So Sad
- Thread starter Robgers
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I've been watching this debate here and elsewhere for a long time, as far as I can tell what FatallyFlawed are trying to do is warn folk of the dangers, campaign against anyone in authority reccomending socket covers, and prevent the sale of socket covers which are the wrong size. I may be missing something but I did not see anything on their website which says they should be banned outright.
As for those who keep on about seat belts, do they believe that the current laws requiring seat belts (and child safety seats) to be fully approved before sale are good laws, or would they support unapproved untested junk belts and safety seats being imported from anywhere that is prepared to make them for bottom price?
As for those who keep on about seat belts, do they believe that the current laws requiring seat belts (and child safety seats) to be fully approved before sale are good laws, or would they support unapproved untested junk belts and safety seats being imported from anywhere that is prepared to make them for bottom price?
I think that's roughly right, although it is clear that they would like the products to disappear (e.g. they praise those retailers that have decided not to sell them). To highlight the potential dangers is fine, and laudable. As I've said, I also certainly agree, that anything designed to be plugged into a BS1363 socket should be 'regulated' - at least the extent of being subject to the same sort of Standards as plugs etc., and that would hopefully eliminate the poorer designs. I would happily join a campaign for the design of socket covers to be subject to a British Standard (probably included in BS1363).
"Campaigning against anyone in authority recommending socket covers" is a more difficult one. We're back to the issue of evidence. I'm not aware of anyone in significant authority currently recommending them but, if that were to happen, one would have to examine the evidence on which that recommendation was based before supporting or 'campaigning against' the recommendation. To campaign against something on the basis of only one side of the evidence (and, even that only evidence of a potential risk) is emotional, not scientific.
I certainly hope not - and, as above, I strongly believe that socket covers (just like plugs) should be subject to regulation so as to avoid/eliminate the analagous problem. However, to continue the analogy, I do not think it would be appropriate for people to campaign against seat belts on the basis of the (not disputed) very small risk that they can do harm. In that case, the evidence for a positive risk-benefit balance is overwhelming. With socket covers, we just don't know enough - but it would be wrong to assume that lack of data (and 'gut feelings') necessarily means that the risk-benefit balance is 'negative'.
Kind Regards, John.
The witness who recommended their use at that enquiry, "HM Principal Specialist Inspector (Electrical Engineering) of the Health and Safety Executive" sounds like someone in authority to me!
As far as evidence goes, if fatallyflawed are correct that there are no right sized socket covers (I have not done my own research but I see no reason to disbelieve them), then what more evidence should anyone need? Recommending a badly designed item is bad practice, end of story. You agree on the principal of regulation, but there is no regulation, and no evidence that there are any products which would be permitted by regulation. So, I do not see how you leap to the point of needing a "risk-benefit balance" which would be purely hypothetical as evidence that a compliant socket cover saves lives is clearly unobtainable! That is an argument only worth pursuing if a product becomes available.
Sponsored Links
Well, yes, but he apparently went on to 'stress' that "...it was not for the Health and Safety executive to promote their use." which seems to indicate that he was expressing a personal opinion, rather than speaking as an authortitive representative of the HSE.
Same here. I have not done any research myself, but have no reason to disbelieve them. Indeed, even if there are some (which FF have yet to find) which are 'the right size', there clearly are many which aren't - and that in itself is enough to indicate the need for a Standard/'regulation'. As I keep saying, I need no more evidence that such 'regulation' would be highly desirable.
The sort of Standard ('regulation') I'm talking about is one that would define requirements in terms of size, shape, materials etc. required to make it acceptable for plugging into a BS1363 socket. If there are currently none that would comply, presumably compliant ones would appear (and non-compliant ones disapear) if such a Standard were established. I don't think it's the place for such a Standard to attempt to comment conceptually on whether a product should be used (or whether it offers any benefit), provided it is compliant - i.e. judged to be acceptably safe to plug into a BS1363 socket (maybe 'as safe as a BS1363-compliant plug').
OK. Take it in stages, then. No further evidence or risk-benefit analysis is needed in order to argue strongly that there should be a Standard/'regulation' - and that's what I do argue. If FatallyFlawed were campaigning just for that, and even if they were encouraging people not to use socket covers until ones compliant with a (new) British Standard were available, then I'd have nothing to say. However, although I may be wrong, I don't really think that's what FF want. The impression I get is that even if there were a Standard (in relation to size, shape etc.), I think that they would probably still want to discourage people from using 'compliant' socket covers, on the basis that they were unnecessary and came with some risks (which they would, even with Standard/regulation - as does anything plugged into a socket). If my prediction of their view is correct, then one would, at that point, need to think about risk-benefit of 'compliant' socket covers.
Kind Regards, John
I think we are in agreement then, but I would not wish to make the assumption that you do about what fatallyflawed want. After all, it would be illogical to be against something which would meet a sensible standard. Perhaps they will comment on this?
As you say, maybe my assumption is wrong - and I hope that they will put me right if it is. The main thing that leads me to that assumption is that even a Standard-compliant socket cover would inevitably bring with it some (very small) risks, different from the risks which exist if they were not used, and it seemed to me very likely that FF would therefore continue to discourage use of the covers, on the basis of that (very small) cover-related risk, coupled with the fact that they regarded the covers as 'unnecessary'. If they did that, then only evidence (the infamous 'risk-balance' issue) could determine whether their continuing discouragement was laudable or irresponsible.
Kind Regards, John.
First let me congratulate FreddyBlogger on distilling agreement from the apparent lack thereof, many thanks!
To “size, shape, materials” we would add the need for structural strength (to prevent broken pins) and rigidity (to ensure that cover plates would not deform to facilitate inverted insertion). It is also important to ensure that the instructions provided are complete and well written. For example; it is very important to state that socket covers should not be regarded as a safe alternative to putting dangerous appliances beyond a child’s reach, and also that they do not provide protection against liquids. (Some parents have told us that they use them specifically to protect against children pouring water on sockets – which they absolutely will not do - only one socket cover package we have seen warns against using in damp conditions.) These issues should all be in conformance with the recommendations in the ANEC report. “Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices” which sets out the basic requirements and proposed test methods which should be adopted by EU Member States to ensure that child safety devices are effective and safe. It is available at http://tinyurl.com/ANECreport
Standards and regulations are of course not the same thing, and both are needed. For mains plugs and sockets it is BS 1363 which defines the standard, and “The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994” (http://tinyurl.com/plugs-sockets) which provide the means to prohibit the sale of non-compliant devices. Perhaps both of these could be amended to include socket covers.
Whist it is true that FatallyFlawed inclines to the view that, socket covers being unnecessary, it would be better to simply ban them to avoid confusion; it is equally true that there would be no need to campaign against them if they were responsibly regulated. Sadly, the UK authorities have made it clear on a number of occasions that they are unwilling to do this.
To “size, shape, materials” we would add the need for structural strength (to prevent broken pins) and rigidity (to ensure that cover plates would not deform to facilitate inverted insertion). It is also important to ensure that the instructions provided are complete and well written. For example; it is very important to state that socket covers should not be regarded as a safe alternative to putting dangerous appliances beyond a child’s reach, and also that they do not provide protection against liquids. (Some parents have told us that they use them specifically to protect against children pouring water on sockets – which they absolutely will not do - only one socket cover package we have seen warns against using in damp conditions.) These issues should all be in conformance with the recommendations in the ANEC report. “Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices” which sets out the basic requirements and proposed test methods which should be adopted by EU Member States to ensure that child safety devices are effective and safe. It is available at http://tinyurl.com/ANECreport
Standards and regulations are of course not the same thing, and both are needed. For mains plugs and sockets it is BS 1363 which defines the standard, and “The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994” (http://tinyurl.com/plugs-sockets) which provide the means to prohibit the sale of non-compliant devices. Perhaps both of these could be amended to include socket covers.
Whist it is true that FatallyFlawed inclines to the view that, socket covers being unnecessary, it would be better to simply ban them to avoid confusion; it is equally true that there would be no need to campaign against them if they were responsibly regulated. Sadly, the UK authorities have made it clear on a number of occasions that they are unwilling to do this.
There never has actually been any disagreement about the desirability of a Standard and regulation; I told you that many posts back. More generally, it may be that I somewhat misunderstood the position of FatallyFlawed - but if that is so, I would suggest that it is in large part due a lack of clarity on your website. I've just carefully re-read the Home page, and I have to say that the message which comes across very strongly to me is "don't use socket covers - they are dangerous and unnecessary". I really don't get any feeling of an implied "don't use them unless/until 'safe' and/or approved ones become available", or that your campaign is to get them regulated (rather than 'banned' or simply not used).
Yes, I agree with all that. I'm not sure that a Standard would/could cover the matter of instructions, but that could be dealt with by legislation.
Again, agreed. I admit that I was talking rather loosely about 'Standards/regulation'. In practice, it's obvioulsy usually the Standards which deal with the technicalities, since legislation usually doesn't deal with such detail in these sort of situations. In other words, as with plugs & sockets, some legislation (be it by amendment to the SI you mention, or something else) would be required essentially to give a British Standard the 'teeth' of which it has none of its own!
Fair enough. If you would stop campaigning against the use of socket covers if they came to be regulated, I probably have nothing much more to say. I do think, however, that your present website is very likely to mislead some people into thinking that FatallyFlawed is strongly advising against the concept and use of socket covers in general (even "FatallyFlawed" tends to imply that) - and you know what I think about that.
Kind Regards, John
Hi,
I don't want to get into the 'should we use or not for protecting children' debate, but there are other good uses for covers so banning them would be a problem. For example, it is quite common to have in places such as hospitals, a wall mounted unit which has several 13A outlets. For various reasons some of the sockets have to be disconnected. To prevent equipment being plugged in to 'dead' sockets, the common practice is to tape over the outlet. This looks awful and is impossible to clean. A 'child-proof cover' is an ideal answer. I'm sure others have their own examples.
I don't want to get into the 'should we use or not for protecting children' debate, but there are other good uses for covers so banning them would be a problem. For example, it is quite common to have in places such as hospitals, a wall mounted unit which has several 13A outlets. For various reasons some of the sockets have to be disconnected. To prevent equipment being plugged in to 'dead' sockets, the common practice is to tape over the outlet. This looks awful and is impossible to clean. A 'child-proof cover' is an ideal answer. I'm sure others have their own examples.
What reasons?
Given that to disconnect a socket, the socket will have to removed from whatever it is fixed to, replacing it with a blank plate is the obvious, cheap and easy solution.
Can't see any reason why someone would remove, disconnect and then replace a socket in a non-working condition, and then buy a silly plastic cover to shove into the holes.
Can't see any reason why someone would remove, disconnect and then replace a socket in a non-working condition, and then buy a silly plastic cover to shove into the holes.
Why would inserting a socket cover prevent an adult plugging in equipment? If they want to use the socket then they will remove the cover first.
No they would be interpreting it correctly. At present a compliant and regulated socket cover is only a hypothetical possibility. Until there is proper regulation and/or at least one supplier offers a cover which is made to the correct dimensions and is fit for purpose, this will remain the case. It would be idiotic and irresponsible to do otherwise.
Fair enough. Presumably, even without Standards/regulation, you're going to have to keep a careful lookout for any product which appears which is "made to the correct dimensions and is fit for purpose" (and the latter part could, of course, be a matter of debate!), since you'd then presumably have to highlight this exception to your generalised message in order to legally protect your posterior?
Kind Regards, John.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
