So Sad

[FatallyFlawed]

The full judgement of the Sheriff hearing the Fatal Accident Enquiry is available here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011FAI17.html
It is interesting to note that the witness representing the Health and Safety Executive , Mr James Madden, suggested the use of “blanking plugs” (socket covers). This is typical ill-informed advice from HSE who have adopted the policy that: “if the socket cover is correctly used then it will not introduce danger. It should be remembered that a socket outlet designed to BS1361 (sic) has been designed so as to be safe - hence the shutters - when correctly used and maintained. Similarly, if a socket cover is correctly used and maintained it will not introduce danger. Incorrect use and/or a lack of maintenance to ensure the continuing integrity of the socket outlet and/or the socket cover are liable to lead to dangerous conditions existing.” (quoted from a message received from HSE). The major problem with this is that HSE have chosen to ignore the simple fact that there are no socket covers on the market which have the correct dimensions to allow them to be safely plugged into a BS 1363 socket, so clearly the concept of correct use is a purely theoretical one! All use of an incorrectly sized socket cover (ie, any socket cover currently available) must, by definition, be incorrect.

Fortunately the Sheriff was wise enough to realise that the HSE advice was not infallible:
“[45] With regard to the third reasonable precaution proposed by the Crown, I am not satisfied that the evidence led is sufficient for me to conclude that I can or should include that in any form in my determination. As a subject of discussion the matter of child-safe blanking plugs did not arise until late in the evidence of Mr Madden when he volunteered it in discussing what might be deemed reasonable precautions. It was not explored with other witnesses, particularly Ms Hughes and Mr Rough. Mr Madden said that it was a precaution to use such blanking plates in houses where there were children of the sort of age that Liam was but stressed that the provision of these plates was not a duty on landlords and it was not for the Health and Safety executive to promote their use. With characteristic precision in vocabulary he described his proposal as an advisory precaution. He did not describe it as a reasonable precaution. Doubtless that is why the depute in her submission described it as a wise precaution again avoiding the adjective reasonable. I am not persuaded that I should or could elevate the proposal to a precaution that was reasonable in the present circumstances because there simply is not the evidence to give me the facts from which I could derive that conclusion.”

 

[OwainDIYer]

From the description of a 30A fuse in the consumer unit, it seems unlikely that an RCD was fitted and there is no mention of whether an RCD was or was not fitted.

 

[FatallyFlawed]

From the description of a 30A fuse in the consumer unit, it seems unlikely that an RCD was fitted and there is no mention of whether an RCD was or was not fitted.

Sadly, in this case, an RCD would not have helped as the evidence was that the current flowed from line to neutral.

 

[JohnW2]

I hope JohnW2 turns up soon, I feel sure he could fill you in on the details of BS1363, almost at a molecular level.

You called?

I know very little about BS1363, and don't really want to get involved in the details of this discussion, but I will take the opportunity to make one general observation concerning this whole discussion about socket covers (which I have been following with silent interest!) ....

.... What seems completely absent from this discussion (and associated campaigns') is any consideration of the all-important risk-benefit balance. Whether we are talking about a socket cover, a car seatbelt, a 'life-saving' drug or whatever, there are unfortunately going to be cases in which the thing in question has 'done more harm than good', sometimes with serious or fatal consequences. Just as could happen with socket covers, there are cases in which wearing a seatbelt or taking a drug has resulted in death - but that, in itself, doesn't mean that wearing seatbelts or taking a drug is something that should be 'campaigned against', on the basis that the product is 'dangerous'. Everything depends on the balance with the other side of the coin - i.e. how many lives have been saved as a result of wearing the seatbelt or taking the drug.

And so it also is with socket covers. Yes, there could be occasions on which a tragedy has resulted from the presence of a socket cover (is there any evidence that this have ever actually happened?). However, it's also very probable that there have been other occasions (maybe many) on which the presence of socket covers has prevented similar tragedies; after all, that's what they were conceived to do, and (despite all the dangerous things which can be done with socket covers) they might well actually serve their intended purpose in the great majority of cases.

I, and probably no-one, can give you any answer, since the required data isn't really available (ceratinly not to me). It's conceivable that it might be possible to get some sort of estimate of how many children (if any) have died as a result of the presence of a socket cover, but it is far more difficult to get any sort of handle on how many child deaths have been avoided as a result of the presence of socket covers. Such tragedies are fortunately so rare that it would require an impractically large survey (probably of millions of households) to get an idea of the truth (probably by comparing the incidence of child electrocutions in houses with and without socket covers).

So, I certainly don't have the data which would enable me to provide an estimate of 'the answer' (and I suspect that no-one lese has, either) but the existance 'deaths due to socket covers' (if there have been any) do not, in themselves, preclude the possibilty that the total number if 'socket-tampering-related' deaths in children might be much less when socket covers, even 'flawed ones', are used.

From what I understand, and have read, it is apparent that many or most (perhaps even all) of the socket covers available could benefit from improvements in design. It could even be that no truly satisfactory design is possible, However, before people get too carried away with campaigning against the whole concept, they should perhaps stop and ask themselves whether they could possibly be campaigning against something that is currently resulting in a substantial net reduction in deaths by electrocution in children. I really don't know, and I doubt whether anyone else does, but I think it remains a possibility.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[securespark]

From the description of a 30A fuse in the consumer unit, it seems unlikely that an RCD was fitted and there is no mention of whether an RCD was or was not fitted.

Sadly, in this case, an RCD would not have helped as the evidence was that the current flowed from line to neutral.

Surely it would?

 

[seasickstevie]

Surely it would?

Why on earth would an RCD trip when a few milliamps run between live and neutral?

Unless of course the child was 'earthed', which if clothed and on carpet - particularly if upstairs - is unlikely.

 

[Paul_C]

At one point the possibility of shock between L-N or L-E is mentioned:

[7] {.....} Either way, he received an electric shock at a touch voltage of 240 volts because he handled the exposed un-terminated copper conductors with the live wire in one hand and either the neutral or earth wire in the other thereby creating the conditions for a hand to hand electric shock.

But later on, the evidence comes down heavily on the side of L-N:

[31] {.....} Some material had been deposited on the surfaces of the live and neutral conductors where they were exposed at the un-terminated end of each. There were no similar deposits on the exposed end of the earth conductor.

[34] {.....} Liam had burn marks present on both of his hands. Their appearance exhibited the classic features caused by electrocution. The presence of those marks on both hands is consistent with him having held an electrical wire in each of his hands with the result that an electrical current passed through his body, thereby electrocuting him. I accept the expert evidence of Mr Madden based on his examination of the new cable and plug that Liam grasped the bare wires of the live conductor in one hand and the bare wires of the neutral conductor in the other.

The evidence also seems to suggest prolonged contact and a substantial amount of L-N current. So unless there was also sufficient current to earth at the same time or very soon after he contacted L & N, then an RCD would most likely have done nothing to help.

 

[JohnW2]

The evidence also seems to suggest prolonged contact and a substantial amount of L-N current.

Indeed. Given good contact, the hand-to-hand resistance of a 21-month old is usually going to be well under 1kΩ, even with dry skin - so currents ≥240mA are very possible with L & N contact.

So unless there was also sufficient current to earth at the same time or very soon after he contacted L & N, then an RCD would most likely have done nothing to help.

Quite. In the situation being discussed, if (as seems probable) the infant was not in contact with the circuit CPC, then the chances of there being a path to earth less than the ~8k required to trip a 30mA RCD seems pretty unlikley.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

I hope JohnW2 turns up soon, I feel sure he could fill you in on the details of BS1363, almost at a molecular level.

You called?

I know very little about BS1363, and don't really want to get involved in the details of this discussion, but I will take the opportunity to make one general observation concerning this whole discussion about socket covers (which I have been following with silent interest!) ....
[quote="JohnW2";p="1955635/] I know very little about BS1363, and don't really want to get involved in the details of this discussion, but I will take the opportunity to make one general observation concerning this whole discussion about socket covers (which I have been following with silent interest!) ....

.... What seems completely absent from this discussion (and associated campaigns') is any consideration of the all-important risk-benefit balance. Whether we are talking about a socket cover, a car seatbelt, a 'life-saving' drug or whatever, there are unfortunately going to be cases in which the thing in question has 'done more harm than good', sometimes with serious or fatal consequences.

There is a huge difference between the seat belt case and the socket cover issue!

Without a seat belt there is nothing to stop the body continuing to move forward when the vehicle is brought to a crash stop. Adding air bags gives an additional protection to buffer the body as it collides with parts of the vehicle.

A BS 1363 socket must, by law, include shutters which prevent the insertion of small objects into live contacts, inserting a socket cover replaces the fully tested and approved shutter mechanism with an untested alternative (no manufacturer claims any electrical testing) which has no regulation or standard. It is not an additional safety measure but a poor substitute for the real thing. To make matters worse not one single manufacture can be bothered to make a socket cover to the correct dimensions, sometimes this means that they are too easy to remove, other times the pins are so large they will damage the contacts in a way which may lead to overheating and fire. Any time someone says that they find it difficult to remove a socket cover then the chances are that the socket cover has pins which are too fat, or pins which are incorrectly spaced.


Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/posting.php#ixzz1J8vSOyqC.[/quote]

 

[JohnW2]

There is a huge difference between the seat belt case and the socket cover issue!
Without a seat belt there is nothing to stop the body continuing to move forward when the vehicle is brought to a crash stop. Adding air bags gives an additional protection to buffer the body as it collides with parts of the vehicle.
A BS 1363 socket must, by law, include shutters which prevent the insertion of small objects into live contacts, inserting a socket cover replaces the fully tested and approved shutter mechanism with an untested alternative (no manufacturer claims any electrical testing) which has no regulation or standard. It is not an additional safety measure but a poor substitute for the real thing. To make matters worse not one single manufacture can be bothered to make a socket cover to the correct dimensions, sometimes this means that they are too easy to remove, other times the pins are so large they will damage the contacts in a way which may lead to overheating and fire. Any time someone says that they find it difficult to remove a socket cover then the chances are that the socket cover has pins which are too fat, or pins which are incorrectly spaced.

With respect, even though you quoted it, you seem to be missing my whole point. I am not disagreeing about any of the theoretical risks of the concept of socket covers, nor the deficiencies of many of the products what are on the market (and the further theoretical risks which these deficiences create), nor the fact that there is an argument that they are unnecessary.

What I am saying is that, we do not know whether, despite the theoretical considerations and deficiences, use of socket shutters has, in practice, caused more deaths that it has saved, or vice versa; well, I certainly don't know - do you?

Just because the concept of socket covers, and many of the available products, are open to criticism does not necesarily mean that, in practice, they are 'doing more harm than good'. If you, or anyone else, can present facts which indicate that is the case, then we would have an answer, but I suspect you don't. More importantly, can you offer any facts which demonstrate that switch covers have not, in practice (and despite all the theoretical considerations), prevented more harm than they have caused?

Much of my life has been spent in safety-critical areas and what think I'm seeing here is only too common a situation. I am sure you would agree that it would be a irony and tragedy if well-intentioned campaigners (like yourself, I imagine) found that they were campaigning on a theoretical basis against something which, despite everything (including their 'gut feeling' and intuition), was actually saving more lives than it was harming or destroying. All I'm saying is that, in the apparent lack of any actual facts, is that one needs to consider that possibility.

As a very basic starting point as regards facts, do we have any idea as to how many (if any) children have been electrocuted (fatally or otherwise) as a result of the use of socket covers? One might have thought that, if any fatal case had actually occurred, it (and subsequent comments by a Coroner) would become fairly high profile in the news media, and I have to say that I cannot recall having heard of any such case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FatallyFlawed]

John, I suppose we have different starting ponts in this situation. I start from the position that ever since BS 1363 was introduced in 1947 sockets made to that standard have been safe, I know of no evidence which suggest otherwise. The responsible UK safety bodies; RoSPA, HSE, Electrical Safety Council and Child Accident Prevention Trust are all agreed that BS 1363 sockets are safe and that socket covers are unnecessary.

For most of the time since BS 1363 was introduced there were no such things as socket covers, and no evidence of the built-in shutters failing to protect children as they were designed to do. There is, therefore, absolutely no basis for suggesting that socket covers have contributed to the prevention of electrocution. (Very different to the observeable reduction in deaths when seat belts were introduced.)

All sockets have to be type approved to ensure that they meet the standard, the sale of sockets is regulated by statute. There is absolutely no approval necessary for anyone to sell socket covers. Suppliers can put whatever they like on the market with no controls whatsoever.

In that situation it cannot be reasonable for anyone to advocate forgoing the built in proven safety of BS 1363 by replacing it with an unregulated alternative.

We do know that there are such things as fires caused by overheating sockets, and while it is very difficult to prove the causal connection with the damage caused by socket covers with over-sized pins we know that loose contacts are one of the main sources of socket fires.

There are some very solid facts indicating that socket covers are dangerous, and some solid data suggesting that there was no electrocution danger with BS 1363 sockets prior to the introduction of socket covers. What further data could you possibly want?

Why should we have to wait for a even a single child to be electrocuted as a result of the use of socket covers before regulatory action is taken?

 

[JohnW2]

John, I suppose we have different starting ponts in this situation.

Whilst that is sort-of true, it's really the whole approach to a situation like this that I'm talking about.

Much of my life has revolved around generating and/or examining information and data in an attempt to determine what actually happens in the real world, often in relation to matters of safety in its broadest sense, and the answers are quite often very different from pre-conceived ideas or attempts to predict what is going to happen in practice on the basis of theoretical considerations.

For most of the time since BS 1363 was introduced there were no such things as socket covers, and no evidence of the built-in shutters failing to protect children as they were designed to do.

Are you saying that there is evidence that no child has ever been electrocuted by tampering with a BS1363 socket with funtioning shutters? If so, that's obviously very important information, which would clinch the argument that there is no need for socket covers (at least, not to avoid electrocution by the socket). However, given that many of the potential dangers of socket covers are related to children pushing things into sockets, I'd be more than a little surprised if at least some had not done the same with objects unrelated to socket covers.

There is, therefore, absolutely no basis for suggesting that socket covers have contributed to the prevention of electrocution.

I'm not 'suggesting' that they have. I'm saying that we live in an evidence-based world, and I have seen no concrete evidence one way or the other. I doubt whether you have, either, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

In that situation it cannot be reasonable for anyone to advocate forgoing the built in proven safety of BS 1363 by replacing it with an unregulated alternative.

I certainly agree that it's desirable that there should be regulation of the design of anything designed to be 'plugged in' to a BS1363 socket.

In passing, I'm sure I need not remind you that BS1363 allows extension sockets (of which millions must be in use) which allow a BS1363 plug to be inserted upside down, with the earth pin opening the exposed shutters.

We do know that there are such things as fires caused by overheating sockets, and while it is very difficult to prove the causal connection with the damage caused by socket covers with over-sized pins we know that loose contacts are one of the main sources of socket fires.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why regulation would be desirable. One assumes that such regulation could ensure that socket covers were no more likely to cause loose contacts than are plugs to BS1363. It is not, however, in itself a reason for 'banning' socket covers.

There are some very solid facts indicating that socket covers are dangerous, ....

The potential dangers are not in dispute. They could undoubtedly be reduced (e.g. by regulation) - but, as I keep saying, the real question is about the dangers (and/or benefits) on the other side of the equation.

... and some solid data suggesting that there was no electrocution danger with BS 1363 sockets prior to the introduction of socket covers. What further data could you possibly want?

As above, if there really is evidence that there is no electrocution danger with BS1363 sockets, I'd love to see it - and if good evidence ('solid data') to that effect did exist, then, to answer your question, I probably would not want any other data - it would have been established that, at least in terms of electrocution risk (there remains the risk of children plugging appliances into sockets), there is absolutely no need for socket covers (i.e. the potential dangers could not be justified, if there was zero danger without covers).

Why should we have to wait for a even a single child to be electrocuted as a result of the use of socket covers before regulatory action is taken?

This is where risk analysis necessarily becomes 'callous' in some people's eyes, since one can only look at the issue in cold statistical terms. IF (and, as I keep saying, I just don't know) one child being electrocuted as a result of a socket cover were the price that society had to pay for 2, 10, 100 or however many other children being spared electrocution. then, from society's point-of-view, that would be 'a price worth paying' - even though that would obviously be no consolation to that one child, and those around him/her.

In terms of facts/data/evidence, I suspect the statsitical situation is that these tragic events are thanfully so rare (with or without socket covers) that it would be impractical to attempt to get any decent data.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Paul_C]

You also need to keep kids away from these...

As came up in another thread a few weeks ago about shutters on BS1363 sockets. It seems to me that an inordinate amount of fuss is made sometimes about the supposed issue of very young children being able to open shutters, yet there are plenty of other connectors around the average house which have no shutters whatsoever, as with those pictured above. And that's not to mention any table lamp, where once the lamp is removed the contacts are very easily accessible.

.... What seems completely absent from this discussion (and associated campaigns') is any consideration of the all-important risk-benefit balance. Whether we are talking about a socket cover, a car seatbelt, a 'life-saving' drug or whatever, there are unfortunately going to be cases in which the thing in question has 'done more harm than good', sometimes with serious or fatal consequences. Just as could happen with socket covers, there are cases in which wearing a seatbelt or taking a drug has resulted in death - but that, in itself, doesn't mean that wearing seatbelts or taking a drug is something that should be 'campaigned against', on the basis that the product is 'dangerous'.

The potential risks should certainly not be neglected when trying to promote any possible benefits, however. As somebody who has been arguing against the imposition of mandatory seat belt use for the last 28 years, I've certainly seen this sort of trend in later years, where those promoting them and supporting the legislation brush aside any concerns over potential risks as though they're completely insignificant and not worthy of consideration. Aside from the basic issue of personal freedom of choice, the fact that a device could well actually result in an injury or fatality which would not otherwise have occurred is one very good reason why use of that device should not be compulsory. Whether or not it might be beneficial in other circumstances is beside the point.

I see the same issue here with the socket covers if officials start trying to force their use when it's clear that in some cases they might actually make things worse. Whether or not they might offer additional protection in some instances (although personally I think even that's highly dubious), the mere fact that in other instances they can present a risk which would not otherwise be there is reason enough to reject any sort of forced use.

do we have any idea as to how many (if any) children have been electrocuted (fatally or otherwise)

There's no such thing as being non-fatally electrocuted!

There are some very solid facts indicating that socket covers are dangerous, and some solid data suggesting that there was no electrocution danger with BS 1363 sockets prior to the introduction of socket covers. What further data could you possibly want?

And again, the BS1363 shuttered socket really does offer considerable protection against contact with energized connections all by itself, certainly compared with lamp holders and the other types of connector pictured above. Trying to "improve" the safety level of the BS1363 socket, which already offers far more protection than most of the connectors used elsewhere in the world, seems rather pointless given all the other connectors which are already found around the house which have no shutters whatsoever.

 

[JohnW2]

As came up in another thread a few weeks ago about shutters on BS1363 sockets. It seems to me that an inordinate amount of fuss is made sometimes about the supposed issue of very young children being able to open shutters, yet there are plenty of other connectors around the average house which have no shutters whatsoever, as with those pictured above. And that's not to mention any table lamp, where once the lamp is removed the contacts are very easily accessible.

Quite so. However, I presume that you agree that those non-shuttered connectors, lampholders etc. present a theoretical risk, just as do socket covers.

The potential risks should certainly not be neglected when trying to promote any possible benefits, however.

Needless to say, I totally agree. Risk-benefit analysis (or balance) is just what it says. One has to consider risks when promoting benefits, and benefits when one is highlighting risks.

As somebody who has been arguing against the imposition of mandatory seat belt use for the last 28 years, ....

Me, too - but solely on the basis of freedom of personal choice. I am a fanatical believer in seat-belt use (I have, in my time, see far too many of the consequences of non-use) and was using them before they became compulsory, but I think it ridiculous that their use should be compulsory for sane adults - particularly in a society which allows people to smoke, drink themselves silly, climb mountains and engage in any number of hazardous sports.

I've certainly seen this sort of trend in later years, where those promoting them and supporting the legislation brush aside any concerns over potential risks as though they're completely insignificant and not worthy of consideration. Aside from the basic issue of personal freedom of choice, the fact that a device could well actually result in an injury or fatality which would not otherwise have occurred is one very good reason why use of that device should not be compulsory. Whether or not it might be beneficial in other circumstances is beside the point.

Again, I essentially agree, on the grounds of freedom of personal choice. It's perhaps not a very good example since there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits outweigh the very small risks. Whilst I respect (even though the law doesn't!) the right of sane adults to decide against seat belt use becaue of the (very small) risk, I also think they would be crazy to make that decision in the presence of such strong evidence of a net benefit! However, despite what you go on to write, no-one is suggesting, or even contemplating, that the use of socket covers should or would ever be compulsory!

I see the same issue here with the socket covers if officials start trying to force their use when it's clear that in some cases they might actually make things worse. Whether or not they might offer additional protection in some instances (although personally I think even that's highly dubious), the mere fact that in other instances they can present a risk which would not otherwise be there is reason enough to reject any sort of forced use.

Well, for a start, mandatory socket covers are obviously not going to happen, and no-one in this discussoon has suggested that. However, if it did happen then, as above, if those at risk were sane adults, I would again totally agree with you, on the basis of freedom of choice. However, it's more complicated because those at risk are minors. Whilst sane adults are generally free (except for seat belts and a few other things!) to behave as dangerously (to themselves) as they wish, our society does not generally allow adults to make choices on behalf of minors that are deemed to be dangerous to those minors.

do we have any idea as to how many (if any) children have been electrocuted (fatally or otherwise)

There's no such thing as being non-fatally electrocuted!

You know what I meant (and my typing fingers don't always obey my brain!). In fact, it depends what dictionary you look in. The OED, which some regard as divine, defintes it as "injure or kill by electric shock", but I admit that it generally is taken to referal to fatal electric shock. In fact. most dictionaries agree that the "cute" of "electrocute" is a contraction of "execute", so the word probably should be reserved for capital punishment by electric shock. Mind you, if you search medical literature databases, you'll find an awful lot that has been written about 'non-fatal electrocution' over the years.

And again, the BS1363 shuttered socket really does offer considerable protection against contact with energized connections all by itself, certainly compared with lamp holders and the other types of connector pictured above. Trying to "improve" the safety level of the BS1363 socket, which already offers far more protection than most of the connectors used elsewhere in the world, seems rather pointless given all the other connectors which are already found around the house which have no shutters whatsoever.

I don't disagree with any of that and, as I've repaetedly said, I am certainly not 'pro' socket covers and nor am I 'anti' those who are 'anti' them. I'm simply trying to be objective an unemotional. I'm used to (and passionately believe in) evidence-based decsions, so I'm a little concerned that we have an 'anti' movement without (as far as I can make out) any clear evidence that they don't do more good than harm.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

When assessing the risk of non shuttered sockets such as kettle lead sockets the factor of "one hand or two hands" comes into effect.

It is almost impossible to get an accidental two handed shock from a kettle lead. Only by holding ( for example ) a paper clip in each hand and then pushing these into the holes would one be able to get a hand to hand shock. That would have clear intent to obtain a hand to hand shock so does not have to be considered when designing a safe socket where safe is to prevent accidental shocks being possible.

It gets complicated when the feet and / or hand on earthed metal work is added into the design equation.

Where does one draw the line between reasonable measures to reduce danger and the need to provide electrical power at the point of use ?

Most adults are sensible enough to not go trying to find ways to defeat electrical safety measures and intentional seek to get an electric shock.

Those who intentionally look for ways around safety systems cannot be protected. And that includes DIYers taking on work without learning the methods, requirements and inherent dangers of the work before starting it.

All safety measures are a compromise between safety and ability to operate the equipment. Get the compromise wrong and the equipment is so over protected it cannot be used.


Children do not have knowledge of danger until they have experienced it or been convinced by good education, curiosity to learn often drives them into dangerous situations from which many learn the dangers and never try it again. Sadly a few do suffer injury and maybe death in the process. The education process about danger if not done properly can often increase the child's curiosity and thus increase the risk of the child experimenting. Sadly sometimes it is fatal

Children left un-supervised for a few seconds can open the front door and run out into the road. Do we ban front doors ? Do we fit child proof locks that then present a serious risk to life when they have to be opened in the dark to escape from a burning house. Can you find the keys to your front door in thick smoke in the dark when everyone around you is in panic from fear of being burnt to death ? Can you find your front door ?

That last point shows the need to prepare for as many eventuallities as possible or impossible as the impossible can happen. When looking after children one has to think way out of the box when preparing to cope with whatever their curiosity will lead them to do.