Blog · 25 September 2026

Blind cord strangulation risk: what RoSPA and CPSC data actually says

Most blind cord safety advice states the risk without ever citing a number. The actual figures are published, by the two bodies that track this in the UK and US — the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Here is what they say, with dates, so you can judge the risk instead of taking it on faith.

UK: RoSPA's figures

RoSPA records at least 35 UK deaths since 2001 involving looped blind cords, and separately reports 9 deaths between April 2019 and March 2022 — roughly three a year in that window, in a population where RoSPA estimates 80% of homes have blinds but over 70% of people have never received any blind cord safety advice. RoSPA's data also shows a consistent pattern in who is affected: most incidents involve children aged roughly 18 months to 2 years, most commonly in the bedroom, and RoSPA notes that a child can lose consciousness within seconds and die within two to three minutes — there is generally no time to notice and intervene from another room.

US: CPSC's figures

The CPSC's numbers cover a longer run and a larger population. Its own count puts window-covering-cord strangulation deaths among children 8 and under at 456 since 1973. Looking at more recent, bounded periods: CPSC found 184 fatal and 101 non-fatal strangulations among children 8 and under between 1996 and 2012, and separately, 194 combined fatal and near-miss incidents among the same age group between January 2009 and December 2020. The agency's current running estimate is that roughly 9 children under 5 are still strangled to death on window cords every year in the US. A related figure, from the same 1996–2012 dataset: 1,590 children were treated for cord-entanglement injuries, including brain damage, in that period — for every death, there are far more children who survive with lasting harm.

What the numbers do and don't tell you

A few honest caveats, because a statistic misused is worse than no statistic:

What the figures argue for

None of this data is about any particular product — it's the case for the underlying principle: no looped, dangling cord or chain within a standing child's reach. A winder that takes the slack off the wall rather than leaving it hanging is one way to satisfy that; cutting the chain and fitting a breakaway connector is another, and each has real tradeoffs — covered in our comparison of the three fixes. What matters, per the data above, is doing one of them before a child in the house reaches standing height, not after.

Related guides

See the winder