Uk plugs and child safety

How I did it – rammed a knitting needle into the earth socket which raised the shutters.

Gobuchul no deaths from that, perhaps. But safer is not the same thing as safe, any voltage is enough to supply a current that could potentially kill (especially a child). That was my point.

Footflaps yeah I know, but then again all the stuff we have for sale is just as freely on sale in other countries.

Ramming a knitting needle into the earth won’t electrocute you, you would need something else to put in the live outlet ie a second needle perhaps. I’d say that was not “piece of piss” but a concerted effort to overcome a safety feature and its unlikely that a child would be capable of such a plan although not impossible.

but a concerted effort to overcome a safety feature and its unlikely that a child would be capable of such a plan although not impossible.

As born out by the stats, the number of people killed in the UK, by electricity, is tiny. Far more likely to be killed by a car.

Marcus, I was a child at the time. And oddly enough I did get a zap off of it. Yes, probably defective but who has had their entire house checked over? This is reality, not the lab, something the guy that bangs on about protective covers fails to address.

Gobuchul no deaths from that, perhaps. But safer is not the same thing as safe, any voltage is enough to supply a current that could potentially kill (especially a child). That was my point.

Yes, probably defective but who has had their entire house checked over? This is reality, not the lab

Reality? I think you need to check yours?

Any voltage is enough to supply a lethal current? Yes. In the lab. In reality no. Besides it’s a mute point. In the UK we are dealing with 220v.

The point is, you need to insert something in the earth to open the other 2 socket holes. Then you need to insert something conductive in one of the openings. Possible but not very likely.

Fit some decent breakers in your consumer unit and worry about something that is a real problem.

I’d say that was not “piece of piss” but a concerted effort to overcome a safety feature and its unlikely that a child would be capable of such a plan

Really? Do you have kids? Were you ever a curious kid?

A nice little mechanism like plug shutters is exactly the kind of thing* I would be interested in as a kid and would prod things into to see how it worked.

I don’t understand why people can claim that plug covers are dangerous because children might somehow muster the fiddly dexterity and fingernail strength required to remove them, and then cram them back into the earth socket upside down with enough brute force to bend them, thus lifting the shutters.
But somehow uncovered sockets with shutters are fine because no child would ever be capable of just sticking something in the earth.

Surely if the first situation is likely then the second situation is even more likely?

.

* (See also: fridge lights, door locks, latches, switches, and anything involving fire 🙂 )

Far more likely to be killed by a car.

Agreed.

Yes, probably defective but who has had their entire house checked over?

Well I have checked all of mine out 😉

Not that we have kids though.

Possible but not likely. So why get in such a tizz about the plug covers then? I already illustrated that its easy enough to defeat the protection regardless, its not really a huge step from that to shoving something else in is it?

In reality, no? Er, how many people get electrocuted in labs?

And FYI it’s 230V unless you’re on a ship, then it’s 220V.

And if decent breakers were the complete solution why isn’t 230V considered perfectly safe for site use?

You’re not making any sense here, your arguments are completely inconsistent, it really is starting to come across that you don’t really understand your own arguments and have simply pulled stuff from google based on something you were told once.

edit : Graham got there first. Somehow.

Yes I have two Kids who are very curious, and as a kid i cut through a mains cable with some nail clippers which sent me across the room, They are dangerous because they overcome a problem that does not exist and by doing so they give an a opportunity to make the socket unsafe. Why would anyone consider that is sound thinking? you can keep out of reach things that could be inserted into the socket quite easily but you are actually providing a potential tool which can be used to overcome the safety feature.

And if decent breakers were the complete solution why isn’t 230V considered perfectly safe for site use?

Site use is very different to domestic:

1) site workers makes excellent ground paths e.g. stood in muddy water or holding / standing on metal scaffolding.
2) It’s also much harder to guarantee a good earth for the supply / tools on a building site as a proper supply may not have been installed
3) you can’t guarantee that all metal is properly earthed eg scaffolding etc.
4) using power tools they are much more likely to cut through cables.

Hence a different system is used.

EDIT. Just been googling, the 110v CTE system pre-dates cheap RCDs, so at the time, ‘just use an RCD’ wasn’t an option.

you can keep out of reach things that could be inserted into the socket quite easily…

Your house must have a LOT of high shelves! 😆

And FYI it’s 230V unless you’re on a ship, then it’s 220V.

FFS!

And if decent breakers were the complete solution why isn’t 230V considered perfectly safe for site use?

As footflaps said, it’s completely different circumstances.

As you mentioned ships, do you have the same fire protection in your house that you do on a ship? No. There is a reason for that.

Footflaps that doesn’t answer my question (although you are quite correct as to the reasons for using 110V). If suitable RCD’s are sufficient protection for 230V why isn’t that considered safe enough for site use?

Just checked the socket in my daughters room, looks like a plug can be used to open the shutters. Will be finding new sockets asap. See also cheapass Ikea multi adaptors.

Marcus, the tool is only useful if they can get at it though, if it cant be easily pulled out then whats the problem? Anyway, from looking at this MK use a system that means all three shutters need to be engaged before they will open. That, in my mind, is far more useful than relying on a single point of defence.

The tizz for me is that sockets, plugs etc are all regulated to fairly robust standards in the UK. Safety covers are bound by no safety standards whatsoever and that is an issue for me as they are sold as a safety device. As with all things make your own judgements but for me I tend to err with well tested standards rather than what someone thinks would be a good seller.

children might somehow muster the fiddly dexterity and fingernail strength required to remove them, and then cram them back into the earth socket upside down with enough brute force to bend them

lots of these type of covers have a full length earth pin, but only half or partial lenght L/N pins. so the only brute force needed either way up is the same force as inserting anything in the earth pin.
you, or your kid’s choice of a knitting needle or something that’s designed to be the exact shape of an earth pin to do what the mechanical shape of the earth pin is designed to do.

and many (google youtube) simply snap in half when you push them in the wrong way. and those 2 reasons are why mothercare etc. afaik, stopped selling them.

in hindsight, whomever thought up this design really should have made the earth pin keyed/directional.

if you really want to blank it off, use a blanking plate.

If suitable RCD’s are sufficient protection for 230V why isn’t that considered safe enough for site use?

I’m not sure that they aren’t. The current site standard pre-dates RCDs and has a good safety record, so there is no reason to modify it (which would cost a lot of money).

RCDs also don’t work very well in situations where there are high leakage currents, which may well be the case on sites due to large number of high current power tools.

You need them. Fit them to all your sockets. They stop the electricity leaking out at night into your room.

Let those electrons leak out for long enough and eventually you will DROWN in a sea of electrons.

Stay safe out there.

They stop the electricity leaking out at night into your room.

If you block the sockets, they just back up in the wires and overflow in your fuse box, potentially creating a critical mass of electrons in the under stair cupboard, which can cause all sorts of problems….

I once watched a documentary on this and it wasn’t pleasant

Well as I said the so called well tested standards must be a crock of shite as I can insert plugs upside down into two sockets within spitting distance of each other. As you said, make your own judgements.

If suitable RCD’s are sufficient protection for 230V why isn’t that considered safe enough for site use?

I asked that same question – my Dad (site electrician) told me that an RCD could fail. It’s considered a tiny risk, but 55 – 0 – 55 won’t kill you, whilst a failed RCD might.

It also has the plus of making site tools less attractive to thieves as they are more difficult to flog down the pub, as you need a transformer.

Of all the dangers our children face, this has to be one of the least.

I would rather spend my time engaging with my child, playing indoors and out, allowing them to learn and develop. That includes managing risk. Much more important and positive things life.

Well you’d have to explain to me what your plan was by knowingly inserting the plug upside down to open the safety shutter or are you just trying to prove some kind of half arsed point that safety systems are possible to defeat. It not a crock as you put it, its designed to be as safe as possible under normal use. I’m sure you’ll say next that you can take the back cover off the plug stick a knitting needle up your nose then get a shock off the live terminal….. 😐

It also has the plus of making site tools less attractive to thieves as they are more difficult to flog down the pub, as you need a transformer.

That will have had no influence on any decision over the design of the site safety regs!

I suspect it’s simply that the 110 CTE design pre-dates RCDs and there has been no need to change the design as it works fine as is.

Well you’d have to explain to me what your plan was by knowingly inserting the plug upside down to open the safety shutter or are you just trying to prove some kind of half arsed point that safety systems are possible to defeat.

My plan was to see whether it made a difference using a so-called safety plug or a proper plug. In those cases it never which points to bad socket design and by implication, poor type testing. In contrast the MK sockets in the kitchen are impossible to do this with. My point was that relying on regs only works up to a point and that these fantastically designed sockets might not necessarily be as safe as people think they are.

I’m sure you’ll say next that you can take the back cover off the plug stick a knitting needle up your nose then get a shock off the live terminal…..

I’d appreciate it if you dropped the shitty attitude.

You can appreciate all you like tinkerbell, you seem determined to prove that its a bad design and i say it isn’t so I’ll leave it there.

<Mod>
Play nicely you two, or I shall take the ball away.
</mod>

Fair do’s 😳

That was never my intent, read what I said again.

My point was that SOME sockets can be defeated in ways that they shouldn’t meaning that SOME sockets don’t meet the standards as set out in the regs. Therefore you shouldn’t rely on the regs protecting you on face value alone.

Edited appropriately.

Of all the dangers our children face

I knew someone would mention a child’s face.

Play nicely you two, or I shall take the ball away.

Only on STW could a discussion about plugs turn into virtual fisticuffs. 😆

I know what you are saying, but to sell sockets in this country that don’t fulfill the regs is illegal so ideally should not be in the system. Buying from reputable suppliers and brands pretty much guarantees that they do meet the regs, if you do have some that don’t or appear not to conform then of course replace them but ideally keep the ones you have and give them to trading standards as they are pretty keen on that sort of thing. Of course the regs only go so far and you cant make them 100% due to the nature of their operation but they are designed and regulated to make them as safe as is reasonably possible and compared to other systems i’ve seen are generally better. the regs are constantly evolving which is good and currently there is work being done on extension leads which are in my opinion potentially more hazardous.
Edit:Graham…. i know!

Two insurance experts ride in my MTB club. I’ve asked them both what are the most common causes of electrical house fires. They mentioned clothes tumble driers, kitchen appliances, built-in light fittings and their transformers and above all: cheap sockets, cheap plug-in multi adapters and cheap extension cables, especially the roll up ones which people use rolled up with high current loads.

Things have to have the CE label to be sold but it’s far too easy to get and the cheap ones get hot then start a fire due to poor contacts. His advice was to buy Legrand, ABB or whatever is reputable in the UK.

Yep, as I posted back in July, this was my mate’s dishwasher:

They are still repairing the house.

Anyone who thinks that a UK plug is inherently safe has never bloody well stood on one.

as above (MSP)

and where where all the elf and dafty people when my damn parents brought me up in a house with with both coal and electric fires – I did wonder why I had to carry the poker in from the other room.

That is the case for special locations (kitchen and bathroom)

The only notifiable work (in England) is new work in bathrooms, new circuits and new consumer units (and a few other minor things.) Kitchens are not ‘Special Locations’ and have never been, but work in them was notifiable when Part P building regs was introduced, it was modified 2 years ago, and kitchens came off the list.

If suitable RCD’s are sufficient protection for 230V why isn’t that considered safe enough for site use?

There is nothing in the wiring regs to stop 230V tools being used on a Site, so long as they are RCD protected.
It is the individual Site rules that call for 55V/110v tools, which are far safer, as if you did touch a live wire, you would get a tingle – touch a 230V live conductor and you’d jump back – not a good idea if you are at height, or in hazardhous areas.

Two insurance experts ride in my MTB club. I’ve asked them both what are the most common causes of electrical house fires………….and above all: cheap sockets, cheap plug-in multi adapters and cheap extension cables,

I just happened across this amusing little number and was reminded of this thread

If suitable RCD’s are sufficient protection for 230V why isn’t that considered safe enough for site use?

There is nothing in the wiring regs to stop 230V tools being used on a Site, so long as they are RCD protected.
It is the individual Site rules that call for 55V/110v tools, which are far safer, as if you did touch a live wire, you would get a tingle – touch a 230V live conductor and you’d jump back – not a good idea if you are at height, or in hazardhous areas.

Its a site managers preference rather than any ‘rule’. The reason 110v transformers are preferred to RCDs is because sites are roughty, toughly, wet, muddy, bashy crashy environments and RCDs are fragile with delicate internal mechanisms and 110v transformers are tough lumps of copper and steel with no moving parts. If you knacker an RCD a user is tempted to just unplug it and carry on working. If you knacker a 110 transformer you have no choice but to stop work and go and find another one.

Doesn’t stop people trailing an unprotected 240v lead across a site to a transformer where they’re working though 🙂

That adapter is outstanding!

Where do I get them? I need a few for, er, stocking fillers…