child proof recepts being required!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
macmikeman said:
If they really want to make things safe for little kids, they should outlaw the mom's from having that cellphone nailed to her ear the whole time she is behind the wheel of her car.:mad:

I just have to quote myself based on yesterday's experiences while behind the wheel of my vehicle on the drive home. Mom driver in front of me with kids in car parked at a green light while busy gabbing into her phone, oblivious to my horn for 45 seconds during which the light changed cycle to the amber and red.
 
I wonder why is such an uprise against the chidlproof receptacle requirements. Where were you guys when the arc-fault revision crept into the 70E?
The statistics are the same if not even less than the incident with chidlren yet the future impact on construction and equipment cost will FAR outweight this proposal. It will cost jobs and eventually will lead the IEC rule over the US electrical Industry.
Wake up, people.
 
macmikeman said:
I just have to quote myself based on yesterday's experiences while behind the wheel of my vehicle on the drive home. Mom driver in front of me with kids in car parked at a green light while busy gabbing into her phone, oblivious to my horn for 45 seconds during which the light changed cycle to the amber and red.
Right on dude!! There are so many things that pose a greater threat to children than recepticles.
 
iaov said:
Right on brother! We have forgotten that people who are willing to trade freedom for security end up with niether.

From the book:
An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) published by Benjamin Franklin quotes a letter from 11/11/1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania (author unknown but thought to be Franklin).

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I'm not taking either side in the debate because I don't see a clear cut conclusion but I just wanted to comment on the above phrase. . It's a good point to be made when talking about issues that only affect adults. . When talking about children, they need to trade liberty/freedom for safety until they're 18. . It's too easy for them to make stupid and/or uninformed decisions.

A childproof plug requirement may be a good idea or it may be an overstep but either way I don't think the liberty vs freedom statement is a good guide to decide.

David
 
weressl said:
I wonder why is such an uprise against the chidlproof receptacle requirements. Where were you guys when the arc-fault revision crept into the 70E?
The statistics are the same if not even less than the incident with chidlren yet the future impact on construction and equipment cost will FAR outweight this proposal. It will cost jobs and eventually will lead the IEC rule over the US electrical Industry.
Wake up, people.

I don't know if it is the requirement or the fact that another forced change that no one has any data on to prove its worthiness.. I have and again requested the data used to determine their findings.. I think it is just felt like another unnecessary rule and I for one hate micromanagement and that is what it feels like here..We as adults should be able to pick what we feel is best for our children..Should I push for no one allowed to drive under 21 because my son was killed in a car accident..That childproof outlet rule is ridiculous and so is this invasion of our adult skills as a parent..Even the smartest artificial intelligence does not beat natural stupidity and we cannot idiot proof this world and nor should we try..

I also feel that the NEC is being used for a wiring guide not minimum standards as it is designed.
 
cschmid said:
..We as adults should be able to pick what we feel is best for our children...

If only it were that simple. There are far too many adults who are just plain incapable of doing this and it is the kids that suffer. Their ignorance and selfisheness are actually quite sad. Simple things like smoking around your kids or in the car with them are so easy to avoid and yet these adults just can't bring themselves to put their kids first. As a parent it is just something I can not understand.

This is why we need some babysiting by the "Man".
 
electricmanscott said:
If only it were that simple. There are far too many adults who are just plain incapable of doing this and it is the kids that suffer. Their ignorance and selfisheness are actually quite sad. Simple things like smoking around your kids or in the car with them are so easy to avoid and yet these adults just can't bring themselves to put their kids first. As a parent it is just something I can not understand.

This is why we need some babysiting by the "Man".


Then the real problem is not non child proof receptacles...
 
stickboy1375 said:
Then the real problem is not non child proof receptacles...

Your right.. the real problem is the electricity in those child proof receptacles. We need another code change to prevent any of the stuff from even getting into those " tamper resistant" receptacles in the first place so that the kids can't possibly figure out a way to defeat them.
 
electricmanscott said:
Simple things like smoking around your kids or in the car with them are so easy to avoid and yet these adults just can't bring themselves to put their kids first.

Nonsense. Both my parents smoked like chimneys inside the car and house, with the windows closed, and I'm perfectly fine.

Then again, I smoke a pack a day... :D :D :D

BTW: Congratulations to Ryan for continuing quitting, he's got to be close to six months now. :cool:
 
Yea my parents weren't perfect but you don't here any crying a-- b----ing from me.. I managed to survive this long and aid in raising my grandkids and we don't need any of that stuff. we have other things to do rather then sit around sticking stuff in outlets, outside of play-station plugs..I really am offended how big brother has to monitor every thing we do..just like the Internet a permanent record of everything we put on it..and the most efficient logistic collector ever built..
 
childproof recepts being required

childproof recepts being required

Since stairs cause so many injuries and deaths we should probably outlaw them too.
 
Anyone Over 40 Sould Be Dead

Anyone Over 40 Sould Be Dead

PEOPLE OVER FORTY SHOULD BE DEAD

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's probably shouldn't have survived.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, ... and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.) As children, we would ride in cars with no crumple zones, seatbelts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat. We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors! We ate cupcakes, bread with real butter, and drank sugar-ladened soda pop, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot about brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem. We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all day.

NO CELL PHONES!!!!! Unthinkable!

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at all, no 299 channels on cable and satellite, video tape movies, DVD players, surround sound, personal cell phones, personal computers, text messaging or Internet chat rooms! . We had friends! We went outside and found them. We played dodge ball, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt. We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents. No one was to blame but us. Remember accidents?

We had fights and punched each other and got black and blue and learned to get over it. We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live inside us forever. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and were held back to repeat the same grade. Horrors! Tests were not adjusted for any reason.

Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected. The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law. Imagine that!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors, ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

How fortunate we were to grow up as kids before lawyers and burgeoning government regulated our lives, for our own good. How sorry I am for what those years of meddling have done to our children and grandchildren and even sorrier that we all allowed the government and politicians to get away with it!

........................
goodparenting-748274.jpg
 
Last edited:
I believe that it is entirely reasonable for code to evolve and extend protections further as new hazards become evident _or_ as new protections become cheaper. The code is about _practical_ safeguarding, and that includes safeguarding from stupidity.

But stupidity is a powerful force, and safety costs money. The real question is not 'should we provide additional protection', but rather 'is the additional protection worth the cost?'

If we are talking about comparable costs, I for one would rather that my dollars go to the device manufacturers as profit than go to the medical establishment to provide treatment for electric shock! So for me the question is: 'Are we talking comparable costs?'

I refer back to post 32, http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=640730&postcount=32 which includes the substantiation for this proposal. They report 2400 hospital visits per year, 200 hospitalizations per year, and 4 deaths over a 10 year period.

Totally ignoring 'pain and suffering', those hospital visits cost money directly, cost in terms of lost wages (when a parent has to deal with the issue), cost money in terms of long term care if the child is severely injured.

Balanced against this, the tamper proof receptacles cost money, both directly, and in terms of being more complex and thus more prone to failure. The substantiation suggests an average cost increase of $37.50 per home, and of course this would only provide protection in the new homes where this is a requirement.

Now for some 'back of the envelope' analysis. I am sure that there are holes in the below, but it gives my rough thinking:

The inventory of homes in the US is about 110,000,000. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html So in an average year, one child out of 46000 homes has to go to the hospital with an injury from sticking something into the outlet. If we take the $37.50 number as truth (I don't), and if we assume that the injury rate in a new home is the same as in the current housing inventory (a poor assumption) then very roughly it will cost about 1.7 million dollars per prevented _annual_ hospital visit. Even if we add in the fact that that $37.50 provides protection for a number of years, the cost is still high. Let us say that the benefit lasts 20 years, and ignore the math of interest, inflation, and 'present discounted value'. We are still paying $85,000 per prevented hospital visit, $1,000,000 per prevented hospitalization, and $500 million per prevented death.

It is my opinion that the costs of this code change far outweigh the benefits.

-Jon
 
Jon numbers can be interesting and IMO sometimes misleading.

It seems to me that if you applied the same method to buying insurance you would conclude insurance is not worth it either.

What I mean is this.

If you added up all the premiums people pay for say car insurance and then compared that to the amount to that those insurance companies pay out you would have to say it's money wasted when looked at as whole.

It's not till you get to the personal level does insurance start to sound beneficial. We are willing to pay out more individually to help prevent something bad happening to us.

That aside, I think this was going to far by the NFPA.
 
Bob,

I totally agree, and should have made that clear.

Numbers can be very misleading, and my 'back of the envelope' is only the first brush at an approximation of the cost/benefit.

IMHO like insurance, prevention is worth a significant cost premium. I'm not sure if the number is 2x or 10x, but I am willing to pay more (on average) to prevent injury than the expected cost of those injuries. Similarly, I am willing to pay more for insurance than my expected payout, because when things go wrong, they can go _really_ wrong.

But there has to be a limit. Spending $500 million to prevent a death is IMHO too much. Not because a child is worth less than $500 million (how do you set the price of a child to his parents?), but because that $500 million is probably better spent elsewhere saving other lives.

I've noticed a couple of holes in my numbers: I divided up the _total_ costs for each group (hospital visit, hospitalized, dead) rather than assigning each group a proportion of the total costs. Also, we don't have numbers for 'kids who get shocked but never go to the hospital', which has to count for something.

I think that it is necessary to do such a benefit analysis, but the best I can do is to throw up my hands and say 'Math is hard.' :)

-Jon
 
I've recently heard that the new tamper-resistant resi grade receps could cost as little as a dollar apiece. Factor that in, over the 33? receps you might be buying now.

Hearing that, my stance softens quite a bit. That can do a lot of good for little more money.
 
winnie thank you for the link and I am amazed at the numbers. I remember sticking a bobby pin in the outlet myself..it never trip a breaker and burned my fingers and melted the bobby pin in half..at a buck it softens my stance as well..yet with this thread I have learned more about the reason behind the requirment..It is a sad thing though that there are thousands of electricians who will never know and complain about the regs and they affect how others see our profession..on this site we have so many opportunities to learn and grow that others who do not visit here will not have..I think the NFPA should for a period of time include a supplement to the 2008 code explaining the reasons for some of the more controversial changes and I think they should do it for free..the NEC is costly as it is..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top