Harrisons Law

[hood1971]

What a silly law. Still, if it saves a child, I suppose it's worth it. It's hardly like we'd miss having looped cords on blinds is it?

Also, lol at the minutes silence at all sporting events.

Too many regulations/laws are based on "if it saves a child". Best way to save every child is wrap them in bubble wrap, ensure that each one is never alone with an adult (including parents) feed them unprocessed foods whizzed up in case they choke etc etc.

Children need to be reckless sometimes - it aids development. Sadly some will have accidents and hurt themselves and possibly die, but we cannot protect every kid all the time.

 

[Lakeland]

Clearly the cost to manufacturers is unimportant? To the extent that there is cost to the manufacturer do you not think that will be passed on to the consumer?

Yes, hence why consumer may pay an extra few pence on each purchase, covering the cost of manufacture (from an external source)

I read your posts. You said that a similar design is currently being used for a different purpose. This does not magically mean that blinds companies will not need to retool.

It does if you understand how the component works

An opinion shared with the rest of the sane world as well as everyone else in this thread. Are you really trying to hold the US up as bastions of sensible legislation?

The bottom line is, children have been killed, do you think I am not "sane" for suggesting a product modification to save a life?

No they don't. They make a product to meet minimum safety requirements at the lowest price they can. Unless they're selling it specifically on its safety merits most manufacturers will meet the necessary guidelines and no more. The safety requirements are set by parliament based on ACTUAL risk. There are nearly 12 million children in the UK - 2 have died because of this. 1 in 6 million is NOT a risk worth spending any time trying to reduce. It is the very meaning of the term negligible.

Where does minimum come from? They have to meet all specified safety requirements, full stop. FYI, from what I have read, there have been over 100 deaths worldwide. I think you would be of a different opinion if you had a kid who died from this, of course, that wouldn't happen though, because you would be watching over the child 24/7.

So you agree that extra machinery would be required and thus retooling would need to occur? It's taken an awfully long process for you to admit that yes there would be costs involved to manufacturers...

I don't agree in the slightest that extra machinery is required, these products already exist, so the machinery already exists.

Example-

Current blinds (Potential risk to kill) > Sold to customer for
£80.00

New Blinds (reduced risk to kill) > Company buys in components from external company + adds to their already existing blinds, the visual difference being almost un noticeable, though I admit, quite annoying for those of us who stare at our blinds of an evening.
£80.05

Other than being pedantic I see no reason to object to a change. There is not much more I can add, we are going round in circles

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think you would be of a different opinion if you had a kid who died from this

Of course he would, because greif clouds judgement and removes our ability to make objective observations. Especially greif when its mixed with guilt - the guilt your child died because you'd failed at parenting to such an extent that, aged 12, it still felt it was a good idea to wrap a blind cord around its neck.

 

[Lakeland]

Of course he would, because greif clouds judgement and removes our ability to make objective observations. Especially greif when its mixed with guilt - the guilt your child died because you'd failed at parenting to such an extent that, aged 12, it still felt it was a good idea to wrap a blind cord around its neck.

Why put anyone through that pain when there is a simple, cheap and un-offensive solution

 

[Werewolf]

Because, it won't do anything to stop anyone who might want to deliberately hurt themselves?

You might as well ban all wired networking, power cables, hoovers (they've normally got a long, fairly strong cord*), all belts etc, if you're thinking that this is a good idea to stop anyone from possibly using it to kill themselves.

I can almost understand the reasoning if it's to prevent the death of toddlers by accident, although even then it's not really going to do anything and it's going to make life quite a bit harder for a lot of people.
The proposed "fix" is absolutely useless for any blinds where they go any distance, as you'll spend all day turning a fiddly little rod to retract the blinds, hell even horizontal blinds that use the rod only tend to use it for changing the angle of the blinds because it's not really a viable option for say lifting the blinds, or moving them 2-3 meters (it takes about 3 turns just to change the angle of the blinds at my sisters flat from closed to open, let alone if you had to use one to lift them the relatively small 1m drop).

Seriously, have you actually tried opening any of the millions of blinds in the UK?
You'll need a heck of a lot of gearing to make it viable with a reasonable number of turns, which increased costs, complextity and how hard it is to physically do (higher gear ratio = more torque required), whilst reducing the reliability, usability and options for people.



*Certainly long and strong enough to say hang a small teen from a banister if they tried, so you'd better ban banisters as well just to be safe.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why put anyone through that pain when there is a simple, cheap and un-offensive solution

Because life isnt fluffy?

We cant live in a padded room all our lives.

 

[Tefal]

The bottom line is, children have been killed, do you think I am not "sane" for suggesting a product modification to save a life?

Because children ae killed by practically everything, it's infeasible to modify everything to be safe. That is what parents are for.

I don't agree in the slightest that extra machinery is required, these products already exist, so the machinery already exists.

So you can prove that the machines to produce these designed to fit these diameter strings, deal with the level of strain and would be provided free of charge to the blind manufactures?

otherwise yes it's going to cost them thousands in new machinery.

Example-

Current blinds (Potential risk to kill) > Sold to customer for
£80.00

New Blinds (reduced risk to kill) > Company buys in components from external company + adds to their already existing blinds, the visual difference being almost un noticeable, though I admit, quite annoying for those of us who stare at our blinds of an evening.
£80.05

Great so you can provide proof that the machines to make these parts and then fit them into the current process or the purchasing of these parts and adapting the process to take them would only cost 5p per set of blinds?

Or have you pulled a figure out of your arse?



Example-

Current blinds (Potential risk to kill) > Sold to customer for
£80.00

New Blinds (reduced risk to kill) > Company buys in components from external company + adds to their already existing blinds, the visual difference being almost un noticeable, though I admit, quite annoying for those of us who stare at our blinds of an evening.
£80,000,000,000,000,000.

\o/


Also what about blinds that require more than one pass of the loop to open fully?

I know mine takes at least 1.5 to fully slide open, how is that big plastic part going to fit through a tiny pulley wheel?

 

[Lakeland]

Because life isnt fluffy?

We cant live in a padded room all our lives.

Fair comment for adults,I personally look at it from a different point of view when toddlers are involved though. I'm all for kids having danger in their lives, I've taught a few kids how to ride a bike who were scared crapless (mainly because their parents brought them up in a padded room). Put them on a slight down hill and let them go, obvious face plant followed. 6 years of parents trying = fail, 1 hour + some pain and they were off.. So yes I agree, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, pardon the pun

 

[reflux]

It's human nature to abdicate responsibility for something. That's what they're doing here. Any death is a tragedy, but we cannot continue to ban everything or there will be nothing left to ban.

 

[Vinnylupo]

If the parents are so bothered about the cord killing their child, why don't they just tie it up?

 

[kylew]

BAN SOAP! You know what happens in prison showers when it's dropped.

It's sad that a kid died but it's like banning peanuts just in case a child is unknowingly allergic to them.

 

[karina]

 

[Fuzz]

Teach your kids not to climb up on boxes and chairs and leave the bloody blinds alone then.
Christ.

 

[GreatAuk]

It's sad that a kid died but it's like banning peanuts just in case a child is unknowingly allergic to them.

Hey, that's a good idea!....................


I still don't understand how on earth anyone could strangle themselves in the looped string on blinds! Must have taken quite some effort - also, surely the blind carrier thing would fall down with bodyweight? I doubt my blinds would still be on the wall if a child started pulling at them... ah well, can understand how upset parents are, but serious overreaction!

 

[Aod]

Lol, where to start. You do realise that one of the children was just 16 months old don't you?

i can't believe that no-one's called you on this but:

Why was this apparently stupid child left unattended?

 

[Amnesia]

reminds me of that ban on certain porn because some frigid bitch's daughter got strangled.
















* runs out of thread *

 

[Orcish-Horde]

I watch my youngest get tangled in the blinds just the other day, toddlers really have little sense and yes them loops are a danger. In fact I lift them up out of their reach, is this law needed? No. We already have a law to cover this, it comes under child neglect.

 

[Technics]

I watch my youngest get tangled in the blinds just the other day, toddlers really have little sense and yes them loops are a danger. In fact I lift them up out of their reach, is this law needed? No. We already have a law to cover this, it comes under child neglect.

+1 , sympathy goes out to the families , but this is one of the many day to day things that could kill a small child and as there parent it is there duty to watch over them and prevent such a thing happening.