Certainly, and sometimes I feel that once some device has been established as being "good," reporting often includes some comment when such a device was not present or not being used, implying - but without actually saying - that if the device had been present and in use, the fatality would not have occurred.
For example, how often does a news report of a road accident these days note that "Mr. X" was killed in the collision and then add a statement about how he was not using a seat belt? Both may undoubtedly be true statements, but it does not necessarily mean that he would have survived if he had been buckled up. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, depending upon the circumstances, but many listeners are left with the inferred link between the two. Conversely, how often does a news report note that "Mr. X" was using a seat belt but was killed anyway? Almost never - They note the fatality and unless there's some real specific reason, the belt doesn't get a mention. Surely that has to skew many people's perception of things?
So I feel it has become with the RCD. As you say, an RCD or GFCI will do nothing to protect anybody from an L-N or L-L shock, unless there is simultaneous L-E current of sufficient magnitude (or unless the points are on different circuits, which is far more unlikely than them being fed via the same RCD/GFCI). But I wonder how often somebody hears about such a fatality which then has some added comment about how the circuit didn't meet current code by not having such protection, and then assumes that had the device been present it would have saved a life?
While I acknowledge the effectiveness of the RCD/GFCI in many cases, I do feel that it has been promoted in some quarters in an unrealistic way, since there really are some people out there who believe that with an RCD/GFCI it's impossible so sustain a dangerous shock. To me, if people start becoming careless (damaged cords, broken plugs, doesn't matter if I drag these connectors through the water etc.) because they believe that the RCD/GFCI will automatically prevent any sort of electric shock hazard, that's far more dangerous than not having the devices in the first place and people actually taking care.
Again, does the prevalence of the RCD/GFCI these days invoke that risk compensation behavior in some people (just as with those drivers who demonstrate a tendency to take more risks behind the wheel once given their perceived extra safety of seat belts, disc brakes, ABS or whatever) which negates any safety improvement, and in some cases may actually make things worse? Food for thought!
For example, how often does a news report of a road accident these days note that "Mr. X" was killed in the collision and then add a statement about how he was not using a seat belt? Both may undoubtedly be true statements, but it does not necessarily mean that he would have survived if he had been buckled up. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, depending upon the circumstances, but many listeners are left with the inferred link between the two. Conversely, how often does a news report note that "Mr. X" was using a seat belt but was killed anyway? Almost never - They note the fatality and unless there's some real specific reason, the belt doesn't get a mention. Surely that has to skew many people's perception of things?
So I feel it has become with the RCD. As you say, an RCD or GFCI will do nothing to protect anybody from an L-N or L-L shock, unless there is simultaneous L-E current of sufficient magnitude (or unless the points are on different circuits, which is far more unlikely than them being fed via the same RCD/GFCI). But I wonder how often somebody hears about such a fatality which then has some added comment about how the circuit didn't meet current code by not having such protection, and then assumes that had the device been present it would have saved a life?
While I acknowledge the effectiveness of the RCD/GFCI in many cases, I do feel that it has been promoted in some quarters in an unrealistic way, since there really are some people out there who believe that with an RCD/GFCI it's impossible so sustain a dangerous shock. To me, if people start becoming careless (damaged cords, broken plugs, doesn't matter if I drag these connectors through the water etc.) because they believe that the RCD/GFCI will automatically prevent any sort of electric shock hazard, that's far more dangerous than not having the devices in the first place and people actually taking care.
Again, does the prevalence of the RCD/GFCI these days invoke that risk compensation behavior in some people (just as with those drivers who demonstrate a tendency to take more risks behind the wheel once given their perceived extra safety of seat belts, disc brakes, ABS or whatever) which negates any safety improvement, and in some cases may actually make things worse? Food for thought!
