Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[JohnW2]

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'.

You have higher expectations of them than I do

I certainly think that we all should have such expectations of government/ministers, even if those expectations are not always met. There would certainly be some sort of furore, and undoubtedly calls for resignations, if it became known that legislation has been enacted which made some things mandatory without the legislators knowing what those things were!

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!

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.

Yes, even as I typed it, I realised that one would be coming - I should have restricted my comments to 'western cultures'. In fact, I was a bit silly to bother about analogies at all - I think what I was saying about the actual situation should have been enough.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I would agree government action is required. Up to last year I don't know if it still the case the Local Authority in my area (Flintshire) required any one using their house for Child Minding to have these socket covers in all sockets that children can reach.

My daughter pointed out the fatally flawed web site to the visitor and was told she could if she wished write to the council for dispensation to allow her not to use them. But if she wanted her certificate she should fit them.

So as it stands the government are in fact forcing people to use these silly devices. Before we got to the stage of making them illegal we should be getting the government to reverse the requirements for child minders and have their inspectors telling child minders to take them out rather then plugging them in.

I seems the legal road should only be followed after the directive process fails.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I would agree government action is required. Up to last year I don't know if it still the case the Local Authority in my area (Flintshire) required any one using their house for Child Minding to have these socket covers in all sockets that children can reach.

My daughter pointed out the fatally flawed web site to the visitor and was told she could if she wished write to the council for dispensation to allow her not to use them. But if she wanted her certificate she should fit them.

So as it stands the government are in fact forcing people to use these silly devices. Before we got to the stage of making them illegal we should be getting the government to reverse the requirements for child minders and have their inspectors telling child minders to take them out rather then plugging them in.

I seems the legal road should only be followed after the directive process fails.

There is no UK government requirement for the use of socket covers, similarly there is no Scottish Government requirement.

Ofsted specifically prohibits inspectors asking for their use, or mentioning them in their inspection reports. You can view Ofsted's position on page 11 of this document: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/sites/defa...publications/e/Early years September 2011.pdf

It may be that the Welsh assembly has imposed different rules, but I note that you suggest it may be a local authority requirement. The best suggestion I can make in this case if for the authority requiring the use of socket covers to be asked which socket covers they consider safe to use, and why (given the absence of any regulation). I would also be tempted to ask for a statement from the authority that they will indemnify the user against the possibility of fires or injury caused by the use of an incorrectly sized device in a domestic socket.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

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.

This is a complete red herring! What is being called for is that all devices to be plugged into a BS 1363 socket should be regulated to ensure that they meet the same standards that exist for plugs, not some hypothetical non-existent standard. Obfuscation of this sort is very mischievous, and completely unhelpful.

 

[JohnW2]

This is a complete red herring! What is being called for is that all devices to be plugged into a BS 1363 socket should be regulated to ensure that they meet the same standards that exist for plugs, not some hypothetical non-existent standard.

Unless I'm missing something, it is currently a 'hypothetical and non-existant Standard' as far as devices other than plugs are concerned. Which existing Standard do you believe covers these matters?

Obfuscation of this sort is very mischievous, and completely unhelpful.

Why would I want to be mischevous? As I keep saying, I would very much like to see legislation that required all devices intended to be plugged into a BS 1363 socket to comply with some appropriate Standard. I just don't think that legislation would be possible until there were some appropriate Standard in place.

Your tone suggests that you think my underlying wishes are different from, or in opposition to, yours - but that isn't the case. If relevent expert bodies (not you, I nor politicians) identify risks, then, if possible, steps should be taken (in the right order), backed by legislation, to reduce or eliminate those risks.

The reality surely is that, in response to the current petition, no politician or civil servant is going to make any decisions about such technical matters themselves. They will surely turn to an expert body, most probably the BSI, for advice as to whether this is something which warrants action - and I find it very hard to believe that they would decide to act contrary to whatever advice they obtained from such sources.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

The best suggestion I can make in this case if for the authority requiring the use of socket covers to be asked which socket covers they consider safe to use, and why (given the absence of any regulation). I would also be tempted to ask for a statement from the authority that they will indemnify the user against the possibility of fires or injury caused by the use of an incorrectly sized device in a domestic socket.

Or better still, write (by recorded delivery) asking them to confirm that they will indemnify you from prosecution for the criminal acts they are asking you to perform - as well as indemnify you against any civil claims arising from their requirements. That should get it escalated to the level where you can have a discussion with people actually able to discuss it.

And copy the letter to the local rag - nothing like a "council want you to be child murderers" story to get their attention.

 

[bernardgreen]

This is a complete red herring! What is being called for is that all devices to be plugged into a BS 1363 socket should be regulated to ensure that they meet the same standards that exist for plugs, not some hypothetical non-existent standard. Obfuscation of this sort is very mischievous, and completely unhelpful.

Sorry but your argument is totally flawed

all devices to be plugged in

would restrict the control to items intended to be plugged in.

It would not apply to items that were not intended to be plugged in but that just happened to fit into a socket's earth and thus open the shutter.

Most covers are not adding danger if used properly as per the instructions. No legislation will ever deal effectively with people who are too stupid to read and follow instructions on equipment they use.

If the wording applied to all objects that were both small enough to enter the earth socket and strong enough to then open the shutter then there might be an increase in safety but at the loss of very many essential household items. Some of which are essential to safe and healthy living.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

I see.

So you think that because Manufacturer A chooses to add features to his product which are not mandated by any standard or legislation, and those features mean that a tool made by Manufacturer B will damage his product, Manufacturer B should have his product made illegal.

That seems wrong to me.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

This is a complete red herring! What is being called for is that all devices to be plugged into a BS 1363 socket should be regulated to ensure that they meet the same standards that exist for plugs, not some hypothetical non-existent standard. Obfuscation of this sort is very mischievous, and completely unhelpful.

Sorry but your argument is totally flawed

all devices to be plugged in

would restrict the control to items intended to be plugged in.

It would not apply to items that were not intended to be plugged in but that just happened to fit into a socket's earth and thus open the shutter.

Most covers are not adding danger if used properly as per the instructions. No legislation will ever deal effectively with people who are too stupid to read and follow instructions on equipment they use.

If the wording applied to all objects that were both small enough to enter the earth socket and strong enough to then open the shutter then there might be an increase in safety but at the loss of very many essential household items. Some of which are essential to safe and healthy living.

Please justify your statement that "most covers are not adding danger if used properly as per the instructions." ALL plug-in covers fail to conform to the correct dimensions! The most popular type (the one which has a feature to allow you to use a plug earth to assist with removal) was quietly modified to remove one of the dangers which FatallyFlawed had identified, and which the suppliers claimed was not a problem. However, they did fix it (although did not issue a warning about the 4.5 million plus they had already sold with the problem), but at they same time they modified the disign of the ISOD to a new and bizarre shape which will actually not fit into to a good number of standard sockets (although some users claim it is OK if you use a hammer!) See http://tinyurl.com/FatISOD for more details.

And, why on earth are you introducing another red herring, talk of attempting to control items which are not intended to use in a BS 1363 socket is just nonsense.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

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.

I see.

So you think that because Manufacturer A chooses to add features to his product which are not mandated by any standard or legislation, and those features mean that a tool made by Manufacturer B will damage his product, Manufacturer B should have his product made illegal.

That seems wrong to me.

I have already referred to the problem of comments made by people who do not quite understand how plugs and sockets specifications work. There are two methods of shutter opening specified in BS 1363-2 (sockets). Both methods will operate correctly, providing what is inserted meets the specifications for a BS 1363 plug. If an attempt is made to plug in anything which does not meet that standard then the result is completely unpredictable. You appear to be suggesting that a socket manufacturer should anticipate that people will wish to insert non-standard objects, and then ensure that their socket will take them. That sounds awfully like a complete negation of the purpose of the shutters.

 

[bernardgreen]

And, why on earth are you introducing another red herring, talk of attempting control items which are not intended to use in a BS 1363 socket is just nonsense.

How many accidents are caused by safety covers and how many are caused by objects that are not safety covers being pushed into the earth socket and opening the shutters ? Provide that information and then maybe a logically constructed item of legislation may be possible.

I do agree that some so called "safety covers" may add a hazard to what is already a very safe design of socket. I also agree that the design of some "safety covers" does show a lack of thought about the side effects of using them.

My concern is that emotional driven discussion rather than a logically engineered process about how to control them will result in legislation that, due to it wording, may itself introduce more hazards.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Unless I'm missing something, it is currently a 'hypothetical and non-existant Standard' as far as devices other than plugs are concerned. Which existing Standard do you believe covers these matters?

Trevor Ord's petition refers to "ensure that other devices sold for use with13A sockets are compliant with the size requirements of BS1363." It would seem blindingly clear that the standard which does that is BS 1363-1.

The reality surely is that, in response to the current petition, no politician or civil servant is going to make any decisions about such technical matters themselves. They will surely turn to an expert body, most probably the BSI, for advice as to whether this is something which warrants action - and I find it very hard to believe that they would decide to act contrary to whatever advice they obtained from such sources.

I am quite certain that the responsible department (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) would indeed turn to the BSI, amongst others. But in doing so they should, as a result of the public concern being expressed, inform those bodies that they wished to rectify the situation, and take advice on how to do it. The important thing is that some body takes the first step, and that appears to be what the petition is calling for.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

My concern is that emotional driven discussion rather than a logically engineered process about how to control them will result in legislation that, due to it wording, may itself introduce more hazards.

The reasoning behind FatallyFlawed is entirely logical.

Starting from the beginning, it is clear that the government committee who wrote ‘Post War Building Study No. 11 – Electrical Installations’ (in January 1944) were aware that there was a child safety issue which should be addressed. The evidence for this is that they placed the following at the top of their list of requirements for a new domestic plug and socket system. "To ensure the safety of young children it is of considerable importance that the contacts of the socket-outlet should be protected by shutters or other like means, or by the inherent design of the socket outlet."

When the new BS 1363 standard was published in 1947 it incorporated that requirement, and reflected the fact in the title of the standard "Fused Plugs and Shuttered Socket Outlets"

I know of no research since then which has indicated that the shutter concept is inadequate. The Government, RoSPA, Child Accident Prevention Trust, and Electrical Safety Council have all declared that socket covers are unnecessary.

So we are left with the situation that something which is unnecessary, and therefore has not been regulated, is sold in large numbers. Not a problem in itself, if the manufacturers of them designed them correctly. As they have all clearly failed to do that (as anyone with the ability to read BS 1363, and use a suitable measuring instrument can verify) then it is clearly way past time to correct that anomaly.

As I said, no emotion, entirely logical.

Now, Mr Green, I think you have to justify your assumption that it is so difficult to frame a regulation requiring adherence to the dimensions of an established standard, and why that "may itself introduce more hazards."

 

[JohnW2]

Trevor Ord's petition refers to "ensure that other devices sold for use with13A sockets are compliant with the size requirements of BS1363." It would seem blindingly clear that the standard which does that is BS 1363-1.

I don't know why you've used quotation marks, since that statement, as written, does not appear in the petition.

Please read the whole thread, in particular my first post (actually a question, which no-one ever answered) back on page 1. Although I have some reservations (**) about the legal mechanics, I conceded that the matter of pin dimensions could probably be dealt with in legislation by extrapolation from the BS 1363 requirements for plugs. However, I was not, and still am not, at all sure that BS 1363 could, even by extrapolation, be used by legislation to deal with the second issue you ask government to address - the petition says "either because they have incorrectly sized pins ... or do not maintain a level of protection equivalent to a standard plug or empty socket ....".

[** I do have reservations about government (legislation) extrapolating from what is in a technical Standard. In the particular case we're talking about, I imagine that most of us believe that it probably would be OK, but it would set a very worrying precedent. One can envisage any number of situations in which extrapolation from a Standard by people who had no technical knowledge could have unintended, and perhaps disasterous, results]

I am quite certain that the responsible department (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) would indeed turn to the BSI, amongst others. But in doing so they should, as a result of the public concern being expressed, inform those bodies that they wished to rectify the situation, and take advice on how to do it.

That is not the real world. You must surely realise how common it is for individuals or groups (including 'pressure groups') to bring 'concerns' to the attention of government, through petitions, media campaigns or whatever, and demand that some action is taken to address that concern. You must also realise that, particularly when technical issues are involved, government's first action in response is not to decide that they wish 'to rectify the situation' and turn to expert bodies for advice on how to effect that rectification. Rather, they turn to the expert bodies for expert advice as to whether there is a concern which needs to be addressed. If the answer is 'yes', then government may then work with the body to achieve some rectification. However, if expert advice does not support (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) the 'public concern' that had been expressed, then government would not usually attempt to proceed with any mesures to 'rectify' the situation. In other words, if one does not first get the opinion of the expert bodies 'on side', it is very unlikely that appealing to government will achieve anything.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

Now, Mr Green, I think you have to justify your assumption that it is so difficult to frame a regulation requiring adherence to the dimensions of an established standard, and why that "may itself introduce more hazards."

I do not assume it is difficult to frame a regulation. I state that unless the creation of that regulation is based on statistical and scientific facts the legislation that is framed may be at best in-adequate for the purpose or at worst may introduce other hazards.

You make such a strong point of the design of the covers is dangerous, Did the designers set out to make a dangerous product ? Did they by accident create more hazards when trying to make a safety device. The same thing can and has occurred when safety legislation is created. I mentioned the example of the hand gun ban which has removed the safety legislation imposed on a few people who are obsessed using with hand guns for target practise.

Fitting RCDs to electrical installations was considered essential and only one was required by early legislation. it was the accidents caused when people were plunged into sudden darkness that led to changes to legislation to recommend that circuits are split across two RCDs

Further more the legislation can only be applied to items that are intended to be inserted into a BS standard socket. So that could make "illegal" items sold for that purpose. It cannot be applied to items that were never intended to be inserted into a BS standard socket.

I have just opened the shutters on a 13 amp socket using the top of a ball point pen, a child could do the same. Ball point pen caps have to have a hole to allow air to pass through when they are stuck in a person's throat. Maybe that legislataion should be upgraded to make the the cap's shape and size such that it will not go into the earth of a 13 amp socket.


You are a safety minded organisation but yet you show your needle test ""probe"" which is clearly a bodged up item and would be a very serious hazard should anyone copy it to test their own socket covers.