Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[JohnW2]

The manufacturers aren't going to want to stop selling these plugs, so all they have to do to protect themselves is remove claims like safety and childproof, and continue selling them a simply socket covers. Though pretty useless, this is no more dangerous than a regular 13 amp plug, connected or otherwise.

The suggestion (well, one of the suggestions) is that, by not complying with BS 1363 as regards pin dimensions etc., most of these things are more dangerous than a regular (BS 1363-compliant) 13A plug. You may or may not agree.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Getting down to basics, the citizen's job is to call for the Government to protect us from unscrupulous traders, not to tell them exactly how to do it. It looks to me as though Trevor Ord has done a pretty good job in what he has said. The e-petition system only allows a fairly short statement, so not room for much detail.

There are a number of ways in which the government can regulate something, for instance pepper sprays and CS sprays are regulated by section 5 (1) (b) of the Firearms Act (1968) which states:
"5 Weapons subject to general prohibition.(1)A person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Defence Council or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998), he has in his possession, or purchases or acquires, or manufactures, sells or transfers—
(b)any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing;"

No need for a standard there!
(As an aside, it is interesting that, in total contravention of the above, Amazon.co.uk does offer both CS Spray http://www.amazon.co.uk/KU-24220-KO-Spray-40ml/dp/B001O0DQWO and pepper spray: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peffer-KO-Jet-40-Ballistol/dp/B001O0DQTC )

A more reasonable approach with socket covers and other currently non-regulated items would be to bring them within the scope of the plugs and sockets regulations and require them to bear an approval mark from a notified body in the same way that all BS 1363 plugs are currently required to be approved. The regulations could state that the products must conform to the relevant parts of BS 1363-1. The approval houses (BSI, ASTA etc) could be left to determine the dimensional, mechanical strength, creepage and insulation parts of the spec against which they would approve the item. This is not so different from the current practice of the approval houses developing variations of BS 1363 to allow the introduction of the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug.

Although I would agree they are clearly made to plug into a 13A socket they are not electrical and I can't see how one can differentiate between the match stick and and plastic lump. We have all seen the screwdriver being used to defeat the safety shutters be it to push in a probe for a meter or a pair of wires with no plug.

The difference is in the intention of the manufacturer. Returning to the pepper spray comparison, it is not illegal to sell a water pistol and a container of very hot chilli sauce in the same supermarket transaction. But if the supermarket supplies the water pistol filled with the chilli sauce and describes it as being for personal defence, it becomes illegal.

How would you stop these being made illegal:

Or would you not want to?

I absolutely would wish them to be illegal! Nothing which is not made to the correct dimensions of a plug should ever be sold to put in a socket. The skeletal line and neutral "pins" on that thing are clearly not made to BS 1363! Do you have any idea what trying to force one of those into an MK Logic Plus socket, or the three pin shutter operation sockets from Legrand and Hagar, would do to the sockets?

As to the "barriers to trade" issue, as everything under discussion relates to products which only have an EU market in UK and Ireland (and the Irish legislation tends to follow the UK in this area) then it seems unlikely that it would be of any significance. The fact that we use BS 1363 is a much greater barrier to trade than actually requiring accessories for BS 1363 to be safe!

I feel the existing Trading Standards system is more than adequate for this situation.

Having discussed this in detail with trading standards officers, I can assure you that is not the case. All trading standards departments are very over-stretched by local authority cuts. They have neither the time nor the money to be able to bring case where the burden of proof lies with them, as it would be in the case of socket covers. If there are specific regulations they can act, general safety regulations are next to useless, and provide no solution to this problem.

There are socket covers which are ( apparently ) both safe and effective.

The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers. There are no plug-in socket covers which meet the dimensions specified by BS 1363, therefore it cannot be said that any are safe. As to being effective, the only way manufacturers have found to make them too difficult for small children to remove is to make the pins oversize and/or on incorrect centres. That is not an acceptable approach, and is certainly not safe! No manufacturer claims to do any electrical testing, so that does not suggest an interest in safety either. "It's plastic so it must be an insulator" is as far as they go.

However, a regular 13 amp plug fitted or not fitted to an appliance can be inserted wrongly in the same way a 'safety' cover can.

Most plugs will not stay in place in most sockets if inserted in the inverted position. All socket covers will stay in place in almost all sockets in the inverted position. This is mostly to do with their flexibility, and partly to do with their very light weight.

 

[JohnW2]

A more reasonable approach with socket covers and other currently non-regulated items would be to bring them within the scope of the plugs and sockets regulations and require them to bear an approval mark from a notified body in the same way that all BS 1363 plugs are currently required to be approved. The regulations could state that the products must conform to the relevant parts of BS 1363-1.

Exactly - just as I said. Once there is a Standard applying to the items in question, then it would be very reasonable to ask goverment to revise legislation so that it requires the items in question to be compliant with the Standard in question.

The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers.

I think you may need to re-read your own petition...

"....This means that there are many devices on the UK market EG socket covers, telephone chargers and other plug like devices which are unsafe to insert into a socket, either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open.
We urge the government to extend regulation to include all plug in devices intended for use in BS1363 sockets."

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkwright]

However, a regular 13 amp plug fitted or not fitted to an appliance can be inserted wrongly in the same way a 'safety' cover can.

Most plugs will not stay in place in most sockets if inserted in the inverted position. All socket covers will stay in place in almost all sockets in the inverted position. This is mostly to do with their flexibility, and partly to do with their very light weight.

Sockets where plugs can be inserted wrongly and firmly include some extension trailing leads, older smaller surface 1363 sockets (the type they usually fitted on skirting boards) and the modern equivalent which MK still manufacture (usually for DIY shops) today.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I absolutely would wish them to be illegal!

Why?

Nothing which is not made to the correct dimensions of a plug should ever be sold to put in a socket.

What about the Kewcheck R2?

The skeletal line and neutral "pins" on that thing are clearly not made to BS 1363!

Well if they were then the thing would be no use, would it

Do you have any idea what trying to force one of those into an MK Logic Plus socket, or the three pin shutter operation sockets from Legrand and Hagar, would do to the sockets?

No, never tried, but I would hope that anybody using one would realise it was causing trouble.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

A more reasonable approach with socket covers and other currently non-regulated items would be to bring them within the scope of the plugs and sockets regulations and require them to bear an approval mark from a notified body in the same way that all BS 1363 plugs are currently required to be approved. The regulations could state that the products must conform to the relevant parts of BS 1363-1.

Exactly - just as I said. Once there is a Standard applying to the items in question, then it would be very reasonable to ask goverment to revise legislation so that it requires the items in question to be compliant with the Standard in question.

I'm sorry to say this John, but you appear to be twisting my words!

I am suggesting that a new standard may not be necessary, just as a new standard was not produced to allow the SlimPlug and ThinPlug to be approved.

The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers.

I think you may need to re-read your own petition...

"....This means that there are many devices on the UK market EG socket covers, telephone chargers and other plug like devices which are unsafe to insert into a socket, either because they have incorrectly sized pins which can damage sockets resulting in arcing thus significantly increasing the risk of fires, or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket thereby increasing the risk of electric shock because the shutters of the sockets remain open.
We urge the government to extend regulation to include all plug in devices intended for use in BS1363 sockets."

Kind Regards, John.

Again, please read what I actually say before responding!

Firstly, it is not my petition, it is Trevor Ord's petition. Peter Munro and I (we are the Electrical Engineers who founded FatallyFlawed) do support it, as does Tony who started this thread, (Tony has been a very helpful and enthusiastic supporter of FatallyFlawed for a long time), but the petition arose out of the strong feelings of a group of electricians at Electricians Forums, it was not originated by FatallyFlawed, and we cannot take the credit.

Secondly:

There are socket covers which are ( apparently ) both safe and effective.

The only socket covers which may be considered safe and effective (in some situations, but see: http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/faq.html#Q8 ) are those which are NOT plug-in! Trevor's petition is very specific, it talks only about devices which DO plug-in to BS 1363 sockets.

There is no inconsistency in my post, I have read Trevor's petition VERY thoroughly, and it does not mention socket covers which do not plug-in, that is a very important distinction.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

However, a regular 13 amp plug fitted or not fitted to an appliance can be inserted wrongly in the same way a 'safety' cover can.

Most plugs will not stay in place in most sockets if inserted in the inverted position. All socket covers will stay in place in almost all sockets in the inverted position. This is mostly to do with their flexibility, and partly to do with their very light weight.

Sockets where plugs can be inserted wrongly and firmly include some extension trailing leads, older smaller surface 1363 sockets (the type they usually fitted on skirting boards) and the modern equivalent which MK still manufacture (usually for DIY shops) today.

There is not a problem with the MK sockets you mention because they use the line/neutral pin method of shutter opening, so putting an inverted plug, socket cover or anything else into the earth aperture does not open the shutters.

But, you are absolutely right about extension sockets, which is why we include a warning about them on the FatallyFlawed site: http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/other_dangers.html

I have lobbied the responsible BS committee on this subject as I think it is quite unacceptable, sadly they do not agree. Interestingly, there is a minimum distance for Line/Neutral aperture to lower edge of the engagement surface for sockets which use the line/neutral pin method of shutter opening (meaning that an upside down plug cannot be inserted into the Line/Neutral apertures only), so a previous committee clearly took a much more responsible view. I believe that this is a loop-hole which should be corrected and it currently reflects badly on the BS committee.

 

[JohnW2]

A more reasonable approach with socket covers and other currently non-regulated items would be to bring them within the scope of the plugs and sockets regulations and require them to bear an approval mark from a notified body in the same way that all BS 1363 plugs are currently required to be approved. The regulations could state that the products must conform to the relevant parts of BS 1363-1.

Exactly - just as I said. Once there is a Standard applying to the items in question, then it would be very reasonable to ask goverment to revise legislation so that it requires the items in question to be compliant with the Standard in question.

I'm sorry to say this John, but you appear to be twisting my words!...

I'm not twisting your words, I'm quoting what your wrote.

...I am suggesting that a new standard may not be necessary, just as a new standard was not produced to allow the SlimPlug and ThinPlug to be approved.

But that still requires an 'approval house' as you call it to first produce some sort of Standard/whatever, compliance with which legislation could then make mandatory. As I said before, this is a case in which the egg has to come before the chicken - legislation cannot demand an approval/certification/compliance/whatever which does not yet exist.

The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers.

I think you may need to re-read your own petition...

Again, please read what I actually say before responding!

I did! I apologise for incorrectly giving you credit for the petition, but what you wrote was "The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers.", which is clearly not true. What other part of what you wrote was I expected to read before responding?

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I absolutely would wish them to be illegal!

Why?

For the reasons stated.

Nothing which is not made to the correct dimensions of a plug should ever be sold to put in a socket.

What about the Kewcheck R2?

What about it? Are you suggesting that the pin dimensions are incorrect?

I absolutely would wish them to be illegal!

The skeletal line and neutral "pins" on that thing are clearly not made to BS 1363!

Well if they were then the thing would be no use, would it !

Well that's just the point, if something is sold to use with a BS 1363 socket then it clearly should be useable with ALL BS 1363 sockets, not just some. So, it is no use!

 

[FatallyFlawed]

A more reasonable approach with socket covers and other currently non-regulated items would be to bring them within the scope of the plugs and sockets regulations and require them to bear an approval mark from a notified body in the same way that all BS 1363 plugs are currently required to be approved. The regulations could state that the products must conform to the relevant parts of BS 1363-1.

Exactly - just as I said. Once there is a Standard applying to the items in question, then it would be very reasonable to ask goverment to revise legislation so that it requires the items in question to be compliant with the Standard in question.

I'm sorry to say this John, but you appear to be twisting my words!...

I'm not twisting your words, I'm quoting what your wrote.

...I am suggesting that a new standard may not be necessary, just as a new standard was not produced to allow the SlimPlug and ThinPlug to be approved.

But that still requires an 'approval house' as you call it to first produce some sort of Standard/whatever, compliance with which legislation could then make mandatory. As I said before, this is a case in which the egg has to come before the chicken - legislation cannot demand an approval/certification/compliance/whatever which does not yet exist.

You do not seem to understand that the process for SlimPlug and ThinPlug was not like that, there was no additional legislation which permitted ASTA to produce exceptions to BS 1363 and thereby certify the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug. They have the authority to do that. I am suggesting that it ought to be the same for socket covers and anything else which plugs into a BS 1363 socket.

The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers.

I think you may need to re-read your own petition...

Again, please read what I actually say before responding!

I did! I apologise for incorrectly giving you credit for the petition, but what you wrote was "The petition applies only to plug-in socket covers.", which is clearly not true. What other part of what you wrote was I expected to read before responding?

I expect you to read the line which immediately preceded my statement (and which you have edited out) which says "bernardgreen wrote: There are socket covers which are ( apparently ) both safe and effective." My comment was a clear response to that statement, and was clearly limited to the subject of socket covers.

It is unhelpful to misquote another post in a way which attempts to misrepresent that post.

 

[JohnW2]

Picking up on an earlier point ....

There are a number of ways in which the government can regulate something, for instance pepper sprays and CS sprays are regulated by section 5 (1) (b) of the Firearms Act (1968) which states:
"5 Weapons subject to general prohibition.(1)A person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Defence Council or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998), he has in his possession, or purchases or acquires, or manufactures, sells or transfers—
(b)any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing;"
No need for a standard there!

Sure, but that's possible because it's a 'blanket ban'. You could do the same with legislation that outlawed "anything to be designed to be plugged into a BS 1363 socket". However, the moment that lawfulness becomes dependent upon technical details and/or certification/approval/marking/whatever, the legislation can only work by refering to technical Standards (with a small or large 's').

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ebee]

Why all this talk about chickens & eggs?
Chicken & egg is a simple question.
Simple answer.
The egg came first and the chicken hatched out!

 

[JohnW2]

You do not seem to understand that the process for SlimPlug and ThinPlug was not like that, there was no additional legislation which permitted ASTA to produce exceptions to BS 1363 and thereby certify the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug. They have the authority to do that. I am suggesting that it ought to be the same for socket covers and anything else which plugs into a BS 1363 socket.

I'm getting lost. You now seem to be arguing that no change in legislation is necessary to achieve what you want - so why the petition (even though I now understand that you didn't initiate it)?

My comment was a clear response to that statement, and was clearly limited to the subject of socket covers.

I'm afraid that was not clear to me, but I apologise for not have worked out what you intended.

To be clear .... as I wrote earlier, I'd be more than happy to see Standards which defined the requirements for anything designed to be plugged/pushed into BS 1363 sockets and would fully support any campaign to get legislation which made it mandatory for all such items to comply with such Standards.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Why all this talk about chickens & eggs?Chicken & egg is a simple question. Simple answer. The egg came first and the chicken hatched out!

... and that egg came from?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Simple answer.
The egg came first and the chicken hatched out!

Correct.