My guess is the line is always moving...the pit stops get determined by the nature of the product, the environment of intended use, laws, ethics, lawyers, knowledge, safety professionals, cost and schedule. A likely vehicle towards the education of the end user would be the user documentation. How well written such items are is one thing, whether they are read and understood is another. Whether they can account for all forms of misuse seems unrealistic but a clear and concise explanation of the inherent hazards (beyond the wording in the usual standards) might be within reach. My 2 cents and not that of my employer. Kaz Gawrzyjal Dell Computer Corp. -----Original Message----- From: Tania Grant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:57 PM To: Stephen Phillips Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough
Stephen (or is it Moe?) You miss the point. None of the catastrophes you present below are presented in the news in a humorous (except, perhaps, in the case of politicians) or positive manner. Children especially, and some adults as well, will accept things literarily, especially when presented in a funny manner. If the presentation is gory enough or definitely not positive, chances are they will not try to emulate. And we have strayed here from the subject matter (although I don't mind!). Just how much does a product designer and a product safety professional owe to make the product safe under any circumstances? In my estimation, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we have to protect the user against obvious sabotage? (What is 'obvious'?) My point was that we, product safety professionals, also have an obligation to educate the user in product safety, not just submit product to bureaucratic agencies for proof of compliance. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Phillips Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:36 AM To: Tania Grant Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough I hope you didn't let him watch the news either... he could become a murderer, drunk driver, rapist, embezzler, adulterer, car thief, or politician... or one of those guys who goes surfing in a hurricane. Or - learn by what he saw, not by what he didn't see. With all due respect, Moe Howard Obviously, personal opinions - not those of my employer (as far as I know anyway). At 12:56 PM 12/14/2001, Tania Grant wrote: Gert, You may be technically correct, but I also believe that we should bring up citizens to be prudently knowledgeable about electrical hazards. These are not intuitively obvious. The manufacturer has a responsibility for designing a safe product. The user has a responsibility for using it prudently. The manufacturer also has a responsibility for warning against possible (conceivable) misuse. It is here that the gray area waffles. Would you countenance your daughter, clad in a bikini and barefoot, repeating the same actions as in the picture, while you complacently view this scene from the comforts of a beach chair, beer in hand? By the way; I found the picture very humorous. However, slapstick humor and hazards, especially electrical, do not mix. I would not want to defend this pictorial from any safety perspective. This is a prime candidate for "What's wrong with this picture?" to be analyzed by safety professionals only. PS: Ages ago the neighbors complained that my pre-kindergarten angel son was hitting other kids on their heads with his fist. Those who were brought up on the Three Stooges thought these antics were humorous;-- since I was not brought up like that, I thought they were just gross. I put a stop immediately to my son watching Three Stooges re-runs on the TV, a harmless show from many perspectives. He is now a very civilized adult and does not hit people over the head with his fists. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ----- Original Message ----- From: CE-TEST Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:57 PM To: Robert Johnson; [email protected] Subject: RE: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough { Please read this email with more then average sense of humour , and then : THINK !) So, What's Wrong With That, The guy on the picture (see link below) is protected by 2 layers of safety: 1/ Basic Insulation, rated for the mains voltage PLUS transient levels 2/ Grounding , for in case the basic insulation wears out or fails for whatever reason (drops in the pool ?) Many of us on this list are in some way responsible for the safety of their employers products, or even test houses (like me) ! Do we have that much confidence in our work ? Are we somewhere concerned the safety regulations are not strict enough ? Do we, when working with electricity , count for extra layers of safety, such as not standing bare foot on an aluminium ladder, in a swimming pool ? Are we concerned that the safety measures won't suffice for the lifetime of the equipment ? This man is doing what we expect our customers to do: have confidence that products sold comply with essential safety regulations. Regards, Gert Gremmen ce-test, qualified testing -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] <mailto:[email protected]%5DOn> On <mailto:[email protected]%5DOn> Behalf Of Robert Johnson Sent: woensdag 12 december 2001 19:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Sometimes product safety just isn't enough I couldn’t help passing on this reference to a bit of unforeseeable misuse.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> http://electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000048.html <http://electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000048.html> Bob Johnson
