Fatally Flawed - an E-Petition

[RF Lighting]

I've signed, and posted the link on my social media networking thingy.

And which one would that be RF

I'm on that dreadful facebook.

Also, if anyone would like to follow me, I'll be walking to the pub about half nine.

 

[TonyS]

The problem is that this is a chicken and egg issue, frankly I thing it ludicrous to query the petition on the basis that there is no relevant standard, the reason for there being no standard is that there is no regulation!
Regulation needs to be put in place and the only way is via legislation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One might think that the 'non-electrical' device might be a bit of a problem for the legislation and/or Standards, but BS 1363 already covers 'insulated shutter opening devices' (on wallwarts etc.) - which are, in themselves, nothing more than your 'plastic lumps'. ... So, I have no reason to think that BS 1363 (or some other Standard) could not cover 'socket covers' ('plastic lumps') if they wanted to - but what I don't know is whether or not they do (and hence could be referred to by legislation).

How would you stop these being made illegal:

Or would you not want to?

 

[ccam108]

Surely this is a better solution?

Or even this?

Rather than forcing a bit of plastic into a socket so you can then poke about blind for a conductor inside it.

 

[stillp]

The problem is that this is a chicken and egg issue, frankly I thing it ludicrous to query the petition on the basis that there is no relevant standard, the reason for there being no standard is that there is no regulation!
Regulation needs to be put in place and the only way is via legislation.

Rubbish! 99% of standards exist for reasons that have little do do with legislation.
However in this case there is already a standard that specifies dimensions for one category of "things to be plugged into 13A sockets".
It should not be beyond the capacity of Government to amend the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations to require that any other "thing" intended to be plugged into a 13A socket-outlet must meet the dimensional and other relevant requirements of BS 1363.
Would socket covers be desirable if they were the correct dimensions?

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is that this is a chicken and egg issue, frankly I thing it ludicrous to query the petition on the basis that there is no relevant standard, the reason for there being no standard is that there is no regulation! Regulation needs to be put in place and the only way is via legislation.

With respect, it really isn't like that. This is a situation in which it is quite clear which of the chicken and egg has to come first. As I said, one cannot expect a government to write what is effectively a technical standard within a piece of legislation. Do you seriously believe that it would be possible to write legislation which outlawed the selling of products which did not comply with a not-yet-written Standard?

Please understand that I am on your side. If the petition were asking goverment to extend the legislation such that products A, B, C, D etc. could not be lawfully sold unless they complied with Standard(s) W, X, Y Z etc., then I would be the first person to sign it. However, it is totally unrealistic to expect legislators to themselves attempt to technically define what standards (small 's') a product has to achieve to be lawfully sellable - and, even if they did try (which they wouldn't), they would almost certainly make an awful mess of it!

Think about it - if BS 1363 did not define the specification of a '13A plug', even the current legislation could not have been written.

However, you haven't answered my question (which was real, not rhetorical), so there may not be a problem - are the products you would wish to be regulated covered by any relevant Standards?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Surely this is a better solution?

Or even this?

They both are.

But are we to start outlawing things just because they are not the best available?

 

[JohnW2]

But are we to start outlawing things just because they are not the best available?

I sincerely hope not. However, if there is a Standard which defines what is deemed to be 'safe' for a particular type of product, I would have no problem in outlawing things which failed to comply with that Standard.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

One of the possible pitfalls in the proposal is that wall-warts, phone chargers and so on are specifically excluded from the Plugs and Sockets (safety) Regulations, because they are electrical appliances and therefore fall under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations, and governments don't usually like things to be dealt with in more than one set of regulations.
Also the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations are derived from a European Directive, and it would be difficult to introduce a deviation from those regulations that was specific to the UK.

 

[JohnW2]

One of the possible pitfalls in the proposal is that wall-warts, phone chargers and so on are specifically excluded from the Plugs and Sockets (safety) Regulations, because they are electrical appliances and therefore fall under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations, and governments don't usually like things to be dealt with in more than one set of regulations.

True - but presumably the latter legislation might be modified accordingly?

Also the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations are derived from a European Directive, and it would be difficult to introduce a deviation from those regulations that was specific to the UK.

I thought that, in general, there was not too much of a problem with a Member State enacting legislation which went beyond a Directive, provided that it encompassed what was required by the Directive. I've certainly come across situations, relating to various matters of 'safety', in which some Member States have been more cautious and have enacted legislation that 'went further' than was required by a European Directive.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[stillp]

I thought that, in general, there was not too much of a problem with a Member State enacting legislation which went beyond a Directive, provided that it encompassed what was required by the Directive. I've certainly come across situations, relating to various matters of 'safety', in which some Member States have been more cautious and have enacted legislation that 'went further' than was required by a European Directive.

Kind Regards, John.

That depends on which Article of the Treaty of Rome was used to implement the Directive. many of the Directives are there to create a single market by removing barriers to trade, and introducing national legislation that goes further than the directive is seen as a technical barrier to trade.

 

[JohnW2]

That depends on which Article of the Treaty of Rome was used to implement the Directive. many of the Directives are there to create a single market by removing barriers to trade, and introducing national legislation that goes further than the directive is seen as a technical barrier to trade.

I suppose that makes some sense. Cases I've come across have generally not related to 'trade'.

Kindest Regards, John.

 

[ericmark]

Also the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations are derived from a European Directive, and it would be difficult to introduce a deviation from those regulations that was specific to the UK.

I think this is the real problem. Else where in Europe 553.1.2, 553.1.4 and TABLE 55.1 does not apply so we are very different to rest of Europe. The little plastic lumps may in fact make sockets safer in rest of Europe.

In fact I only just noted 553.2.1 which would make the three pin adaptors UK to Europe suspect likely falling foul of regulations.

What I think is wrong is giving instructions to plug any item not complying to BS or EU standards into a 13A socket. It's not the making or selling of the item which is wrong but the instructions which come with them. So a market trader can have a basket of the plastic lumps and sell them without a problem but package them with instructions to use in an unsafe manor and then it's another story.

The

advert for these says "Child Proof Saftey Plug Wall Socket Cover Protector 5 pack" and they are not child proof so they don't do what is claimed. Can't see why the seller can't be brought to task under trade description act? These

also guard the sockets and do a good job stopping items knocking directly into the plugs and causing damage and also stop kids playing with plugs and the big thing also have not BS standard.

I am not convinced the covers talked about here can't be stopped without going down the law approach which could also stop good products.

 

[bernardgreen]

I feel the existing Trading Standards system is more than adequate for this situation.

If a device is the subject of a complaint and it can be proved to be "not fit for purpose" as advertised then Trading Standards using existing laws can sieze the stock and if considered necessary arrange for the supplier to be prosecuted.

There are socket covers which are ( apparently ) both safe and effective.

Badly worded legislation that is intended to make illegal those covers that are not effective and/or reduce safety could also make illegal the covers that are effective and do increase overall safety

We have to have sockets, whether we need covers on the already very safe UK 13 amp socket is debatable.

 

[sparkwright]

The 'safety' socket cover plugs are a bad design, and don't necessarily do what they claim.

However, a regular 13 amp plug fitted or not fitted to an appliance can be inserted wrongly in the same way a 'safety' cover can.

The manufacturers aren't going to want to stop selling these plugs, so all they have to do to protect themselves is remove claims like safety and childproof, and continue selling them a simply socket covers. Though pretty useless, this is no more dangerous than a regular 13 amp plug, connected or otherwise.