Light switch move - the result

[SimonH2]

I think you confuse risk and evidence of harm.
The risk is clearly higher - that there are no statistics relating to actual harm doesn't alter that.

I was just browsing around on the Fatally Flawed site and there is mention of studies in the US which show a significant actual problem with youngsters poking objects into unshuttered sockets and receiving a shock as a result. Kids being as kids are, it's reasonable to assume that they will happily poke things into any orifice accessible to them - thus making live contacts more accessible is bound to increase the risk.

You may also care to read the Pro Feedback page on their site. There is first hand feedback from pros who have witnessed problems ("burned out" sockets) caused by them (in a manner whch sounds like it is very very unlikely to have happened otherwise).

 

[JohnW2]

John, I have direct experience of a hazardous situation resulting from their use. My grandson pulled one from a socket, and broke it in the process. He put the broken piece in his mouth, and started to choke. Now I know you'll say the same could have happened with any piece of plastic, which is true, but the socket cover is at best unnecessary and in this case has created a hazardous situation where no such situation would otherwise have existed.

As you indicate, there are all sorts of things I could say about that, and I think it's probably essentially a red herring in terms of this discussion. As you effectively acknowledge, it would be an argument for not having any 'unnecessary' piece of plastic in a home - and that is surely a major can of worms!!

Yes, risk is a theoretical concept. So what? Some of us have to manage a variety of theoretical risks, and we do so without creating additional risks by disabling existing safety devices.

Much of my life is spent, in one sense or another, dealing with situations in which risks are being balanced against one another, and what matters is the overall balance. Although it's not directly a situation I'm usually involved with, IF a measure which involved 'disabling an existing safety device' resulted in a net decrease in risk, then that would, in circles I move in, be regarded as a positive outcome. A decreased net risk is a decreased net risk, no matter how achieved. I'm certainly forever involved in situations in which decreasing one risk necessarily involves increasing some other risk - but, if the former is regarded as outweighing the latter, that's the best one can hope/aim for in any probabilistic situation.

For those who are concerned about children playing with socket-outlets, there are lockable covers available that cover the whole socket without interfering with the existing safety device (the internal shutters).

There are, indeed, and I would certainly have no problem with them (unless there was something wrong with their design!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I think you confuse risk and evidence of harm.

Not at all. 'Risk' is the probability of some event occurring, and the event of interest to me is 'harm'. If we don't even know if any, let alone how much, 'harm' has actually occurred, there's no way one can talk objectively about the risk (of harm).We can only 'theorise'.

The risk is clearly higher - that there are no statistics relating to actual harm doesn't alter that.

You are, as I've said, theorising. Common sense suggests that you're probably right but, as above, that's not really evidence-based.

I was just browsing around on the Fatally Flawed site and there is mention of studies in the US which show a significant actual problem with youngsters poking objects into unshuttered sockets and receiving a shock as a result. Kids being as kids are, it's reasonable to assume that they will happily poke things into any orifice accessible to them ...

Indeed, and that obviously all makes total sense.

.... - thus making live contacts more accessible is bound to increase the risk.

Yes, but you talk as if use of these covers inevitably results in 'live contacts being more accessible', which I don't think is a fair assumption. I obviously agree that when live contacts are made more accessible, the (theoretical, although possibly immeasurably small) risk increases, but it would not take very little 'decreased (theoretical) risk' resulting from use of the covers, in other cases, to balance that out.

I have to keep repeating that I am not in any way supporting the use of these covers - but I do think that people should understand the basis on which they are 'against' them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Yes, but you talk as if use of these covers inevitably results in 'live contacts being more accessible', which I don't think is a fair assumption.

In spite of the evidence along the lines of "I found the 'earth' pin broken off and holding the shutters open" ?

While it is true that shutters can occasionally fail, I am not aware of any evidence suggesting this is a widespread problem. We do however have fairly common evidence that these bits of plastic do in fact break, leaving the shutter open.

And then I cannot figure out any situation where installing a cover will make a socket fail to overheat if it gets damaged by other means.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but you talk as if use of these covers inevitably results in 'live contacts being more accessible', which I don't think is a fair assumption.

In spite of the evidence along the lines of "I found the 'earth' pin broken off and holding the shutters open" ?

Eh? I think that such anecdotal evidence falls very far short of indicating that exposure of live contacts is an "inevitable" consequence of using these covers. Indeed, I'm sure that both you and I know that, far from being 'inevitable', it's undoubtedly relatively uncommon!

While it is true that shutters can occasionally fail, I am not aware of any evidence suggesting this is a widespread problem. We do however have fairly common evidence that these bits of plastic do in fact break, leaving the shutter open.

You are again making assumptions, in the absence of any hard evidence/statistics. You are suggesting that exposed live parts due to use of socket covers are much more common than failed shutters for other reasons. You may well be right, but we just don't know for sure. Don't forget that the information available to you (and me) about socket covers is extremely biased - just as you don't hear on the 6 o'clock news every night about all the airline flights which have not crashed (or find websites dedicated to talking about all the flights which have not crashed), you will find very few reports of the (quite probably millions) of socket covers in use which have not resulted in any problems!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

John, I have direct experience of a hazardous situation resulting from their use. My grandson pulled one from a socket, and broke it in the process. He put the broken piece in his mouth, and started to choke. Now I know you'll say the same could have happened with any piece of plastic, which is true, but the socket cover is at best unnecessary and in this case has created a hazardous situation where no such situation would otherwise have existed.

As you indicate, there are all sorts of things I could say about that, and I think it's probably essentially a red herring in terms of this discussion. As you effectively acknowledge, it would be an argument for not having any 'unnecessary' piece of plastic in a home - and that is surely a major can of worms!!

In particular, this unnecessary piece of plastic was intended by its manufacturer to be fitted to a socket-outlet at a height accessible to a child. It was manufactured in such a way that there was a high likelihood of it fracturing when removed. I obviously have no information on toxicity of the plastic.
Children like to mimic adults, and having seen a parent plug something into a socket, or remove it, it is highly likly that the child will try to copy their behaviour.

Although it's not directly a situation I'm usually involved with, IF a measure which involved 'disabling an existing safety device' resulted in a net decrease in risk, then that would, in circles I move in, be regarded as a positive outcome.

In industry, disabling a safety device requires an impact assessment, a written justification, a safe system of work, and application of the precautionary principle, i.e. if you can't prove the net risk will be lower then you can't do it.

 

[JohnW2]

Although it's not directly a situation I'm usually involved with, IF a measure which involved 'disabling an existing safety device' resulted in a net decrease in risk, then that would, in circles I move in, be regarded as a positive outcome.

In industry, disabling a safety device requires an impact assessment, a written justification, a safe system of work, and application of the precautionary principle, i.e. if you can't prove the net risk will be lower then you can't do it.

As I said, I function in mainly in different areas, where the concept of 'safety devices' does not really exist as such, but the bottom line, in terms of 'net risk' remains essentially as you describe.

In my usual world, one would usually (often necessarily) look only at the 'net risk', without worrying too much about the 'internal mechanics'. Hence if (as well as hopefully conferring some benefit {i.e.'reduced risk}) instituting 'new measure B' (c.f. using a socket cover) undermined, or totally disabled, existing 'measure A' (c.f. 'existing safety device'), then all that would matter would be demonstrating ('proving') that the net risk of A+B was no greater than (hopefully less than) that of A alone.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

Don't forget that the information available to you (and me) about socket covers is extremely biased -

Let us just consider the facts, rather than making such sweeping claims as the above.

1. The 1944 report ‘Post War Building Study No. 11' which called for a new plug & socket stated “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.”

2. The response to that call was: 'British Standard 1363 : 1947 FUSED PLUGS AND SHUTTERED SOCKET OUTLETS'

3. BS 1363 is framed in such a way that the dimensions of a standard plug are precisely defined, and a socket is defined in terms of operating with a standard plug.

4. The introduction to the government's guidance notes on The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 states: "The regulations were introduced to provide a regulatory regime to address issues regarding consumer safety. There were concerns that consumer safety was compromised by the substantial quantity of counterfeit and unsafe electrical plugs and sockets being placed on the UK market"

5. Physical measurement has shown that all socket covers sold for the purpose of insertion into BS 1363 sockets fail to meet the dimensions for plugs specified in BS 1363. It is open to anyone to easily verify this, no one has so far challenged our measurements. Likewise, it is open to anyone to verify that certain socket covers without the required chamfer on the "earth pin" will not enter, without forcing, into the type of socket earthing contact which is brought to the engagement face of the socket. There is nothing "biased" about the drawings and photographs which demonstrate the importance of not attempting to force non-standard devices into the more sophisticated (and arguably safer) compliant socket types which use 3-pin shutter operation.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/html/socket_damage.html

6. By definition, a compliant socket designed to accept a plug of specific dimensions, and without other dimensional constraints, cannot be guaranteed to safely accept anything other than a compliant plug.

7. Given that it is a criminal offence to supply plugs having the wrong dimensions (ie, failing to comply with BS 1363), then it is completely illogical to not require other items sold for insertion into sockets to meet those same dimensions.

8. The position of FatallyFlawed is that all devices sold for insertion into a BS 1363 socket should be subject to the same dimensional specifications, the same insulation requirements, and the requirement for mechanical strength of the pins as a standard plug. We believe that the Plugs and Sockets Regulations should be extended to cover all such devices.

The government has already determined that it is important that all standard plugs should meet the standard, all we ask is that regulation should cover ALL plug-like devices. There is no need for further statistical information to support that, it is simple logic and good engineering practice.

 

[JohnW2]

Don't forget that the information available to you (and me) about socket covers is extremely biased -

Let us just consider the facts, rather than making such sweeping claims as the above.

You have taken that "sweeping claim above" totally out of context. As I think you well know, I was merely referring to inevitable fact that we hear nothing about, and hence cannot quantify, the vast number (I suspect millions) of these products that are in use without ever experiencing or presenting any 'problem'. The available information (on that issue) is therefore inevitably one-sided, and makes it impossible for us to attempt to quantify the relative risks associated with using and not-using these products.

Let us just consider the facts ... 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... 4. ... 5. ... 6 ... 7 ...

I have absolutely no disagreement with any of those 7 points ....

8. The position of FatallyFlawed is that all devices sold for insertion into a BS 1363 socket should be subject to the same dimensional specifications, the same insulation requirements, and the requirement for mechanical strength of the pins as a standard plug. We believe that the Plugs and Sockets Regulations should be extended to cover all such devices. The government has already determined that it is important that all standard plugs should meet the standard, all we ask is that regulation should cover ALL plug-like devices. ...

... and I also totally agree with that position - which, of course, is far more wide-ranging than just 'socket covers'. Also, perhaps to your surprise, I also totally agree with:

... here is no need for further statistical information to support that, it is simple logic and good engineering practice.

... BUT we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we know that such a change will necessarily result in any reduction (or 'significant reduction') in injuries or deaths - not the least because we are not even sure that there have been any (or any significant number of) injuries due to use of these products that could be reduced. One can certainly theorise that, because of all the facts and opinions you mention. use of these products has the potential to cause harm (so that doing as you would wish would reduce that theoretical risk of harm), but we don't seem to know whether that theoretical risk has ever translated into actual significant harm, let alone how frequently.

There is nothing "biased" about the drawings and photographs which demonstrate the importance of not attempting to force non-standard devices into the more sophisticated (and arguably safer) compliant socket types which use 3-pin shutter operation...

Indeed there is nothing 'biased' about that, but I never suggested there was - so we again agree. However, as I said, you took my comment totally out of context. What is, inevitably, biased (one-sided) is the available information on 'problems' (or 'no-problems') with in-service socket covers.

Kind Regards, John