Earth question - Shaver socket

[JohnW2]

I don't tend to trip over corpses in bathrooms on holidays, so it's probably fair to assume that all of the rest of the world isn't necessarily incorrect about the hazards or lack thereof, but alas we are where we are on this issue.

Very much so, but I think that's probably true of perception of, and attitudes to, electrical (and many other) issues in general, not just about 'electricity in bathrooms'.

In terms of electrical matters, the fact is that (at least in the UK) the number of domestic electrocutions has (perhaps surprisingly, given how potentially dangerous electricity is) been so relatively small that there has never been scope for any measures/requirements to "save lots of lives". There will, of course, always be some people who say that "one death is one death too many", in the real world, one has to be more pragmatic - as I say so often, I feel sure that if the billions that have been spent on producing and deploying RCDs had been directed elsewhere (e.g. road safety or medical care/research) far more lives would have been saved than RCDs could ever save.

 

[morqthana]

alas we are where we are on this issue.

Only those of use who care (or have to care) about complying with the letter of the regs rather than just getting on with what is perfectly safe enough.

Mind you, I can't think why anybody would actually need a socket in a bathroom. Hairdryer maybe? I wouldn't know - it's been many years since I had use for one of those....

 

[morqthana]

I feel sure that if the billions that have been spent on producing and deploying RCDs had been directed elsewhere (e.g. road safety or medical care/research) far more lives would have been saved than RCDs could ever save.

Quite possibly, but unless there was, say, a tax on new CUs how would you harvest the money not spent on RCDs to use for medical research?

 

[JohnW2]

Quite possibly, but unless there was, say, a tax on new CUs how would you harvest the money not spent on RCDs to use for medical research?

As you will realise, I was talking generally about the relative effectiveness in terms of "saving lives" of different uses of notional money, not about realistic ways in which the money spent on RCDs could have been redirected to 'better uses'.

As for your 'suggestion' (albeit prefaced with "unless") the cost of RCDs is effectively analogous to a 'tax' on everyone with an electrical installation - except that the money collected goes to the manufacturers,suppliers and installers of RCDs, rather than to government, which would seem a much less desirable situation that if it could have been routed to road safety, medical research or whatever!

 

[ebee]

Well I reckon that RCDs have "probably" saved a few lives, but I can not imagine how many.
If we go to great lengths to provide a "probable ball park figure" we might decide that they are worthwhile.
The will probably not be the most cost effective way of saving lives and probably less so than motoring or medical matters for example.
Personally I`m glad we use them and because they are now pretty common they are cheaper than they were some years ago.
I do feel a little safer with rather than without them but never to the extent of relaxing any other considerations when dealing with electrics.
It seems that some people relax some safeguards because something else makes them feeling a little safer, that can often result in actually making the whole damn thing more dangerous.
Every safety idea or device is a good thing if applied as a plus rather than an instead of, in my opinion.
But we don`t stop playing conkers just because it kills a few kids.

 

[JohnW2]

Well I reckon that RCDs have "probably" saved a few lives, but I can not imagine how many.

As I always acknowledge, I'm sure that must be the case. At the least, a few lives may have been saved by RCDs clearing faults before anyone had a chance to get a shock.

As for what many/most people seem to think of ('direct protection', with an RCD limiting the duration of a shock when it happens), I'm far less convinced. You will be aware that, for years, I have been trying to get anecdotal reports of people who have survived an electric shock which 'caused' an RCD to operate, and I've only ever received a couple of such reports, neither of which are totally 'clear cut'. I can't see that we will ever really know the answer to this, for several reasons - probably the most important being that, even if it happens, they may well have survived even if there had been no RCD!

If we go to great lengths to provide a "probable ball park figure" we might decide that they are worthwhile.

That would obviously depend upon what one regards as "worthwhile". If one discounts the unrealistic "one death is one death too many" view, one has to talk abut 'cost-effectiveness', and that requires one to (a) put a monetary value on a human life/death, and (b) consider how many lives might have been saved if the money spent on RCDs had been used in a different manner.

As I keep saying, one of the 'bottom lines' is that there have (surprisingly) always been so few domestic electrocutions in the UK (far less than deaths due to other domestic accidents/incidents) that even something which totally eliminated them (which no RCD will ever do) would not have 'saved a lot of lives'.

The will probably not be the most cost effective way of saving lives and probably less so than motoring or medical matters for example.

That is, of course, what I'm always suggesting is probably the case, particularly given (as above) that it would be (numerically) impossible for RCDs to 'save a lot of lives'.

I do feel a little safer with rather than without them but never to the extent of relaxing any other considerations when dealing with electrics. It seems that some people relax some safeguards because something else makes them feeling a little safer, that can often result in actually making the whole damn thing more dangerous. ... Every safety idea or device is a good thing if applied as a plus rather than an instead of, in my opinion.

Indeed - but therein the risk (of 'complacency' due to 'safeguards') that we've often discussed. As I've said before, even in my own family I've heard it said that one doesn't need to be quite as careful about driving these days, because cars have ABS and an increasing number of other new-fangled gizmos

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Indeed - but therein the risk (of 'complacency' due to 'safeguards') that we've often discussed. As I've said before, even in my own family I've heard it said that one doesn't need to be quite as careful about driving these days, because cars have ABS and an increasing number of other new-fangled gizmos

Kind Regards, John

OK until those gizmos go wrong, I've been driving around for a year or so with an intermittant light coming up on the dashboard to do with the brakingso far 3 garages have given it a clean bill of heaith as the only report that comes up on the computer when the light is on: 'Traction control off', it never registers as a fault but things like hill start assist are not working, so I assume ABS is also off. It only shows as a status and never shows as a fault so not logged.

One only has to look around at the number of cars showing an amber light (solid trafficator) one side and a white the other at the front to realise how many are driving around with with faulty electronics in their vehicle and wonder at what else is not working correctly... and there are still considerations for driverless vehicles.

 

[JohnD]

Traction control off', it never registers as a fault but things like hill start assist are not working, so I assume ABS is also off. It only shows as a status and never shows as a fault so not logged.

I've known something similar happen with rusty or broken wheel reluctor rings.

I don't know how they work but they seem to be involved in sending wheel speed to the on board computer.

 

[morqthana]

that requires one to (a) put a monetary value on a human life/death, and (b) consider how many lives might have been saved if the money spent on RCDs had been used in a different manner.

(a) is regularly done - there is/are an official method(s) for doing it for public-realm cost-benefit analyses.

(b) there's no way anybody could ever get at that money to use it differently. The (b) calculation can only be applied to government spending.

As I've said before, even in my own family I've heard it said that one doesn't need to be quite as careful about driving these days, because cars have ABS and an increasing number of other new-fangled gizmos

Lets hope that if they find out the hard way how foolish an attitude that is, that the hardship only falls on them and is not too severe, e.g. damaged car body not human body.

 

[morqthana]

things like hill start assist

Hill start assist??

Do people no longer have to demonstrate that they can perform a hill start in order to get a driving licence?

 

[JohnW2]

Hill start assist?? .... Do people no longer have to demonstrate that they can perform a hill start in order to get a driving licence?

Indeed, but increasing numbers of them probably don't even know what a 'manual gearbox' is

 

[JohnW2]

(a) is regularly done - there is/are an official method(s) for doing it for public-realm cost-benefit analyses.

There are, but those figures are relatively modest and hence would undoubtedly demonstrate that RCDs fall very far short of being 'cost-effective'

(b) there's no way anybody could ever get at that money to use it differently. The (b) calculation can only be applied to government spending.

Not directly. However, the government could 'ban' the installation of new RCDs and put up some taxes by 'an appropriate amount'. People (particularly those who "didn't understand") would undoubtedly moan about the increased taxes, so it would then be down to government to try to get them to understand that, overall, they were not going to be any worse off than they would have been when paying for RCDs.

However, since that would undoubtedly be a good way of losing votes, I fear the public (aka the electorate) are going to have to put up with road safety, the NHS, medical research etc. etc. being less well funded than it 'could have been'.

 

[morqthana]

Not directly.

Not even indirectly.

However, the government could 'ban' the installation of new RCDs

That would be ridiculous. And there would be no possible way to create some quid-pro-quo link to new taxes. What would they do? Have teams of people inspecting people's CUs to decide that if there was no chance that someone would install a new one they would be exempted from the new taxes?

Would the sale of certain electrical items be banned for political ideology reasons?

and put up some taxes by 'an appropriate amount'.

Or just put them up without any nonsense about them being cost-neutral to people as the govt had banned them from buying RCDs.

I fear the public (aka the electorate) are going to have to put up with road safety, ... being less well funded than it 'could have been'.

There's a very vocal section of the public (aka the electorate) who are actively opposed to road safety measures, and road-traffic related public health ones.

 

[JohnD]

Public and private costs.

When a person is killed or injured in an accident, the state may have NHS costs, a fatal accident enquiry, an inquest, and will probably lose revenue from income tax and NI.

When regulations demand the fitting of RCDs, the cost falls on the homeowner, not the state.

You will observe that working hours and rest periods for HGV drivers (a burden for private employers) are tightly regulated. Newly qualified and junior doctors in NHS hospitals (a burden on the public purse) are required to work until they drop.

No cost is too high for the person who doesn't pay it.

 

[ebee]

As I always acknowledge, I'm sure that must be the case. At the least, a few lives may have been saved by RCDs clearing faults before anyone had a chance to get a shock.

As for what many/most people seem to think of ('direct protection', with an RCD limiting the duration of a shock when it happens), I'm far less convinced. You will be aware that, for years, I have been trying to get anecdotal reports of people who have survived an electric shock which 'caused' an RCD to operate, and I've only ever received a couple of such reports, neither of which are totally 'clear cut'. I can't see that we will ever really know the answer to this, for several reasons - probably the most important being that, even if it happens, they may well have survived even if there had been no RCD!

That would obviously depend upon what one regards as "worthwhile". If one discounts the unrealistic "one death is one death too many" view, one has to talk abut 'cost-effectiveness', and that requires one to (a) put a monetary value on a human life/death, and (b) consider how many lives might have been saved if the money spent on RCDs had been used in a different manner.

As I keep saying, one of the 'bottom lines' is that there have (surprisingly) always been so few domestic electrocutions in the UK (far less than deaths due to other domestic accidents/incidents) that even something which totally eliminated them (which no RCD will ever do) would not have 'saved a lot of lives'.

That is, of course, what I'm always suggesting is probably the case, particularly given (as above) that it would be (numerically) impossible for RCDs to 'save a lot of lives'.

Indeed - but therein the risk (of 'complacency' due to 'safeguards') that we've often discussed. As I've said before, even in my own family I've heard it said that one doesn't need to be quite as careful about driving these days, because cars have ABS and an increasing number of other new-fangled gizmos

Kind Regards, John

Yes John I pretty much am in agreement of all that you say.
Possible exception being that RCDs are worthwhile (as an abstract idea, but in comparison to more cost effective £s then maybe not).
Can we agree of (possibly) worthwhile but probably in comparison to other things?

PS - your comment "
Indeed - but therein the risk (of 'complacency' due to 'safeguards') that we've often discussed. As I've said before, even in my own family I've heard it said that one doesn't need to be quite as careful about driving these days, because cars have ABS and an increasing number of other new-fangled gizmos " I`ve mentioned before that an acquaintance of mine, while I see him using his tiny screwdriver on something live ant I comment about the lack of safety then he replies "I`s only 5 amps!" , I think he believes a 5A fusewire will only pass 5A and that 5A would not be capable of doing him much harm as as much as I tell him it can easily kill hime more than 180 times over then he still persists.
Oh Yeah!

I do rather prefer Yes RCD rather than No RCD as a good "starter for 10" in addition to sensible safety procedures.
My ambition is to live forever and so far so good, but one day I may be startled by my own mortality, its probably illegal to live forever or it should be, we gotta make room for the next lot!