The Arc Fault Detection Device… again.

maybe once AFDDs are mandated, that trend will then be attributed to AFDDs... ;)


There is certainly form for organisations that claim to be impartial doing exactly that sort of thing. About 5 years after part P was introduced, a well known trade organisation and assessment body published figures that showed falling fires and rates of electrocution from the introduction date onwards to great fanfare about how good it was. (the fanfare oddly did not extend to mentioning how the organisation's membership figures, prestige and income had also benefited)

However, a closer look revealed that

a) they had used outlier years as the limits of their sample period to increase the effect, and

b) Both rates had been falling before the scheme was introduced, and therefore the fall was nothing to do with part P;  indeed if anything the correlation was slightly negative, that is to say the rate of fall was faster prior to its introduction, than it was afterwards.

I did write to them to point this out, and received no acknowledgement but the claims have not been repeated to my knowledge.


So, do not trust a large body to be impartial, even if they should be, and It is indeed very important to do the cost per life saved calculation.

You are to a degree taking money away from other safety measures that may be more worthwhile, as most households are not lucky enough to have "free issue"  cash. To fund a compulsory expense, money will be saved elsewhere, maybe by eating less ice cream in some cases, but in others perhaps on a safety decision, such as the example of delayed car maintenance above, or perhaps in terms of a more comparable long term buildings improvement, adding anti-scalding devices in hot water systems (which are not required to be fitted to existing systems).

regards

M.

maybe once AFDDs are mandated, that trend will then be attributed to AFDDs... ;)


There is certainly form for organisations that claim to be impartial doing exactly that sort of thing. About 5 years after part P was introduced, a well known trade organisation and assessment body published figures that showed falling fires and rates of electrocution from the introduction date onwards to great fanfare about how good it was. (the fanfare oddly did not extend to mentioning how the organisation's membership figures, prestige and income had also benefited)

However, a closer look revealed that

a) they had used outlier years as the limits of their sample period to increase the effect, and

b) Both rates had been falling before the scheme was introduced, and therefore the fall was nothing to do with part P;  indeed if anything the correlation was slightly negative, that is to say the rate of fall was faster prior to its introduction, than it was afterwards.

I did write to them to point this out, and received no acknowledgement but the claims have not been repeated to my knowledge.


So, do not trust a large body to be impartial, even if they should be, and It is indeed very important to do the cost per life saved calculation.

You are to a degree taking money away from other safety measures that may be more worthwhile, as most households are not lucky enough to have "free issue"  cash. To fund a compulsory expense, money will be saved elsewhere, maybe by eating less ice cream in some cases, but in others perhaps on a safety decision, such as the example of delayed car maintenance above, or perhaps in terms of a more comparable long term buildings improvement, adding anti-scalding devices in hot water systems (which are not required to be fitted to existing systems).

regards

M.