnt get a shock by poking things into the socket, and turned one round to open the shutters.

but then, who believes an 8yr old kid lol

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Wouldn't it be batter to campaign for a change to the standard so that the MK shutter system is the minimum standard for a socket. Then job done. MK patent should be compulsory purchased, like they do for a new by-pass

I think that there is a lot to be said for the idea of requiring all new sockets in houses, hospitals and public places to be of the type requiring three pins to operate the shutter. As there are already at least three manufacturers of such (MK, Legrand and Hagar) then patents are not an issue. It took the USA 60 years after the UK introduced shutters, and many thousands of injuries, to accept the importance of shutters, but they now have an electrical code in most states which requires shuttered sockets in all new build residential. http://www.childoutletsafety.org

However, such a regulation would not change the situation with regard to existing installations. It would also do nothing about the socket covers which allow pins to be inserted when the socket cover is in use. And it would certainly not prevent incorrectly designed socket covers damaging sockets.

 

[bernardgreen]

but then, who believes an 8yr old kid lol

sensible open minded people often believe 8 year olds.

How soon before we have to fit intelligent sockets that are only energised a few seconds after a correctly coded plug is inserted.

It is done with ELV sockets where a pair of pilot pins has to complete a circuit to energise a contactor that puts power to the main pins. But four pin mains plug wouldn't be popular.

 

[SimonH2]

How soon before we have to fit intelligent sockets that are only energised a few seconds after a correctly coded plug is inserted.

It is done with ELV sockets where a pair of pilot pins has to complete a circuit to energise a contactor that puts power to the main pins. But four pin mains plug wouldn't be popular.

Probably wouldn't be done with an extra pin in this case, RF systems are almost to the point where a small RF reader in the socket could do the trick. The plugs would need an RF tag on them.

The chances of getting any sort of agreement to change the plug/socket is slim - especially on such spurious safety grounds. Note that no-one can come up with statistics showing there to be any sort of significant problem (with or without the covers in question). Look how long there has been debate about a new pan-european plug !

Of course, once you start having RF identified plugs, how long before they mandate a connection back to the mandatory* smart meter so someone can dig even deeper into your usage habits to categorise you and sell advertising ?
* Yeah, I know they are supposedly going to be optional - but I expect optional unless you've money to burn on tariffs designed to make you want a smart meter.

 

[JohnW2]

How soon before we have to fit intelligent sockets that are only energised a few seconds after a correctly coded plug is inserted. It is done with ELV sockets where a pair of pilot pins has to complete a circuit to energise a contactor that puts power to the main pins. But four pin mains plug wouldn't be popular.

Probably wouldn't be done with an extra pin in this case, RF systems are almost to the point where a small RF reader in the socket could do the trick. The plugs would need an RF tag on them.

It isn't going to happen, and we have as yet seen no hard evidence that it needs to happen, but if it did, then I don't think one wouldn't need extra pins or any electronics - at least, not for switched sockets. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to design a mechanical interlock system which prevented a plug being inserted if the switch was 'on' and which prevented it being switched 'on' unless pins were fully inserted.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Some IEC 60309 sockets have interlinks like that, but they rely on the fact that the pins are shrouded - not sure what a mechanism in a BS 1363 socket could clamp onto.

 

[JohnW2]

Some IEC 60309 sockets have interlinks like that, but they rely on the fact that the pins are shrouded - not sure what a mechanism in a BS 1363 socket could clamp onto.

I would have thought that 'clamping on' would only be required if one wanted to prevent plugs being withdrawn whilst the switch was 'on'. I was merely thinking of an interlock which would put a physical barrier in the way of pin insertion if the switch were 'on' and would put a physical barrier in the way of switch operation (to the 'on' position) if no plug were inserted. That would presumably only require the pushing of 'levers',not any 'clamping'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What would be the point of preventing the socket being switched on unless there was a plug in it if you could remove the plug and leave it on?

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I was merely thinking of an interlock which would put a physical barrier in the way of pin insertion if the switch were 'on' and would put a physical barrier in the way of switch operation (to the 'on' position) if no plug were inserted.

MK patented something similar back in 1932, GB patent number: 365275.

However, we are wandering OT again! The BS 1363 socket is safe providing that it is not interfered with by inserting inappropriately dimensioned plug like objects into it. The suggested locking socket would not help to solve that issue.

2 or 3 pin shutter operation is clearly superior to the earth pin only method, but that does not make the latter unsafe. (Although allowing sockets which permit real plugs to be inserted upside down is a loophole which should be closed).

Regulation of incorrectly sized plugs and socket covers is a realistic objective which is achievable. All it needs is a government who wish to improve safety. Unlike a change of standard socket type, such regulation will not affect any existing installation.

 

[JohnW2]

What would be the point of preventing the socket being switched on unless there was a plug in it if you could remove the plug and leave it on?

Because (with the functionality I described) once one had done that, it would not be possible to re-insert a plug until the switch had been turned 'off', and then not possible to turn the switch back 'on' until a plug was fully inserted. I'm assuming that shutters would be present as well as the 'interlock'.

Kind Regards, John