I read in !emc-pstc that Tania Grant <taniagr...@msn.com> wrote (in <oe105nrrmqyirkou1wl00009...@hotmail.com>) about 'Sometimes product safety just isn't enough', on Sat, 15 Dec 2001: > I see where you have drawn the line! > > I can just see now the IEC rewriting the definition of users of > 60950 equipment as 1) trained servicepersons, 2) fools, and 3) all > others. The definition of fools would be mindless persons who > ignore all instructions and logic. Safety would be achieved, in > addition to the usual compliance, by having users signing a paper > when placing an order or purchasing equipment that they will read > all instructions and agree to abide by the conditions of use placed > on the equipment. This document gets back to the manufacturer who > files away this bureaucracy, to be retrieved when a fool tries to > sue for hot coffee in their lap, or a tingle when drilling under > rafters when standing on an aluminum ladder in the swimming pool. > This would take care of the crazies who try to sue for any possible > misuse of their brains.
I think that if I were marketing a product in USA, I would seriously consider doing just that! And I bet my product-liability insurance company would be very pleased if I did it! > > Seriously, I am all for protecting the innocent and uneducated > user. But the user should also be accountable for responsible use > of equipment. The problem is, how does one define that??? I'm not sure that 'responsible' is quite the right word in this context. There is also the question of 'foreseeable misuse'; there is now a requirement in some legislation for manufacturers to take this into account, but I don't know of a definition of it! I doubt if it's practicable to do better than to say, as a pair of formal definitions (which I believe we NEED!): Correct use: Use in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, including the obeying of all 'warning' and 'caution' notices. Foreseeable misuse: Use of, or activity involving, the product which does not violate the manufacturer's instructions, or involve the ignoring of a 'warning' or 'caution' notice, but which is not intended by the manufacturer and may result in damage or injury or both. For example, the replacing of a user-accessible fuse by an incorrect type is, I think, foreseeable misuse, simply because fuse specifications are now so complex for the layman: 'F 1.6 A E 250 V'. Since it's at least exceedingly difficult to ensure continued safety with a 'T 6.3 A L 32 V' fuse in this position (!), I think user-accessible fuses (i.e. no tool required) have to go! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
