Err..
You might like to consider the level of personal commitment that position already binds you to regarding existing legislation.
Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition
- Thread starter TonyS
- Start date
You might like to consider the level of personal commitment that position already binds you to regarding existing legislation.
Why has one post been removed and its following reply deleted?
I tried what was suggested in the removed post and it was indeed correct.
I tried what was suggested in the removed post and it was indeed correct.
Tesco?
BS 1363 is developed by a committee at BSI, following a democratic process that includes a public consultation. Test houses cannot "develop variations".
Not so. ASTA are one of the "Notified Bodies" able to approve plugs under the plugs and sockets regulations. They also develop ASTA standards where no appropriate standard exists. ASTA were responsible for the original standard for plastic ISODs, later incorporated into BS 1363, and more recently developed standards (based on BS 1363) which have allowed them to grant approvals to the ThinPlug and the SlimPlug folding plugs, both of which are approved under the plugs and sockets regulations, despite not conforming to the conventional BS 1363-1 standard. See http://www.intertek.com/marks/asta/standards/
True, I didn't word that very well - there will obviously always be a lack of exhaustiveness, grey areas and ambiguities, which is why courts have to do 'interpetation'. Maybe a classic example is the Abortion Act, which the politicians who championed and introduced it (largely doen to David Steel) never dreamed of what effects it would have (hence certainly did not have a "totally clear idea of what its effects would/might be").
As you will understand, I was talking about the rather extreme situation is being postulated - that legislation should be enacted by a minister requiring certain products to comply with some specification/rules/Standards/whatever which does not currently exist at all (and over the contents of which the minister would have no control). In many situations, such behaviour could result in calls for the resignation of the minister.
Kind Regards, John.
Wonderfully off topic (see 'on-topic' at the end)! ....
In a literal sense, it is obvioulsy true the 'the first chicken' came out of 'an egg' - so, in that simplistic sense, you are right in saying that it is a no-brainer. ... the first chicken cannot have appeared out of thin air, or popped out of the belly of some other animal.
However, the more intellectually interesting question is "what came first - a chicken or a chicken egg?", and that is rather different. The decision as to when the progressive tiny changes had progressed to the point of our having 'the first chicken' is obviously a totally arbitrary decision made by humans. The totality of the characteristics of an animal (or any other living organism) is due to a combination of genetic and environmental (and some essentially random) factors. It therefore could be that the first animal to appear which fulfilled the human definition of 'a chicken' only fulfilled that definition because of environmental factors and that it came from an egg which would not, in itself (genetically) not 'qualify' as a 'chicken egg'.
What fun
back on topic ....
However, there are bodies around which are much more clever than me, and which have much more access to data than I do. If they were to examine the matter, conclude that plugging these things into BS 1363 sockets had a net detrimental effect on safety, and thus introduce that concept into some Standard or whatever (modified BS 1363 or anything else), then I would be very happy to support legislation which referred to that Standard and thereby effectively outlawed their sale. For politicians to make the decision to 'ban' them unilaterally would, I think, be inappropriate, and a very dangerous precedent.
Kind Regards, John.
Maybe the chicken/egg one is sufficiently intellectually sophisticated that we don't need to shift to energy/matter!
In a literal sense, it is obvioulsy true the 'the first chicken' came out of 'an egg' - so, in that simplistic sense, you are right in saying that it is a no-brainer. ... the first chicken cannot have appeared out of thin air, or popped out of the belly of some other animal.
However, the more intellectually interesting question is "what came first - a chicken or a chicken egg?", and that is rather different. The decision as to when the progressive tiny changes had progressed to the point of our having 'the first chicken' is obviously a totally arbitrary decision made by humans. The totality of the characteristics of an animal (or any other living organism) is due to a combination of genetic and environmental (and some essentially random) factors. It therefore could be that the first animal to appear which fulfilled the human definition of 'a chicken' only fulfilled that definition because of environmental factors and that it came from an egg which would not, in itself (genetically) not 'qualify' as a 'chicken egg'.
What fun
back on topic ....
We've debated this before and I, for one, have not seen the data which would enable me to be confident in the same conclusion as you. There are certainly senses in which they (socket covers) decrease safety, but (per the whole concept) there are other senses in which they may increase safety. Whether their use has increased, decreased or had no effect on relevant injuries/deaths (of which there are presumably only a tiny number), I haven't a clue - so I would not be the one to pass judgement.
However, there are bodies around which are much more clever than me, and which have much more access to data than I do. If they were to examine the matter, conclude that plugging these things into BS 1363 sockets had a net detrimental effect on safety, and thus introduce that concept into some Standard or whatever (modified BS 1363 or anything else), then I would be very happy to support legislation which referred to that Standard and thereby effectively outlawed their sale. For politicians to make the decision to 'ban' them unilaterally would, I think, be inappropriate, and a very dangerous precedent.
Kind Regards, John.
I worked out for myself about 20 years ago that these things were dangerous, and pointed this out to my friends who were all diligently fitting them for their children's safety.
What has taken everyone so long to notice the obvious?
What has taken everyone so long to notice the obvious?
Maybe the fact that not everyone sees it as being so obvious. Many things designed/intended to do good can, in some cases, do harm (medicines, seat belts etc.) - and the fact that some things can be dangerous is not necessarily a reason for not using, let alone 'banning' them (which would lead, for example, to no medicines and no seat belts). In some cases it is fairly obvious (or easily demonstrated) that, on balance, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, or vice versa. However, in the case we're talking about, I doubt that anyone has enough information to even give them a clue about the answer, let alone to make it 'obvious'. I certainly haven't got a clue.
However, as I've said, I would be more than happy to fully support a call for the force of law to be put behind the conclusions/views of a learned organisation such as the BSI.
Kind Regards, John.
I get the impression that a number of people making contributions to this thread do not quite understand how plugs and sockets specifications work, and I know from experience elsewhere that it is sometimes thought that plugs are made to fit sockets, whereas the opposite is true.
If you look back to BS 372 (1930), and its predecessor BS 317 (1928) you will see that the sizes of both pins and socket tubes were dimensioned and toleranced. However, that is not a very good way of ensuring that the two make effective contact, particularly when they may come (and these days usually do) from different manufacturers. Starting with BS 546 in 1934 the standards took a different approach, they put a precise specification on the pins and required the socket tubes to make effective contact with the standard pins.
BS 1363 is also written that way, there are very precise definitions for pin dimensions and the disposition of the pins, (and certain other dimensions which are required for safety reasons) but a BS 1363 socket is defined as something which mates with a specific (even tighter tolerance) set of test plugs (gauges). It should be clear that only plugs, and plug-like devices which have exactly the same pin dimensions as plugs, can be considered safe to use with sockets. It is frankly beyond me (and the majority of electricians – judging by the discussions which take place on most electricians forums) why anyone who understands the basics of how plugs and sockets work together would ever query the necessity of doing everything possible to prevent incorrectly dimensioned products being sold to use with BS 1363 sockets, to do so is sheer irresponsibility.
It is a mark of how little socket cover manufacturers understand and/or care about socket safety that not one of them can be bothered to manufacture a product which is correctly dimensioned. That very fact alone makes them unsuitable to be allowed to sell their products.
MK, when asked, to “advise us of the maximum pin dimensions which will ensure that the function of your socket’s contact receptacles is not compromised”. Their reply stated: “Please consult BS 1363 for dimensional and tolerance data on both sockets and plugs. Obviously, a socket cover must also conform to the dimensions stated in the relevant British Standard”. However, no socket covers conform!
It is frankly ludicrous that we have the situation where the supply of BS 1363 plugs is very tightly regulated, but not the supply of other products sold to plug into a BS 1363 socket. That situation really does need to be rectified. What needs to banned is products which are not made to the correct dimensions. It is important to recognize that the petition is not calling for a general ban. Safe socket covers could be made, although they would still be completely unnecessary, so why is it that no manufacturer does that? The answer is; they can get away with selling cheap junk which is unregulated at often inflated prices.
The BSI has made it clear that it will be taking no action on socket covers. Only the government can break this deadlock and fix the issue.
If you look back to BS 372 (1930), and its predecessor BS 317 (1928) you will see that the sizes of both pins and socket tubes were dimensioned and toleranced. However, that is not a very good way of ensuring that the two make effective contact, particularly when they may come (and these days usually do) from different manufacturers. Starting with BS 546 in 1934 the standards took a different approach, they put a precise specification on the pins and required the socket tubes to make effective contact with the standard pins.
BS 1363 is also written that way, there are very precise definitions for pin dimensions and the disposition of the pins, (and certain other dimensions which are required for safety reasons) but a BS 1363 socket is defined as something which mates with a specific (even tighter tolerance) set of test plugs (gauges). It should be clear that only plugs, and plug-like devices which have exactly the same pin dimensions as plugs, can be considered safe to use with sockets. It is frankly beyond me (and the majority of electricians – judging by the discussions which take place on most electricians forums) why anyone who understands the basics of how plugs and sockets work together would ever query the necessity of doing everything possible to prevent incorrectly dimensioned products being sold to use with BS 1363 sockets, to do so is sheer irresponsibility.
It is a mark of how little socket cover manufacturers understand and/or care about socket safety that not one of them can be bothered to manufacture a product which is correctly dimensioned. That very fact alone makes them unsuitable to be allowed to sell their products.
MK, when asked, to “advise us of the maximum pin dimensions which will ensure that the function of your socket’s contact receptacles is not compromised”. Their reply stated: “Please consult BS 1363 for dimensional and tolerance data on both sockets and plugs. Obviously, a socket cover must also conform to the dimensions stated in the relevant British Standard”. However, no socket covers conform!
It is frankly ludicrous that we have the situation where the supply of BS 1363 plugs is very tightly regulated, but not the supply of other products sold to plug into a BS 1363 socket. That situation really does need to be rectified. What needs to banned is products which are not made to the correct dimensions. It is important to recognize that the petition is not calling for a general ban. Safe socket covers could be made, although they would still be completely unnecessary, so why is it that no manufacturer does that? The answer is; they can get away with selling cheap junk which is unregulated at often inflated prices.
The BSI has made it clear that it will be taking no action on socket covers. Only the government can break this deadlock and fix the issue.
That may or may not be true, but I think it is essentially irrelevant to the important parts of the discussion.
Yes, it's beyond me, too.
Again I totally agree. The BSI should rectify that, assuming they can be made to agree that rectification is needed.
Now there's a problem, and I obvioulsy don't know their reason - do you? Maybe, in the specific case of socket covers, they are being pragmatic, on the basis of being unable to find any evidence-based reason for acting. As I 've asked before, although we are all aware of the theoretical hazards, is there any hard evidence of any case in which anyone has been seriously injured or killed as a result of socket covers (and, indeed, how many people who have been 'spared death' because of them - although that data will obviously not be available!). However ....
I can't see how. As I keep saying, whilst government can put the force of legislation behind a Standard (by demanding compliance with it), the last thing I would want to see is legislators attempting to produce technical specifications/Standards within legislation - both because it would probably be a disaster and because it would represent a very worrying precedent.
I commend and support attempts to get goverment to legislate to enforce compliance with Standards affecting safety. However, there has to be something to comply with before they can do that.
Kind Regards, John.
Nice try
Let me correct that for you, "... unless it can be used for everything it is sold to be used for". In this case it is being sold for a particular use (opening the shutter on a BS1363 socket - but it's not safe to use on all BS1363 sockets (according to some comments here). If it's not safe to use for the function is is being sold to be used for, then it shouldn't be on the market.But equally, the minister may make a regulation requiring adherence to some standard, and the standard be modified the next day.
That is true, and the legislators (ministers) theoretically ought to keep an eye on this, in case it requires them to modify (or even rescind) the legslation. However, at the start of the process, one (at least, I) can at least expect them to know what it is (at that point in time) that they are making 'mandatory'.
One might agree to marry someone that 'a committee' had already selected (and whose identity one knew and was happy with). If the committee decided to change their selection the next day, one might then have to review one's agreement. However, what most sane people would not do is to agree, unreservedly, to marry whoever it was that a committee was going to select for them at some unspecified point in the future!
Kind Regards, John
You have higher expectations of them than I do
Actually, in some cultures that is the norm. I have heard it said that when it works well, it can produce a better result than the western norm of following one's hormones - of course, we only tend to hear about the cases where it didn't work out so well.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
