Rank: Forum user
|
There seems to be some debate as to whether electric socket covers should be recommended where young children are involved.
Any thoughts would be welcome...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Assuming sockets are fairly modern they already have a better system fitted internally.
Parents might better spend their time making sure the circuits are RDC protected and testing them.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This was discussed at length in the past with some interesting points from our electrical specialists - might be worth an attempt at using the search facility :)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Excellent links there. Just consider that plugs and socket-outlets are subject to stringent standards and a series of arduous type tests to ensure their safety in use, but these socket covers have no standard, hence there is no requirement for their electrical mechanical or thermal properties, fire resistance, etc. They are far more likely to cause damage to the socket-outlet than to prevent any harm.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Many thanks for the postings and links. Most useful. Consensus seems to suggest no to any recommendations for their use? I did try the search facility to no avail.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
If I remember correctly the thread was either locked or destroyed by the mods for being part of some sort of campaign!!
There is however no consensus on the issue, quite the opposite in fact!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes, I'm finding that out. In which case I suppose the only option is to refer to the opposing views...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The last sentence says if you have kids its your responsibility to look after them.
Something I could rant about at length!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Dazzling Puddock wrote:destroyed by the mods for being part of some sort of campaign!!
!
That made me smile!
The search function is a law unto itself :)
I haven't had a post moderated for ages, maybe I should put it in my CPD targets :)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In response to teh_boy's posting at #13 (time 16.43.13) it's evident that moderation of this forum continues in force. However, some months ago there was a change in how the moderators deal with individual postings which they deem to be in breach of forum rules. Previously such postings were removed and replaced by the phrase "the contents of this message cannot be displayed at this time" or similar. Nowadays they are simply removed. Perhaps the former system should be reinstated, not least to serve as a visible reminder to forum users that the forum is moderated. Also, in a recent thread I submitted a posting which referred to an immediately preceding one by someone else. As his posting was removed after mine appeared, it rendered some of my posting incomprehensible, especially as my posting # reference number was changed to the one used for his posting.
p.s. I was going to joke that rule-infringing posts now disappear in a manner similar to people who disappear without trace in countries ruled by tyrannical regimes, but decided against it for fear of being misunderstood to imply that this forum's moderatorial system is tyrannical. Far from it; moderation of open forums like this one is very necessary. :-(
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'd better explain that my posting above (currently #14 at 17:58:31) included the time of teh_boy's posting at #13 just in case his posting is removed for some reason and mine gets re-numbered as #13.
Also, I confess that I only realised that the moderatorial procedure for inappropriate postings had changed after I posted a spoof 'contents not displayed' message some weeks ago in response to a thread asking why I'd apparently left the forum.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
At risk of getting 'modded yet again' (is there such a word)...
Regarding #1
No. Not worth the effort. Don't use them as the kids will make a came of pulling them out. I have even seem some stupid parents drawing little faces on then indicating that electricity is nice!
RCD on sockets. Eyes on the children.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And another thing...the 'earth' pin of the inserts tend to break off thus allowing the live and neutral female outlets to be open... Just the thing you need when a child has a small metal object to hand (for child read also 'a half-witted adult') or other thing perhaps a pencil...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Don't use them they are dangerous.
They do not have to comply with the dimensional standards of BS1363, thus they can damage the sockets to which they are fitted.
That is enough evidence and proof, they are unsuitable for use and do not comply with the BS for devices to be inserted into a BS1363 socket outlet, thus they are unsuitable.
Their strength is not subject to any checks or tests.
If the "earth" pin breaks off it defeats the inbuilt safety of the socket outlet.
If they are used on extension leads, then they can often be inserted upside down and thus rendering the extension MORE dangerous as the live pin apertures are exposed & un-protected.
The BS1363 socket outlet already has inbuilt "ingress" as it were protection, as long as the device meets ALL the requirements of the standard IN FULL.
The trouble with this is that there are too many bogus and otherwise inadequate devices on the market as the quality is price driven, not safety or quality driven.
Thus the market wants the cheapest device it can get regardless of whether it is safe or liable to kill someone or burn the place down.
Hope this stays long enough, though I expect it to disappear as the mods will consider it too controversial.
Trouble is see I'm an Engineer, so I am paid for my opinions.
So I express them as it is part of my profession.
Also if they can prevent damage, harm, injury or improve business then they are worthwhile, and all of these comments here come under this heading.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Would the answer not be to introduce a BS for socket covers?
Socket covers are not really there to stop little kids from sticking things into the pin apertures but to stop them plugging in electrical devices.
Plugging in hair straighteners and burning themselves or the carpet.
Trying to iron the dog.
Copying that cartoon brickie and plugging in a hammer drill etc etc
I have also found 4 way extension bars that a standard BS plug can be inserted upside down opening the shutters so the safety of certain electrical products goes much further than socket covers.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
May I point out that the article in the first link is written by the Technical Regulations Manager of the IET - the body responsible for the Wiring Regulations. The last few lines of that article read as follows:
"Last word
Socket-outlets to BS 1363 are the safest in the world and have been since they were first designed in the 1940s. Socket protectors are not regulated for safety, therefore, using a non-standard system to protect a long established safe system is not sensible.
Thanks to David Peacock (Fatally Flawed) and Malcolm Mullins (Honeywell)"
Readers familiar with the British Standards committee responsible for BS 1363 will recognize the last name as that of the chair of the committee.
The website in the second link has a lengthy statement from MK (a leading manufacturer of domestic sockets) on its home page, it concludes: "MK goes to great lengths to ensure that all its BS 1363 plugs and sockets are safe. Inserting incorrectly dimensioned products into a socket-outlet can both damage the socket and reduce its safety."
It is perhaps not surprising that lerobinson feels the way that they do.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If a child is capable of plugging-in a hair dryer they as sure as night follows day capable of removing the 'stopper' first!!!!Then sticking the hair dryer, finger safety pin... you get the idea?
The socket is not the problem, its the management of children or idiots.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
zimmy wrote:If a child is capable of plugging-in a hair dryer they as sure as night follows day capable of removing the 'stopper' first!!!!Then sticking the hair dryer, finger safety pin... you get the idea?
The socket is not the problem, its the management of children or idiots.
There is an interesting FAQ (last in the list) on this topic at FatallyFlawed. It includes a link to a study by a Glasgow hospital on hair straightener injuries, apparently most of these occur when the user leaves them to cool, nothing to do with children plugging them in.
Dangerous appliances need to be kept out of reach of children, kidding yourself that a piece of plastic can stop a child plugging something in is simply delusional, especially considering that the best known make is advertised as “easily removed from the socket by inserting the plug you need to use”!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
This issue has nothing to do with people being delusional or idiots.
Many types of socket protector require a large degree of finger strength that little bairns simply do not have. Pushing in a plug does not require strong fingers.
I am sure some types are very poorly designed and a reason why introducing a BS would be a sensible measure.
The use of socket covers simply adds another hurdle or potential break in a chain of events leading to an child hurting themselves.
As for the "management of children" angle, why have stair gates or child locks on cabinets or in car doors if you can realistically observe your child every second of the day and never make a mistake or get distracted by anything ever?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I had them when my kids were little. We live in a house built in the 1910s decade with original gas pipes for lighting still visible in most rooms and wiring and sockets which had been "built upon" and extended through the years. It was some years until we could afford to have the house rewired although we did have an electrician give it a once over and declare it "reasonably safe". However, the sockets were a mismatch of old and new, some with pin covers and some without and no RCD at the fuse box because of the age.
In these circumstances when you have couple of kids then I think they are a good idea and should not be dismissed because we all now live in a perfect world where all sockets are intrinsically safe and we all have 360º X-ray vision and can see what our children are doing every second of the day for the first 5 years of their lives.
Should there be a British Standard? Yes, clearly there is an issue, but for me it was the safest option at the time in my circumstances and I would do the same again.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hilary, I would have said you'd put your children at risk by inerfering with the protective mechanism of your socket-outlets. It has nothing to do with the age of the sockets (assuming they were all 13A BS1363 types), they have always, since about 1947, required internal shutters.
Sorry if that offends you, but I've said the same to both my daughters (in stronger language!). My elder daughter only believed me when her son, aged about 2 at the time, decided it was great fun to remove socket covers and try to replace them with various objects. He could quite easily remove them, perhaps because he was nearer their level and able to exert a straight pull.
She eventually threw them out when my grandson managed to break one of the covers, which of course he promptly put in his mouth and nearly choked.
I have replaced one of her socket-outlets in which the contacts had been damaged by the use of the socket covers, leading to poor contact and a fire risk.
The relevant BSI committee has considered standardising these, but decided that to introduce a standard for a device which is not needed in the first place would not be rational.
If you must cover sockets, there are hinged covers available that can be padlocked.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Dazzling Puddock wrote:Many types of socket protector require a large degree of finger strength that little bairns simply do not have.
Plugs are required to be made to precise dimensions and shape. Sockets are required to be made to work correctly with plugs which meet those precise dimensions, inserting anything else results in an unknown situation. But, what is rarely realised is that there are no socket covers which are made with the correct dimensions and shape - therefore there are none which have predictable performance. This is not speculation but fact.
This means that it is entirely unpredictable as to whether a socket cover will be easy to remove or not, it depends what socket you insert it into, a socket cover which is a tight fit in one socket will be partially ejected, and therefore very easy to remove, from a different socket. If easy to remove it is clearly useless, if difficult to remove then the reason is usually because it has oversize pins which will stretch and permanently damage the contacts of the socket, neither is satisfactory.
hilary wrote:I had them when my kids were little. We live in a house built in the 1910s decade with original gas pipes for lighting still visible in most rooms and wiring and sockets which had been "built upon" and extended through the years. It was some years until we could afford to have the house rewired although we did have an electrician give it a once over and declare it "reasonably safe". However, the sockets were a mismatch of old and new, some with pin covers and some without
The only socket covers you can buy for British sockets are intended for BS 1363 13 amp flat pin sockets. These have always had shutters, without exception, and there has never been a valid reason for using socket covers in them. It is perfectly reasonable to make an argument for using socket covers on old British BS 546 round pin sockets as they have not always had shutters (although modern ones do, and the Wiring Regulations require their use) - but as no one sells socket covers for BS 546 sockets it is not a practical option.
If there was regulation of socket covers so that we could be sure that they did not damage sockets, and could not be used as convenient tools to over-ride the built-in protection, then socket covers would become a harmless but unnecessary waste of money, but there would be no added risk involved in using them. But until then, or until a manufacturer decides to make covers which meet the size requirements, then their use is entirely negative.
There is absolutely no way that I will ever put my children at risk by using unregulated socket covers.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You are assuming that the sockets were not tampered with or changed in any way. This electrical system was "interesting" to say the least and when we had it ripped out some of the wiring was black and red and some of it was bare wires and the light fittings were still on the old two twisted wire arrangements covered with cloth!!!! Some of the sockets we didn't even dare use but they still had live electricity to them nonetheless.
So yes, socket protectors were a must because they couldn't possibly do any more damage.
As an aside, we also still have a working gas lamp on the front of our house!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hilary, using socket covers would not affect the safety (or lack thereof) of the wiring system. Twin-twisted cable to light fittings is not to current (no pun intended) standards but is not hazardous in itself, particularly as they tend to be out of reach of children. As for the red and black wiring, that could be well within its design life. Electricity doesn't know what colour the insulation is!
If you were scared to use some of the sockets and couldn't replace them then you should have blanked them off with something more permanent than a socket cover, rather than possibly make them even more dangerous by pushing a non-standardised and unregulated piece of plastic into them.
There are never any circumstances in which socket covers are a must, and none where the socket covers couldn't do any more damage.
Your working gas lamp is an interesting analogy. If you thought it was unsafe, would you a) call a Gas Safe engineer, b) isolate the gas supply, or c) find a piece of plastic that seemed to fit and jam it in the end of the gas pipe?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hills, if you are in any doubt about your wiring send a pic over to my phone or home address and I'll give you some help if you need it. Free as ever :-) PM and I'll pick it up on tuesday
Rob
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
stillp wrote:If you must cover sockets, there are hinged covers available that can be padlocked.
That is a good point, but I would point out that the manufacturers of those whole socket covers suggest that, to allow fitting the cover, you should loosen the screws holding the socket in place without isolating the mains! That is very bad practice under any circumstances, but in the case that Hilary describes where the installation is in a poor condition it is potential suicide. It is also worth bearing in mind that if the wiring itself is in a fragile state then any movement of the socket could make matters worse.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.