You say "lid", but is it a side-load washer? Those have a valid reason to not open if the power is cut --- because they'll empty their contents all over the floor.
I have an old top-loader, it doesn't care at all (or know) whether the lid is closed.
I have an old top-loader, it doesn't care at all (or know) whether the lid is closed.
I do wonder what it does if I pull the plug with the door locked though. I should try it.
My condo has two front-load washers, and I once saw someone start one up, the door lock, and the seal break - so it was spraying water everywhere. These don't have any way to interrupt them, so we got a maintenance guy to unplug it - but the door still didn't unlock, even after plugging it back in. The maintenance guy ended up jerking it open hard (might have broken the lock, don't remember), so the other resident could get their clothes.
I only ever use our top-load washers, which don't have any lock on them.
One of many stories: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/child-rescued-afte...
The grotesqueness aside, I do loath the pendulum swing we have toward safety these days. It's so bad now that it makes things worse in a lot of cases. I have to dick with my phone for navigation (which requires a lot more looking away and danger) because my car won't let press a couple of buttons while it is moving in the name of "safety."
It's actually quite astonishing how, despite the growing chemical and mechanical complexity of household items, most household things are actually quite safe to have around children. It would be quite easy for these things to be actively dangerous, but fortunately a combination of thoughtful design, fear of lawsuits and regulation works to make them safe.
(Also if we're talking in context of white goods, you can't ignore children in the design process, as a good chunk of the target market has them, and the play around where such appliances are deployed.)
Example of mindless nanny-statism: washing machines that you are simply not permitted to open at certain times, period -- not even in case of power outages, component failures, or plumbing emergencies.
I hope you can see the difference. Don't defend shitty engineering. It makes the whole world a worse place to live.
How do you know that by driving by a wreck?
Certainly it will be a far more useful way to guide policy than "You don't know for a fact that all those accidents weren't caused by external events outside the drivers control." however technically true.
There aren't evil driving-fairies nudging people's elbows, and we have manufacturing and inspection regulations to keep the percentage of mechanically unfit vehicles low. That just leaves the drivers themselves holding the primary responsibility in the majority of cases.
These are all things you already knew, which makes the question disingenuous and of questionable ultimate purpose.
How exactly is that my fault?
You make no men to on of environmental factors causing wrecks.
You also make no mention of multi-car wrecks.
Clearly you live in some part of the world with perfect weather?
The original commenter can be reasonably assumed to know which accidents they witnessed could have been influenced by things like weather, and thus are not part of his assertion.
Likewise all the follow-on vehicles in multi-vehicle events are irrelevant. No mention was made because they obviously have no bearing on the observation and point being asserted. Meaning, sure, in addition to a large number of a certain class of accidents he's talking about, there are also a other classes of accidents he's not talking about, so what?
Clearly you live in some part of the world with imperfect schools? Oh was that rude and childish?
Of course not all companies have these locks but some companies put them in as features for worried parents as piece of mind.
Possible... But... Seems to me it's more likely you just run them over.