I've recently been asked by a client to have a look at a website they have found detailing that safety plug protectors are unsafe and should not be used.
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/
Should i be advising my clients to use these such products??

Thanks i advance
Jay

This has been around for a couple of years plug sockets have ample protection built into their design these safety covers compromise that inbuilt safety. safety covers should not be used better to educate children not to play with sockets.

Red

I seem to remember a few years ago they made wall safes that looked like a double wall socket and you used to open them buy putting the key in one of the earth pin terminals apparently kids started copying this and they where removed from the market.

i think the recommendation around the safety socket covers came because there was a product on the market not because there was any real issue with kids getting electrocuted. i think he greater risk is from allowing young children to plug unplug electrical equipment although i think this has been addressed by the plastic sleeves covering part of the live and neutral pins.

Phil

I too put a screwdriver into a broken socket when I was 7, my intention was to fix it. I did know enough to put on PPE, by wearing my mums marigolds!

Cant remember much other than a hell of a shock, bang and thud!

I agree with dazzling puddock and used them with my young children as this is clearly another line of defence/safety, that will quickly lose a child's interest.

Here is HSE's official position as provided to FatallyFlawed: "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." FatallyFlawed's position on this is very simple, there are NO standards pertaining to socket covers, and there are NO socket covers which meet the dimensional requirements of a BS 1363 plug, therefore there is no such thing as the correct use of a socket cover! Socket manufacturers have confirmed to us that NOTHING should be inserted into a BS 1363 socket which does not meet the dimensions required of a BS 1363 plug.

The following is probably the best response (taken from a post in these forums in October 2009) http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...&m=536036#post536036



You might also like to watch the video below.

What are the chances of a child removing the socket cover and turning it upside down, putting it back in and defeating the shutters?

Having gone that far what are the odds that they will find something else to shove in past the now open shutters?

Are either of the above more likely than a child defeating an unguarded socket ( or rather one without a socket cover )?

Either way you play with the odds.

I feel it more likely that a well designed cover would be a benefit. With an unguarded cover you simply defeat it. With a well desgined cover you need to remove and then defeat - adding another step.

My main concern from the Fataly Flawed website was to learn that the socket covers are not produced to any agreed standard and that some of them would allow children to get small objects ( paperclips etc ) past them even when fitted.Or that the design can damage the socket.

There are no official statistics collected which indicate the root cause of electric shock injuries, so the information is simply unavailable.

What is certain is that, ever since its introduction in 1947, the UK 13A socket has been required to have safety shutters, and that the BS 1363 standard ensures that sockets are safe. Some manufacturers, notably MK, use a method of opening the shutters which requires that all three pins are inserted simultaneously, this is impossible to defeat without extreme force. Any parent who feels unhappy with the possibility that a child will defeat the shutters by inserting something into the earth pin hole should seriously consider replacing child accessible sockets with the latter type.

The issue is that parents have been misled into believing that socket covers are necessary, but this is simply not true. There is no logical argument for using a device which defeats the fully specified and tested safety barrier provided by a BS 1363 socket, and replaces that barrier with an untested one subject to no specification.

It should be borne in mind that no socket cover manufacturer claims to have tested their device for insulation performance, and none conforms to the critical dimensions specified by BS 1363.

I've got no axe to grind and admit to having no view.. but interested that no one has picked up that this subject has been discussed on the IET forum starting back in 2002:

http://www.theiet.org/Fo...1370&highlight_key=y

I'd guess the contributors to this forum know a lot more about electrical safety than those of us who are are safety professionals but may not be electrical experts.

Phil

If you have a good quality socket outlet fitted there is no need to have 'blanks' as the internal shutters on the live and neutral can not be opened unless there is something in the earth (top). I would suggest MK or Crabtree. Check out their websites for further info.

In my post above I made the statement that "All 13A fixed sockets sold in the UK are safe". I phrased it that way because an oversight in BS 1363 has resulted in the majority of extension sockets sold being potentially unsafe!

There is a loophole in the standard which is exploited by many manufacturers allowing them to make extension sockets so slim that it is possible to put an inverted normal plug into the earth pin only, this results in the shutters being held open with the live contacts accessible. Sadly, the BSI committee responsible for BS 1363 has, on two occasions, declined to correct this oversight on the grounds that "the situation described is misuse and that no changes are needed to the standard" This may be seen as an extraordinary comment when you consider that the sole purpose of the shutters is to guard against misuse!

Further explanation of this issue is available at:
http://www.fatallyflawed.../html/other_dangers.html

Before using any extension socket in a position accessible to children, please ensure that it is of the (rare) type which does not allow such inverted insertion.

I have had to replace 2 sockets in my home in the last 18 months because of fairly fragile mobile phone charger earth pins breaking off when they are being removed after use. This would negate the safety feature on the sockets.

Anyone else experience this or are my young ones (in their 20s) using excessive force?

David

Many thanks socket man - very interesting information

David

MrEdisonian makes some good points. There is more good information to be had on this US website: www.childoutletsafety.org

It includes information as to the level of injuries in the US and the types of objects which children place in sockets.

One thing in common between UK and US sockets is that neither allows the insertion of a child's fingers into the contacts, the holes are too small. It is worth noting, in the case of BS 1363 sockets, that this applies even with the shutters open. Also BS 1363 requires that the live parts are set back 1cm from the face of the socket, so an object has to be really inside, not just in the vicinity of the hole! Despite this most parents seem to believe that the danger arises from the insertion of fingers, this belief is encouraged by socket cover suppliers. If parents understood that it is objects other than fingers that they should be concerned about then they would probably feel much more suspicious of socket covers. FatallyFlawed has observed that mothers often say they are not concerned about the insertion of pins and paper-clips because there is no way their child would have access to such things!

Ignorance is bliss it seems.

Covers may have helped this poor lad

http://www.thescottishsu...ted-in-his-toy-room.html

The incident in which a toddler was killed is extremely sad, but it is all too easy to jump to false conclusions as to what may have helped prevent it. However, it should be quite clear that whenever a cut off plug is discarded the fuse should be immediately removed, that would ensure that there can be no access to a live wire. The same advice would apply equally to any equipment lead or appliance which is being discarded, it is extremely unlikely that a toddler would have the capacity to refit a fuse.

The overriding rule is that any plug, device or appliance which could be dangerous in the hands of a small child should be put beyond the reach of all such children.

The reasons why socket covers have no part to play in preventing such accidents are as follows:

1. If socket covers were used as a means of prevention, then to ensure that a child who has access to such a dangerous object as a cut-off plug (or for that matter, hair straighteners etc) does not plug the item in requires that there is no available power socket in the house NOT fitted with a socket cover.

2. To achieve the above it would be necessary to ensure that there are no sockets which are left with any device plugged in, as clearly a child capable of inserting a power plug is equally capable of removing another plug to do it. (This will immediately tell you that there must be no cordless phones, video games, radios, televisions, computers, chargers, table lamps, or any other device in use in the house, this is a somewhat unlikely scenario.)

3. However, there are no plug-in socket covers which have been shown to reliably prevent small children from removing them. There are whole socket covers available, but these either rely on simple clips, which cannot be regarded as childproof, or locks which are undesirable as they prevent immediate disconnection of appliances in an emergency (eg overheating), and in any case they are not suitable for use with plugs which incorporate a charger for a phone etc. The only reliable means of putting sockets beyond use of a child is to remove the sockets completely, or place a very heavy piece of furniture in front of them, clearly neither of these is a practical solution.

4. It is interesting to note that one of the proponents of using socket covers to prevent children plugging in dangerous items is Roger Cheetham, managing director of Clippasafe. This stretches credulity beyond limits as the product which Clippasafe manufactures is one which uses a plug (such as the one the which the child intends to insert) to remove the cover! How can that prevent a child plugging something in?
(http://www.clippasafe.co.uk/rsm/58/press-releases/?id=40 )

Any suggestion that socket covers will prevent children plugging in dangerous devices is seriously misguided, and serves only to dilute the essential message that dangerous plugs, leads and appliances must be kept beyond the reach of small children at all times.

If a socket cover is difficult to remove it is probably because it is one of those which has oversize pins. The FatallyFlawed factsheet "Does Size Matter?" http://TinyURL.com/sizeproblem explains some of the problems caused by non-BS 1363 dimensions. The dimensions of those we have tested and measured are shown in another factsheet http://TinyURL.com/testedsize . As you will see, more than half of those we have tested have pin thicknesses which are larger than permitted by BS 1363, these can damage socket contacts which may cause overheating when the socket is used. MK has confirmed to FatallyFlawed that NOTHING which does not comply with the dimensional requirements of BS 1363 should ever be put in a socket.

IF there were a socket cover on the market which met all of the dimensional and insulation requirements of BS 1363, and IF there was no way that they could be gripped with the fingers, but were removeable only with a key which could not be duplicated by normal household objects, and IF they were sufficiently rigid, like a plug, to not allow inverted insertion, THEN socket covers could be claimed to be safe. However, it would still be doubtful as to whether they made sockets safer than they are without.

As I said above, any suggestion that socket covers will prevent children plugging in dangerous devices is seriously misguided, and serves only to dilute the essential message that dangerous plugs, leads and appliances must be kept beyond the reach of small children at all times.

Taylor, your points about differing points of view are appreciated.

However, the fact that no socket covers are made to the correct dimensions is just that, a fact!

So, while you may argue that a properly designed and tested socket cover may have some benefits, as such a cover does not exist then it is a moot point.

By the way, there is a report prepared by the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute for ANEC (European Association for Consumer Representation in Standardisation). The report, available on-line, is called “Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices” The author of this report 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 . Adoption of this report's recommendations would ensure that all of the socket covers currently on the UK market would be banned.

SocketMan - thanks for the link to the Sweedish report. I read with interest. Do Sweeden promote / insist on the use of such socket covers? Have they got socket covers that meet the requirements of the tests outlined in the report?