S
Silly Sausage
There is an article on the last page of the latest Wiring Matters (44) questioning the suitability of these things.
-
Please use style selector to select BLUE AND WHITE. If you are not already on it. This notice will go once you're on the correct style.
A reminder to everyone - FatallyFlawed - Child Plug Socket Covers Campaign
L
Litttle Shonet
Just been PAT testing in myvillage school, which has these thingsl ike they're going out of fashion.
1.
- - - Updated - - -
Just been PAT testing in myvillage school, which has these thingsl ike they're going out of fashion.
1. Not all sockets have them. (Why some and not others?)
2. A couple of sockets had kettle leads hanging out of them but not connected to anything. This is more dangerous, but try telling people this and they'll say ok then the next time it will be exactly the same.
Fatally flawed poster will be attached to invoice.
1.
- - - Updated - - -
Just been PAT testing in myvillage school, which has these thingsl ike they're going out of fashion.
1. Not all sockets have them. (Why some and not others?)
2. A couple of sockets had kettle leads hanging out of them but not connected to anything. This is more dangerous, but try telling people this and they'll say ok then the next time it will be exactly the same.
Fatally flawed poster will be attached to invoice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Archy. I think the article should prove helpful, I am told it should go online on Monday (24/9/12) and when it does it will be at Wiring Matters - magazine for electrical installation contractors - IET Electrical
I signed it.
Do we have a page we can print off to hand to customers?
Do we have a page we can print off to hand to customers?
T
trev
What I do is if there's someone on a computer when I turn up to do some work I ask them if I can show them the site. I've never been refused yet.
The Wiring Matters article on socket covers is now online (as of this morning). You can download it directly from here:
http://electrical.------.org/wiring-matters/44/wall-socket-protectors.cfm?type=pdf
Thanks to all who are helping to spread the word about this danger.
David
http://electrical.------.org/wiring-matters/44/wall-socket-protectors.cfm?type=pdf
Thanks to all who are helping to spread the word about this danger.
David
S
Stusparks
Re: Fatally Flawed
Great campaign...I'm in!
Great campaign...I'm in!
I just posted on CPC's facebook wall as I got the usual saturday magazene in the post today and they have 'saftey covers' for sale in there! I pointed them to fatally flawed and to the IET publication...
In a small way I have just raised this issue with our Parish Council and Village Hall so at least locally the message may get through.
I have just been reading the Clippasafe installation instructions for their whole socket cover.
View attachment Socket Protector Installation.pdf
The instructions start with the words:
[FONT=Gen_StoneSans_Bold][FONT=Gen_StoneSans_Bold]
View attachment Socket Protector Installation.pdf
The instructions start with the words:
[FONT=Gen_StoneSans_Bold][FONT=Gen_StoneSans_Bold]
ELECTRICAL SAFETY
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Gen_StoneSans][FONT=Gen_StoneSans]This product is designed to be used with BSI approved UK style three pin electric wall mounted sockets, switched or unswitched.
There is no need to disconnect the mains supply, so long as the Socket Protector is used with a correctly maintained BSI approved double or single wall socket.
The reference to "BSI approved" shows that Clippasafe have no understanding of the issue as, although sockets must meet BS 1363-2, there is no requirement for specific approval (unlike plugs) and very few sockets will have a BSI Kitemark.
The instructions go on to say "[FONT=Gen_StoneSans][FONT=Gen_StoneSans]Loosen the screws on the socket faceplate until a gap of 4mm, or as much as is needed to allow the Socket Protector frame to slide in between the faceplate and the wall."
What do forum members think of instructing non-electricians to undertake such work without turning off at the mains?[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]There is no need to disconnect the mains supply, so long as the Socket Protector is used with a correctly maintained BSI approved double or single wall socket.
The reference to "BSI approved" shows that Clippasafe have no understanding of the issue as, although sockets must meet BS 1363-2, there is no requirement for specific approval (unlike plugs) and very few sockets will have a BSI Kitemark.
The instructions go on to say "[FONT=Gen_StoneSans][FONT=Gen_StoneSans]Loosen the screws on the socket faceplate until a gap of 4mm, or as much as is needed to allow the Socket Protector frame to slide in between the faceplate and the wall."
What do forum members think of instructing non-electricians to undertake such work without turning off at the mains?[/FONT][/FONT]
MK have given FatallyFlawed a really good and supportive statement, check it out here: http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/#MK
We are very grateful to them!
We are very grateful to them!
A
AP Electrical
Just been in McDonald's, two staff trying to prise broken pin from one of these things stuck in socket, sorted for them then directed to ff website and to pass the message on.
Evening all,
I have been a supporter of this campaign ever since it started but after reading the article in 'Wiring Matters #45' by John Madden H&S Exexutive's Principal Specialist Inspector (Electrical Engineering), I am now wondering if the campaign itself, whilst well intentioned, is slightly flawed? He had to investigate the tragic death of a 22 month old baby who had picked up a short length of flexible cable which had been removed from an oven, but still had the plug attached to it (this was left lying around by workmen who had removed it). The boy managed to plug it in and was electrocuted when he touched the live exposed conductors at the end of the cable.
He highlights the fact that the socket protector has two functions - one is to prevent the insertion of anything other than a plug designed for that purpose (and yes we have all been arguing that the uk 1363 socket shutter mechanism is the best in the world at doing just that). The other function, which is being overlooked, is to prevent the insertion of the plug itself, which in the tragic case above would probably have prevented this dreadful accident.
After reading this I now have to agree with John Madden, who has come to the conclusion that the socket protector itself does not need banning it needs bringing up to a designated British Standard. To quote John Madden, he said; "I would suggest that the best solution is for interested parties, including the IET, to press for a British Standard on socket protectors to set standards on matters such as the size of the pins and the materials of construction".
I have often come across discarded cables with the plug still attached, as I'm sure many of you guys have as well - I always destroy the plug altogether with my trusty hammer if I ever see this - but I bet there are loads disconnected by diy's and just left in the shed or cupboard waiting for another accident to happen.
I think John Madden's observations need us to rethink this campaign! Any thoughts?
I apologise if this has already been mentioned in previous posts as I haven't had time to trawl back.
I have been a supporter of this campaign ever since it started but after reading the article in 'Wiring Matters #45' by John Madden H&S Exexutive's Principal Specialist Inspector (Electrical Engineering), I am now wondering if the campaign itself, whilst well intentioned, is slightly flawed? He had to investigate the tragic death of a 22 month old baby who had picked up a short length of flexible cable which had been removed from an oven, but still had the plug attached to it (this was left lying around by workmen who had removed it). The boy managed to plug it in and was electrocuted when he touched the live exposed conductors at the end of the cable.
He highlights the fact that the socket protector has two functions - one is to prevent the insertion of anything other than a plug designed for that purpose (and yes we have all been arguing that the uk 1363 socket shutter mechanism is the best in the world at doing just that). The other function, which is being overlooked, is to prevent the insertion of the plug itself, which in the tragic case above would probably have prevented this dreadful accident.
After reading this I now have to agree with John Madden, who has come to the conclusion that the socket protector itself does not need banning it needs bringing up to a designated British Standard. To quote John Madden, he said; "I would suggest that the best solution is for interested parties, including the IET, to press for a British Standard on socket protectors to set standards on matters such as the size of the pins and the materials of construction".
I have often come across discarded cables with the plug still attached, as I'm sure many of you guys have as well - I always destroy the plug altogether with my trusty hammer if I ever see this - but I bet there are loads disconnected by diy's and just left in the shed or cupboard waiting for another accident to happen.
I think John Madden's observations need us to rethink this campaign! Any thoughts?
I apologise if this has already been mentioned in previous posts as I haven't had time to trawl back.
That's shocking. I would have thought the lesson here would be for the workmen not to leave things laying about and the boys carers to better supervise - but still a tragic accident. If a child picked up a knife or saw left laying about that could have ended in an accident also. The idea that the socket protectors could be used to prevent things being plugged in is perhaps valid but would it not be a better idea to have dangerous items (drills, chop saws, electric heaters, irons, unsafe mains cables) placed out of reach?
I have not yet had an opportunity to read Wiring Matters #45, but will make some general comments.
The tragic incident in question is briefly described on the "Other Dangers" page of the FatallyFlawed website. The determination made by the Sheriff at the Fatal Accident Inquiry (Scots equivalent of an Inquest) is available here. In his verbal evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Madden did make a suggestion about socket covers, but the Sheriff did not accept it, writing: “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.”
As far as I can tell, the idea that socket covers have a role in preventing children plugging in appliances originates with Clippasafe, and it appears to be a reaction to the FatallyFlawed campaign showing that socket covers are not necessary to make sockets safe, but actually reduce that safety. The first occurrence of the concept may be this press release from Clippasafe dated October 2009, around 15 months after the start of FatallyFlawed. This includes the statement: “Plug socket covers will prevent children from plugging in electrical items such as heaters and hair straighteners, which can prove dangerous if left unattended.” Now, contrast that with Clippasafe’s description of their product as “easily removed from the socket by inserting the plug you need to use” – how can such a device also prevent that plug being inserted? It is plainly nonsense.
It is well known by parents that small children frequently find it easier to remove socket covers than do adults, there is no practical evidence that socket covers are difficult to remove by children unless they are of the type which do not fit properly, either because the pins are oversize, or they are incorrectly spaced, both characteristics being otherwise very undesirable. Even if that were not the case, it would not prevent a child from removing another plug, which will always be simple, before inserting a plug attached to a dangerous appliance!
The FAI into Liam’s death heard that: ”Liam had recently started the practice of pulling out plugs from the socket in the living room into which the television was regularly plugged. He derived amusement from doing that. He was aware that the television would come on and work when it was plugged into the socket. Ms Hughes had told him that it was bad to pull out those plugs. The socket into which the television plug was inserted was a double socket. It was similar in appearance to the double socket in Liam's toy room.” Clearly, in Liam’s case, there was no way that socket covers would have protected him, his death was due to the reckless availability of a plug lead with bare tails. I find it very surprising that Mr Madden, when giving evidence on precautions, apparently failed to mention the importance of making such a lead safe! He should have stated that the fuse should have been removed and the bare tails cut off (death is unlikely to be caused by a flush cut as doing so renders the probability of touching L&N with opposite hands unlikely). Twisting the pins on the plug itself is also an effective way of rendering a moulded plug safe. None of these were mentioned.
Neither the FatallyFlawed campaign, nor Trevor Ord’s e-petition, is about banning socket covers per se, but about regulating them to be safe. What must not be forgotten is that there are currently NO safe socket covers on the market, so the effect would be to ban all those in existence, but not to prevent the existence of genuinely safe covers. Having said that it must be remembered that the problem with suggesting that socket covers have a role to play in preventing children from being harmed by dangerous appliances, is that it detracts from the only sensible message: Parents and carers should ensure that ALL dangerous appliances are kept beyond the reach of children.
The tragic incident in question is briefly described on the "Other Dangers" page of the FatallyFlawed website. The determination made by the Sheriff at the Fatal Accident Inquiry (Scots equivalent of an Inquest) is available here. In his verbal evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Madden did make a suggestion about socket covers, but the Sheriff did not accept it, writing: “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.”
As far as I can tell, the idea that socket covers have a role in preventing children plugging in appliances originates with Clippasafe, and it appears to be a reaction to the FatallyFlawed campaign showing that socket covers are not necessary to make sockets safe, but actually reduce that safety. The first occurrence of the concept may be this press release from Clippasafe dated October 2009, around 15 months after the start of FatallyFlawed. This includes the statement: “Plug socket covers will prevent children from plugging in electrical items such as heaters and hair straighteners, which can prove dangerous if left unattended.” Now, contrast that with Clippasafe’s description of their product as “easily removed from the socket by inserting the plug you need to use” – how can such a device also prevent that plug being inserted? It is plainly nonsense.
It is well known by parents that small children frequently find it easier to remove socket covers than do adults, there is no practical evidence that socket covers are difficult to remove by children unless they are of the type which do not fit properly, either because the pins are oversize, or they are incorrectly spaced, both characteristics being otherwise very undesirable. Even if that were not the case, it would not prevent a child from removing another plug, which will always be simple, before inserting a plug attached to a dangerous appliance!
The FAI into Liam’s death heard that: ”Liam had recently started the practice of pulling out plugs from the socket in the living room into which the television was regularly plugged. He derived amusement from doing that. He was aware that the television would come on and work when it was plugged into the socket. Ms Hughes had told him that it was bad to pull out those plugs. The socket into which the television plug was inserted was a double socket. It was similar in appearance to the double socket in Liam's toy room.” Clearly, in Liam’s case, there was no way that socket covers would have protected him, his death was due to the reckless availability of a plug lead with bare tails. I find it very surprising that Mr Madden, when giving evidence on precautions, apparently failed to mention the importance of making such a lead safe! He should have stated that the fuse should have been removed and the bare tails cut off (death is unlikely to be caused by a flush cut as doing so renders the probability of touching L&N with opposite hands unlikely). Twisting the pins on the plug itself is also an effective way of rendering a moulded plug safe. None of these were mentioned.
Neither the FatallyFlawed campaign, nor Trevor Ord’s e-petition, is about banning socket covers per se, but about regulating them to be safe. What must not be forgotten is that there are currently NO safe socket covers on the market, so the effect would be to ban all those in existence, but not to prevent the existence of genuinely safe covers. Having said that it must be remembered that the problem with suggesting that socket covers have a role to play in preventing children from being harmed by dangerous appliances, is that it detracts from the only sensible message: Parents and carers should ensure that ALL dangerous appliances are kept beyond the reach of children.
Hi everyone,
If...
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
