Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[bernardgreen]

Of course there are differences! Here is a fairly obvious one for you as an example, BS 1363-1 requires that "19.1 The entry of the flexible cord shall be between the current-carrying pins at the side of the plug opposite the earth pin." One look at ThinPlug will show you that it does not, and cannot, conform to that.

Reasons for that BSI requirement are, among others

[1] to reduce the bending under gravity of the flexible at the entry to the plug
[2] to reduce the risk of furniture being pushed against the cable and forcing it to bend at or close to the point of entry to the plug

In an interview the designer of ThinPlug said: "Indeed there had to be a few modifications made to BS1363 to ensure that the new plug had equivalent safety.

Does it have equivalent safety.

This in my view is the project’s main achievement, since British Standards have remained more or less the same for many years and we now have a new supplemental standard published for ThinPlug

”

Which can be read as saying
The ThinPlug did not meet established ( and proven ? ) standards so would only be marketable if those standards were adjusted ( reduced ) to suit the ThinPlug

I see that as just one more example of commercial pressure to market items resulting in a reduction of the standards to allow the marketing of items produced to a lower standard than had been generally accepted as both necessary and acceptable.

A cable projecting out horizontally from a plug in a wall is more likely to present a trip hazard or be damaged than a cable vertically below the plug so while the reduction needed to market the device may not affect electrical safety it does affect non electrical safety around the plug and allows an increased risk of mechanical damage to the cable.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I have no idea, but as the particular product is certified by ASTA and not BSI, it is actually none of BSI's business.

I have to say that, if I were the BSI, I would consider it to be a lot of my business. In my apparent innocence, I would have assumed that "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." was the doing of the BSI, and I seriously doubt that I am alone in that.

Of course the content of "BS 1363-1 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos ...." is the business of that part of BSI which is responsible for the standards themselves ....

Exactly my point. Thank you for agreeing.

Once again John, you are misrepresenting what has been said. I am NOT agreeing with you.

"BS 1363-1: 1995 incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ASTA Standard 158"

I'm still very confused - are the BSI party to, and/or happy with, that?

I have no idea, but as the particular product is certified by ASTA and not BSI, it is actually none of BSI's business.

I am sticking with that statement. Unless BSI are also the approvals body for a particular product, then it is not their business to be happy or unhappy with the approval.

... but you still have not responded to my other recent comment/question. Was I right in understanding you to say that these ThinPlugs #which, as you say, cannot possibly comply with BS 1363# bear a BS 1363 marking? - or did I dream that, or misunderstand you

View media item 49068I have already given you the URL for the licence information at ASTA, I am showing an image of the licencing information as it appears on the ThinPlug website. I cannot comment on what markings all ThinPlugs carry, but the two I own show all of the information in the box which forms part of the image above, and that clearly states "BS 1363", as it must if the manufacturer is not to commit an offence under the plugs and sockets regulations.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Reasons for that BSI requirement are, among others

[1] to reduce the bending under gravity of the flexible at the entry to the plug
[2] to reduce the risk of furniture being pushed against the cable and forcing it to bend at or close to the point of entry to the plug
I see that as just one more example of commercial pressure to market items resulting in a reduction of the standards to allow the marketing of items produced to a lower standard than had been generally accepted as both necessary and acceptable.

A cable projecting out horizontally from a plug in a wall is more likely to present a trip hazard or be damaged than a cable vertically below the plug so while the reduction needed to market the device may not affect electrical safety it does affect non electrical safety around the plug and allows an increased risk of mechanical damage to the cable.

As ageneral pont Bernard, I do agree with you that the BS 1363 configuration is best, but there are, as we all know, circumstances in which a standard BS 1363 plug is not a good solution, and travelling with one or more of them in a laptop bag is a perfect example. That is the issue which ThinPlug addresses, and it does a very good job.

As well as living in the UK, I own a house in the USA, so I am very familiar with the lower standards there, and the disadvantages of cables which project from the wall (US sockets being normally at around the same height as our own. However, that issue is mostly about cables which remain in place for appliances which are not portable. It is rarely an problem to have a temporary connection to a portable item, such as a laptop, which sticks out of the wall.

Taking your objections to a logical conclusion, it would be necessary to prohibit any adaptor which allows the cable of either a UK or foreign plug to project out from the wall, and there are a lot of those in use.

On the general issue of safety of ThinPlug, as I think will be obvious, safety is something I am passionate about. The fact that the ThinPlug is so ingeniously designed to do its job well in the limited applications for which it is intended is to be applauded, it is constructed of a glass loaded plastic and is possible the strongest UK plug in existence, one thing I will predict, there will be no broken off ThinPlug ISODs projecting from sockets!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The problem is, that is a really daft question! I have tried several times to explain to you how the standard works, but you simply ignore that and repeat a question which has no relevance and to which there is no meaningful answer.

Daft question?

If that be true then you have to stop calling for that device to be banned - it really is as simple as that.

I know how the standard works. But this is not a plug, and, it seems , you are completely unable to provide a single reason why it should be made illegal.

My question is very relevant.

That is why "will it damage any socket which implements one of the options required by the standard, or will it only damage sockets where the maker has chosen to do something outside of the standards?" is a completely meaningless and unhelpful question which has no sensible answer.

It is not meaningless.

It may be unhelpful to you to answer it, I can see that.

It is definitely unhelpful to you if it can't be answered, because what that means is that the device does not necessarily damage sockets.

You are calling for the law to be changed.

You are calling for manufacturers to be forced to stop making something.

You cannot prove that it is necessary.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Reasons for that BSI requirement are, among others

[1] to reduce the bending under gravity of the flexible at the entry to the plug
[2] to reduce the risk of furniture being pushed against the cable and forcing it to bend at or close to the point of entry to the plug.

Does that mean that you're not allowed to install sockets oriented other than earth uppermost?

 

[bernardgreen]

Does that mean that you're not allowed to install sockets oriented other than earth uppermost?

I am not sure.

 

[bernardgreen]

and travelling with one or more of them in a laptop bag is a perfect example. That is the issue which ThinPlug addresses, and it does a very good job.

If the 13 amp plug is aligned with the power block when packed it isn't that much of a problem. A dummy socket made out of wood will prevent the pins stabbing the laptop .

As well as living in the UK, I own a house in the USA, so I am very familiar with the lower standards there,

as they are in other countries. I have lived in Germany and worked in several other countries where sandards are much lower and even these are not enforced.

It is rarely an problem to have a temporary connection to a portable item, such as a laptop, which sticks out of the wall.

Other than the plug being pulled out by an accidently tug on the cable and loss of data when the PC shuts down. That is not so easy with the 13 amp plug cable arrangement.

On the general issue of safety of ThinPlug, as I think will be obvious, safety is something I am passionate about.

"Passionate" can sometime become emotion led decisions and not decisions based on logical analysis of all factors involved.

I tend to think "out of the box" and include "what if" when deciding what factors and situations to include.

 

[JohnW2]

I am sticking with that statement. Unless BSI are also the approvals body for a particular product, then it is not their business to be happy or unhappy with the approval.

It's not really the 'approval' which is the issue - it's more a question of what the manufacturer appears to have done. The main issue, which I would have expected the BSI (and Trading Standards) to be very concerned about it, that we appear to be looking at a product bearing a "BS 1363" marking which, by your own admission, could not possibly comply with BS 1363. Don't you see that as a problem.....

I cannot comment on what markings all ThinPlugs carry, but the two I own show all of the information in the box which forms part of the image above, and that clearly states "BS 1363", as it must if the manufacturer is not to commit an offence under the plugs and sockets regulations.

Don't you understand my problem? I would have thought that it would be an offence under the Plugs and Sockets Regulations to put a "BS 1363" marking on a product which did not comply with BS 1363, not the converse.

I have to say that I'm pretty shocked by all this, and will never again derive as much reassurance as I have until now from seeing a British Standard marking on a product!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course there are differences! Here is a fairly obvious one for you as an example, BS 1363-1 requires that "19.1 The entry of the flexible cord shall be between the current-carrying pins at the side of the plug opposite the earth pin." One look at ThinPlug will show you that it does not, and cannot, conform to that.

Reasons for that BSI requirement are, among others
[1] to reduce the bending under gravity of the flexible at the entry to the plug
[2] to reduce the risk of furniture being pushed against the cable and forcing it to bend at or close to the point of entry to the plug

As BAS has pointed out, that depends upon orientation of installation, which I didn't think was defined. Rather than those two points, I had always been under the impression that the main reason for that requirement was to facilitate having the the 'earth'/CPC as the longest conductor within the plug, thereby ensuring it disconnected last in case of the cable being tugged out of the plug. If the cable entry was close to the earth pin, that would be very difficult to achieve.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Gosh what a lot of jibber jabber. I can't be bothered reading it all as it looks like it's just the usual suspects running round in circles.

I ask one question to all of you, and you can only answer with one word.

No waffling on and on and on which I know is going to be extremely difficult for some of you.

Do you think that the safety covers which are currently on sale in the UK "increase" or "decrease" electrical safety?

That's "increase" or "decrease"

I say decrease.

 

[JohnW2]

I ask one question to all of you, and you can only answer with one word. No waffling on and on and on which I know is going to be extremely difficult for some of you. Do you think that the safety covers which are currently on sale in the UK "increase" or "decrease" electrical safety? That's "increase" or "decrease"

Who knows? (sorry, that was two words) ...

As I've said throughout all the discussions about this, although some people (seemingly like yourself) have personal opinions on the matter, I really don't think that we have any (evidence-based) clue as to whether these devices result in a net increase or decrease in injuries/deaths. There are clearly theoretical arguments for it being able to have either effect, but as for which 'wins' in practice, I just don't know.
Given that so much of the talk about this is in terms of 'saving lives', one would be tempted to look at data for fatalities - but I doubt that will ever be fruitful. Given that (rather amazingly, IMO) deaths due to electrocution in the home don't get far into 'double figures' per year (I think around 20 for the most recent year for which data is available), the number which are due to contact with live parts of sockets must be incredibly low (quite possibly zero or near-zero), which would obviously make it next-to-impossible to determine whether any particular factor was having a positive or negative efect on the figure.
More generally, what I've just said does help to put the whole issue into some sort of perspective. Although we are all aware of the theoretical arguments as to why at least some (maybe all) socket covers could present dangers, despite having asked many times, I don't think anyone has yet been able to point me towards a single well-documented case of anyone having ever been seriously harmed or killed as a result of their use.

I say decrease.

You may be right. You may be wrong. I don't pretend to know. - see above waffle.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

I'm just asking for peoples professional opinion that's all.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm just asking for peoples professional opinion that's all.

I understand that, but I'm suggesting that the best anyone, professional or other, could give would be a wild guess, based on very little.

As I've sort-of implied, my guess would be that switch covers currently available in the UK probably do not have any measurable effect on safety/ 'dangerousness' in one direction or the other.

What I do know is that if we banned everything for which there was a theoretical argument for it presenting a danger in some circumstances, without having evidence of an overall net detrimental effect, an awful lot of things would be banned - as I've already mentioned, seatbelts and nearly all medicines would probably be the first things to be outlawed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Ok, I'll try again.

"increase", "decrease" or "neither"

 

[JohnW2]

Ok, I'll try again. ... "increase", "decrease" or "neither"

See second para in my last post ... if I am forced to guess, I would say that the most likely answer is "neither".

Kind Regards, John.