Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[ban-all-sheds]

Really ? As I say, it's not a device I'm familiar with - but from the picture and comments it would appear to be a device designed to open the shutters and allow probes to be inserted.

Where would you insert them if the pins were full size?

I see no reason why a device of that type cannot be made to conform to the dimensional requirements of BS1363, other than requiring holes in the sides of the pins to allow access to the contacts.

Maybe it can, maybe it can't.

But the fact is it isn't, and it's not required to.

Or put another way, one could be designed such that it would not damage ANY socket correctly designed to take BS1363 plugs.

Are you, or anybody, ever going to address the question of does it damage sockets because they have features required by BS 1363, or does it damage them because they have features not required by BS 1363 which the maker just decided to add?

As long as we're arguing that it's the socket manufacturers fault if something that doesn't even attempt to comply with the dimensional requirements of BS1363, then I'm off to try opening the shutters of a socket with one of these and then see if the socket manufacturer takes any responsibility.

According to you, one of these should be just fine, and if it damages a socket then it's the socket manufacturers fault.

Don't be an idiot.

No, in that case, the fuel being used by users IS to standard

So is that socket opener, unless you can show me a standard it is supposed to comply with and does not.

and the engine was not suitable for use with it - and you'll note that BMW accepted it was their problem.

Yes, because they chose to make an engine which would be damaged by fuel which met the applicable standards.

In the case of the device you are attempting to defend, it is the equivalent of the fuel being wrong - ie a**e about tit again.

No - the device in question does not fail to comply with any applicable standards.

There is a saying that when you are in a hole, stop digging. On the other hand, if you keep digging, you'll soon be out of sight and we can ignore you

I'm not digging a hole - I'm shovelling dirt onto you, and I will keep on doing it until you tell me if this device damages sockets only where the maker has chosen to do something he was not required to do. For him to say that his socket would not be damaged by a BS 1363 compliant device is no defence, for he knows that there are other devices which are made and sold, quite lawfully, to be inserted into sockets (unlike chisels, you idiot). If what he did was not as a consequence of conforming to BS 1363 then the appropriate response is to warn of unsuitable devices, not to outlaw them if they would not damage any socket which complied with BS 1363 with no embellishments.

 

[bernardgreen]

If used properly a plug cover that conforms the dimensions set by BS1363 for 13 amp plugs will be safe and not do any damage to the socket it is plugged into.

Can we agree on that ? ( I doubt it but worth asking )


Anything that does NOT conform to the dimensions set by BS1363 for 13 amp plugs and is plugged or forced into a socket is likely to damage the socket if then pin dimensions ( other than length ) are larger than BS1363 requires.

Can we agree on that ? ( I think we can ).

There are numerous items in the average house that are similar in shape and size to the earth in a 13 amp socket. ( a chisel has been mentioned )

Used safely for the intended purpose these devices are safe. Push one into the earth of a 13 amp socket ( not an intended use ) and the shutter will open. At this point the child or idiot adult pushing the chisel into the earth is still safe. ( though allowing a child to get hold of a chisel is a different matter ). Only when the the child or idiot adult pushes another conductive object into the Live ( or Neutral ) does a hazard arise.

In short if a device is used as intended and in proper use does not do damage to the socket then it is probably going to be safer to have it in the socket as it's presence will prevent or delay the the child or idiot adult from pushing something more dangerous into the socket.

I remember that an over size pin in a safety cover may damage the socket. But with children or idiot adults likely to push something into the socket then in my opinion the future replacement of the socket is a price worth paying if it prevents the immediate injury of a child or idiot adult.

And of course cheap sockets that comply with BS1363 at manufacture often fail to comply after a few months due to wear and tear from cpmpliant 13 amp plugs. Good quality BS1363 sockets will cope and be resilient enough that a pin that is over size but still small enough to pass through the hole will not take the springs past their point of elastic no return.

 

[SimonH2]

Really ? As I say, it's not a device I'm familiar with - but from the picture and comments it would appear to be a device designed to open the shutters and allow probes to be inserted.

Where would you insert them if the pins were full size?

I see no reason why a device of that type cannot be made to conform to the dimensional requirements of BS1363, other than requiring holes in the sides of the pins to allow access to the contacts.

Maybe it can, maybe it can't.

But the fact is it isn't, and it's not required to.

But the whole point of this discussion is to make it so that compliance with the relevant standards would be required. This device would not meet that and so would be banned. Your argument seems to be that because there isn't a requirement NOW then it's stupid to criticise it for not meeting the standard that isn't currently mandated.

But yes, I could design a device that would comply with the dimensional requirements of BS1363 AND allow test probes to be inserted. I'm not going to, there's no need. As others have pointed out there are better alternatives which anyone who might have a legitimate need for will have. If someone doesn't have one of those other devices, then I think in other circumstances you'd argue that they weren't equipped to do their job safely.

If you need to ask how I'd make it, then I'm not telling you - is should be easy enough to figure out. I have already come up with several design in my mind BTW.

Or put another way, one could be designed such that it would not damage ANY socket correctly designed to take BS1363 plugs.

Are you, or anybody, ever going to address the question of does it damage sockets because they have features required by BS 1363, or does it damage them because they have features not required by BS 1363 which the maker just decided to add?

As you are fond of telling others, you've already had an answer to that - but you just don't want to accept it and are frantically running around to find straw men to support your position. You're like the kid running around with his fingers in his ears shouting "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

As long as we're arguing that it's the socket manufacturers fault if something that doesn't even attempt to comply with the dimensional requirements of BS1363, then I'm off to try opening the shutters of a socket with one of these and then see if the socket manufacturer takes any responsibility.

According to you, one of these should be just fine, and if it damages a socket then it's the socket manufacturers fault.

Don't be an idiot.

It's a perfectly logical extension of your argument.
As long as your argument is that it's OK to stuff something the socket was not designed to accept into it, and it's the socket manufacturer's fault if the socket is damaged as a result of that something not being the right size/shape, then your argument logically extends to other <somethings> that aren't the right size/shape according to BS1363.

No, in that case, the fuel being used by users IS to standard

So is that socket opener, unless you can show me a standard it is supposed to comply with and does not.

You mean, like the dimensional requirements of BS1363 ?

 

[JohnW2]

If used properly a plug cover that conforms the dimensions set by BS1363 for 13 amp plugs will be safe and not do any damage to the socket it is plugged into. Can we agree on that ? ( I doubt it but worth asking )

I don't think I could agree without extending that a fair bit. The material might also be relevant, both in terms of safety and potential to damage to the socket. More importantly,aspects other than just the pin dimensions (and distance of pins from edge of product) could impact on 'safety'.

Anything that does NOT conform to the dimensions set by BS1363 for 13 amp plugs and is plugged or forced into a socket is likely to damage the socket if then pin dimensions ( other than length ) are larger than BS1363 requires. Can we agree on that ? ( I think we can ).

We can agree that such devices may damage the socket. Whether such damage is 'likely' depends on the degree of 'oversize' and possibly also to some extent on material.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

If used properly a plug cover that conforms the dimensions set by BS1363 for 13 amp plugs will be safe and not do any damage to the socket it is plugged into.

Partially. It will not damage the socket (assuming the socket is properly designed of course). Whether it is safe depends on other factors.

Anything that does NOT conform to the dimensions set by BS1363 for 13 amp plugs and is plugged or forced into a socket is likely to damage the socket if then pin dimensions ( other than length ) are larger than BS1363 requires.

Can we agree on that ? ( I think we can ).

I agree with that, but BAS seems to think it's the socket manufacturers fault.

In short if a device is used as intended and in proper use does not do damage to the socket then it is probably going to be safer to have it in the socket as it's presence will prevent or delay the the child or idiot adult from pushing something more dangerous into the socket.

I think you've made a leap too far there.

There are several factors beyond the size of the pins and body.

Someone has already mentioned the education element. Child see that adults "put things" into sockets, so it must be OK to "put things in sockets". The child will probably fairly quickly associate putting a plugin with using an appliance. However, if they see adults sticking things in for no apparently reason, then they are (IMO) more likely to stuff random stuff in.
And in any case, a great many sockets now require more than one simultaneous insertion to open the shutters. Some require both live and neutral to be inserted together and for those objects to vaguely resemble the pins of a plug - just pushing two "pin like" objects in doesn't actually open the shutter (I know that from experience), some of the newer ones require all three pins to go in together.

Then there's the resilience. If the cover breaks (and don't forget these are 'made down to a price") then you have one or more pins left in the socket. It's hard to see how leaving (say) broken off "earth pin" in a socket can be safer than having nothing in it.
And on that subject, I've seen plug in power supplies where the plastic "earth pin" has broken off and been left in the socket.

I remember that an over size pin in a safety cover may damage the socket. But with children or idiot adults likely to push something into the socket then in my opinion the future replacement of the socket is a price worth paying if it prevents the immediate injury of a child or idiot adult.

And if that damage causes a fire that kills the family some time later ?

And of course cheap sockets that comply with BS1363 at manufacture often fail to comply after a few months due to wear and tear from cpmpliant 13 amp plugs. Good quality BS1363 sockets will cope and be resilient enough that a pin that is over size but still small enough to pass through the hole will not take the springs past their point of elastic no return.

Agreed, but that's a separate issue. I can see no reason to support the use of devices with a clear and obvious hazard when not using them would appear to be as safe, if not safer.

 

[bernardgreen]

And if that damage causes a fire that kills the family some time later ?

Valid if the load carrying contact springs are deformed.

I can see no reason to support the use of devices with a clear and obvious hazard when not using them would appear to be as safe, if not safer.

It really depends on the situation in the house as to whether the hazards from damage are greater or less than the hazards of a shutter that can be easily opened by one of very many items a child may get hold off.

If the child cannot get hold of anything that will open the shutters then the socket does not need a cover. If the child can get hold of something that will open the shutter then a cover is going to add some protection. That is provided the cover is designed well and used correctly.

Looking at my 4 way extension lead which is marked as BS1363. It is possible to insert an upside down BS1363 plug into it leaving the shutter open and the Live and Neutral exposed. A plug cover would prevent that. ( I have no children in the house so it is safe at the moment. )

 

[stillp]

I remember that an over size pin in a safety cover may damage the socket. But with children or idiot adults likely to push something into the socket then in my opinion the future replacement of the socket is a price worth paying if it prevents the immediate injury of a child or idiot adult.

That'a a valid argument if, and only if, you think the socket cover (please don't call them "safety cover") will prevent the immediate injury of a child or idiot adult. I think they are more likely to increase the probability of said injury than to reduce it.

 

[JohnW2]

That'a a valid argument if, and only if, you think the socket cover (please don't call them "safety cover") will prevent the immediate injury of a child or idiot adult. I think they are more likely to increase the probability of said injury than to reduce it.

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.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is very difficult to answer a question which actually does not reflect the real situation.

Then I'm sorry but you may not call for it to be outlawed.

You need to show that it will damage sockets, not say "well, I dunno, it might, hard to say really, but we're going to make it illegal".

No assumptions can be made about what will happen when you attempt to insert something which does not conform to the plug standard.

Actually that's not true. You can assume that something which is smaller isn't going to distort the internals.

And you can assume that existing legislation - Sale of Goods Act, for example, is able to deal with a product which will damage anything on which it is used as intended.

So with socket covers, you already have legislation which can be invoked to prevent the sale of the ones which damage sockets.

I have now got one of those so that I can give a better opinion.
The dimensions of its plastic "earth pin" are 16.4mm x 7.6mm 3.8mm.
Compare this with the minimum dimensions of a BS 1363 earth pin: 22.23mm x 7.8mm x 3.9mm.

So in 2 dimensions only very slightly under. As it doesn't need to make electrical contact it might have been a deliberate and valid decision by the maker to make the pin slightly undersized to prevent any variations due to manufacturing tolerances or deformation post maufacturing resulting in plastic being abraded by the socket internals and left behind to impair electrical contact with real plugs, or distortion causing deformation of the socket contacts etc.

The skeletal L/N pins exceed the maximum thickness allowed by the standard, as well as being only a small fraction of the width (for obvious reasons).

As you say - for obvious reasons. If the thickness of the pins is damaging then of course that should be addressed. But apart from cigarettes I'm not aware of anything where the law permits products to be sold which are dangerous when used as intended.

It is imediately obvious that it is a piece of junk.

It is not the finest, that's for sure. Bit dodgy though to outlaw things just because they aren't very good.

It will not open the shutters of a Legrand socket which requires all three pins (at least, not with the force I am prepared to apply).

I will ask again, and I'll keep on asking it until the penny drops for you and Simon.

Is that because Legrand have chosen to adopt a particular method of shutter protection prescribed by BS 1363, or is it because Legrand have chosen to do something in excess of what the standard specifies?

It will partially open the shutters of an MK socket which requires all three pins, which is clearly unsatisfactory.

Ditto.

Because of the incorrect dimensions of the "earth pin" you could also not be sure that it would open all earth operated shutters.

The maximum difference in length between L/N and E pins of a plug is 6.03mm.

If a socket is made such that a real earth pin hasn't opened the shutters before it's 16.4mm in then I think you'd be in trouble with it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But the whole point of this discussion is to make it so that compliance with the relevant standards would be required. This device would not meet that and so would be banned.

But why?

You still haven't shown that it has to be banned because it damages sockets.

Your argument seems to be that because there isn't a requirement NOW then it's stupid to criticise it for not meeting the standard that isn't currently mandated.

No - my argument is that as socket makers know that these devices exist, that they are lawful, that they are sold to be inserted into sockets and that they are used in that way, then if they choose to make their sockets in such a way that they will be damaged by the use of the device, and they made that choice in order to implement a feature not in BS 1363, then they should warn people not to use those devices. The correct response to a situation like that is not to turn round to the maker of the device and say "because some people have decided to make things which your product will damage we are going to ban your product".

As others have pointed out there are better alternatives which anyone who might have a legitimate need for will have. If someone doesn't have one of those other devices, then I think in other circumstances you'd argue that they weren't equipped to do their job safely.

So should we have legislation to ban the sale and use of all cheap tools when there are better alternatives available?

Are you, or anybody, ever going to address the question of does it damage sockets because they have features required by BS 1363, or does it damage them because they have features not required by BS 1363 which the maker just decided to add?

As you are fond of telling others, you've already had an answer to that - but you just don't want to accept it and are frantically running around to find straw men to support your position. You're like the kid running around with his fingers in his ears shouting "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

Can you show me where?

I've had a number of replies, but not one of them actually answers the question.

It's a perfectly logical extension of your argument.

If you cannot distinguish between a chisel and a socket opener then please leave - you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

As long as your argument is that it's OK to stuff something the socket was not designed to accept into it, and it's the socket manufacturer's fault if the socket is damaged as a result of that something not being the right size/shape, then your argument logically extends to other <somethings> that aren't the right size/shape according to BS1363.

Don't be an idiot.

The maker of the socket opener has designed it to be inserted into sockets. The maker of the chisel has not.

The maker of the socket opener sells it to be inserted into sockets. The maker of the chisel does not.

When used as directed the chisel does no damage.

So the question is, can the same be said of the socket opener?

If not, can it be shown that it necessarily does damage to some or all sockets because of which option from BS 1363 they have implemented?

You mean, like the dimensional requirements of BS1363 ?

I believe I asked you to show me a standard it is supposed to comply with and does not.

 

[SimonH2]

I will ask again, and I'll keep on asking it until the penny drops for you and Simon.

I understand fully the question you are asking, and it's been answered several times. Don't blame others because don't like the answer.
The question is a non-sequiteur designed to deflect the discussion in a direction you want to manipulate it - classic technique.

The proposal is to outlaw devices that don't meet certain parts of BS1363 - specifically the dimensional elements. The device you are defending does not meet those standards. Therefore it would be outlawed.
You are quite fond of criticising people who don't have the right tools for the job, and for this device it's been pointed out that it's not the right tool for the job.

 

[JohnW2]

Am I the only person to be saddened by the fact that what was/is/should be an interesting, important and vauable discussion has been (yet again) almost totally destroyed by nonsensical squabbling which can only be likened to what one expects of playgrounds?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[SimonH2]

Am I the only person to be saddened by the fact that what was/is/should be an interesting, important and vauable discussion has been (yet again) almost totally destroyed by nonsensical squabbling which can only be likened to what one expects of playgrounds?

No, you aren't the only one.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Many of you will have heard of the www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/ campaign. We have now taken things a step further with a parliamentary E-petition.

Please take the time to read and sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/36699[/QUOTE]
I think the expected reaction was probably "Yes, of course".

Phew!

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'm still interested. Anyone know the answer?

 

[FatallyFlawed]

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'm still interested. Anyone know the answer?

Can you give a clue as to what either said?