Why is electricity more dangerous today than in 1992?

[JohnW2]

My pal was telling me that a viaduct was closed when a teenager fell of whilst hanging off the side taking a selfy of himself, he plunged to his death when the railing he was holding broke. Now a lot more teenagers are aware of the dangers of hanging over the side of large structures, that's how people become aware of danger.

Hmmm. Have you never been young? Unfortunately, youngsterrs believe that they are invincible, and certainly that "it won't happen to them", so such events tend to have much less 'deterrent' effect on them than one might hope.

Worse, certainly if my distant memories of my youth are anything to go by, a good few adolescents (probably including myself at times) do things deliberately because they are aware that they are dangerous - I suppose to 'prove themselves' (to themselves or others).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps today people just take it for granted and do not respect it and the potential hazards that carelessness can create

I'm not totally clear as to what "it" you are talking about.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Today we do tend to assess the risks and strike a balance with most things, until the government gets involved. I wear a cycle helmet without anyone having to make a law to say I must, as do most cyclist, we do tend to look after ourselves.

Suicide was illegal at one time. At the point where suicide stopped being against the law, it seems the law is being replaced with other measures.

If some thing we may do will put others at risk, then yes we should be stopped, be it use of gas cookers in flats after the Ronan Point or fitting RCD protection in the work place.

However we are being told about home less people, not that I have seen any in my little Welsh village, but any action that reduces the number or quality of homes available when there is a shortage must be bad. When one hears stories of people living in a garden shed with no electric, then removing a home from the rental market because of the lack of an RCD seems totally daft.

To stop an accident is good, but sticking your finger in a bulb holder with no bulb in it is not really an accident. Neither is drilling a wall with the power still on in this age of cordless drills.

 

[bernardgreen]

I'm not totally clear as to what "it" you are talking about.

Electricity in the home........

 

[aptsys]

what do you think of this?


View attachment 200895

https://lginform.local.gov.uk/repor...Regions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup

Bloody nanny state, eh?

Is this legitimate? RTCs haven't been called RTAs for a long long time.

 

[JohnD]

Except by members of the general public who are not kept abreast of changes in professional terms?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Secondly, I wonder why the rate of road serious injuries/deaths have been increasing since 2015, in both children and adults?

More vehicles on the road, much more aggressive driving and less careful drivers, with almost no policing. Drivers once had pride in their driving skill, no one has now it's just cut and thrust. Everyone walking is on their phones, with minimal attention on where they are walking.

 

[bernardgreen]

RTCs haven't been called RTAs for a long long time.

Referring to a crash incident as a Road Traffic Accident inferred there was no intent to cause the incident.

The term Road Traffic Collision allowed for driving with intent to be part of the action against the driver. This could have been a result of Crash For Cash incidents. If they were recorded as RTA ""accidents"" then intent could not be involved.

 

[JohnD]

Secondly, I wonder why the rate of road serious injuries/deaths have been increasing since 2015, in both children and adults?

although:

"The Department for Transport (DfT) has announced there were 1,784 reported road deaths in 2018, compared to 1,793 reported in 2017 – a 1% fall.


There were 25,511 people seriously injured in reported road traffic accidents in 2018, compared to 24,831 in 2017 – a 3% year-on-year increase."

Deaths are pretty certain to be reported. Injuries, possibly not. Maybe we have got better at reporting injuries? Maybe deaths have dropped because ambulance and hospital treatment have improved. Maybe there are more people on two wheels, where the death and injury rate is staggeringly 63 times higher than for people in cars.

The percentage difference in the total is small enough to be unclear.

 

[Tigercubrider]

I have often thought that "young and impetuous" was a necessary trait in human evolution.
A tribe needs young fit males to disregard danger and rush headlong to fight the foe/danger. Not all of them will die, the slightly more cautious will weigh up the risk and survive . They go on to become the wise men of the tribe and pass on knowledge.

It's a bit like being chased as a couple by a lion. You'll never outrun the lion but might outrun your friend

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps today people just take it for granted and do not respect it and the potential hazards that carelessness can create

I'm not totally clear as to what "it" you are talking about.

Electricity in the home........

Thanks for clarifying, although I'm still not totally clear what point you are making.

Are you suggesting that the progressive increase in regulation in relation to electrical installations has arisen because people have come to have less respect for electricity and the potential hazards that careless can create?

If so, I would suggest that the changes of time have been extremely 'mixed', as is well illustrated by my maternal grandparents. My grandmother was so terrified of electricity that, until her dying day (in 1989), she would not even touch so much as a light switch or TV on/off switch. In contrast, my grandfather (who had little/no idea of what he was doing) did all sorts of horrific things with electricity - I remember, for example, Christmas tree lights involving 'connections' consisting of totally exposed 'twisted together' live conductors lying on the floor. He certainly suffered a good few shocks of which I am aware (probably more), but that did not seem to influence his respect or carefulness!

However, as has been said in various ways, there is somewhat of a vicious circle. The fact that, in general, electrical installations and equipment/appliances have become very much 'safer' probably means that there is a lot more complacency resulting from what may be described as a 'sense of false confidence'. In a totally different, but topical context, I think we are seeing this is some people with Covid-19 - some people seem to think that wearing a mask means that most other steps to reduce transmission of infection can go out of the window!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

More vehicles on the road, much more aggressive driving and less careful drivers, with almost no policing. Drivers once had pride in their driving skill, no one has now it's just cut and thrust. Everyone walking is on their phones, with minimal attention on where they are walking.

Perhaps, but why has that suddenly happened since 2015, prior to which figures had been falling for very many years?

I am far more inclined to JohnD's suggestion that the apparent rise starting in 2015 is artefactual, due to changes in reporting practices which have resulted in more injuries being recorded as 'Serious' ones, particularly given that deaths continued to decline.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Is this legitimate? RTCs haven't been called RTAs for a long long time.

They are by me, and I think it probably is 'legitimate' in the context concerned.

To achieve (national and internal) consistency, comparability and 'analysability', most official statistics classify diseases (and causes of injury/death) using the WHO's International Classification of Diseases, the current version of which is "ICD-10", which I use all the time. In context, virtually all the the relevant classifications are all within the section "Transport Accidents (V01-V99)", and each of those 99 classifications (and all the hrirsrchy of subdivisions thereof) include the word "accident". That word is used in its everyday sense, to indicate a lack of 'intent'. For the very few cases in which 'intent' is known or may be involved, there are other classifications (with subdivisions), which do not involve the word 'Accident', such as:

Y03 Assault by crashing of motor vehicle
Y32 Crashing of motor vehicle, undetermined intent​

As a result, I often find myself writing about 'RTAs', rather than 'RTCs'. In fact, strictly speaking, whilst the vast majority of incidents on the roads which result injury or death do involve 'collisions', a few do not, at least in terms of the normal understanding of the word 'collision' - for example, if a motorcyclist comes of his/her bike (without the bike striking any other vehicle or person), there is not necessarily any 'collision', other than the person's body contacting the ground.

Bernard may be right in suggesting that the change from RTA to RTC was an attempt to remove any implication that no 'intent' was involved, which might have legal implications. However, I'm not sure that would really have been necessary, since there are surely only a tiny number of cases in which there was 'intent' to cause a traumatic incident - and, in any event, lack of 'intent' does not preclude negligent behaviour. One can, for example, be guilty of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving even if there is not the slightest suggestion that there was any 'intent' to cause harm.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

although: "The Department for Transport (DfT) has announced there were 1,784 reported road deaths in 2018, compared to 1,793 reported in 2017 – a 1% fall. ... There were 25,511 people seriously injured in reported road traffic accidents in 2018, compared to 24,831 in 2017 – a 3% year-on-year increase."
Deaths are pretty certain to be reported. Injuries, possibly not. Maybe we have got better at reporting injuries? Maybe deaths have dropped because ambulance and hospital treatment have improved. Maybe there are more people on two wheels, where the death and injury rate is staggeringly 63 times higher than for people in cars.

Quite so. I wanted to first see if you (or anyone else) had any alternative suggestions to make, but it seems to me to be very probable that the apparent rise in "Serious injuries and deaths" since 2015 is merely an artefact due to the very iffy way in which injuries are classified as 'Serious' (or not). As the material quoted said

.... Seriously injured casualties are those who sustained an injury for which they are detained in hospital as an in-patient, or any of the following injuries, whether or not they are admitted to hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. A casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.

Even if it were not for the bit I have emboldened, those are very vague criteria. In particular, in my experience, a very high proportional of essentially 'fit and well' people who have suffered even minor head trauma, and many who have suffered chest ior abdominal trauma, will be hospitalised at least overnight 'for observation' before being sent home. By the above criteria, that hospitalisation will presumably cause them to be classified as 'Serious injuries', even though the vast majority clearly are not, in any meaningful sense. I therefore suspect that the 'Serious injury' figures probably considerably over-estimate the number of cases which (either medically or in terms of common sense) really are in any way 'serious'.

It remains uncertain as to why such factors should have resulted in (small) rises in injuries recorded as Serious just over the last three years of the data provided, but it would not take much variation in practices, on the part of the emergency services, police or hospitals to result in those small apparent increases. The figures for deaths are clearly much 'harder' data, and therefore are probably the best indicator of changes.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Secondly, I wonder why the rate of road serious injuries/deaths have been increasing since 2015, in both children and adults?

One factor which I believe will contribute to this is the change in emphasis from "standards" to "compliance". This goes back further than 5 years, but I recall discussing it with a friend who's a driving instructor. He said they'd all had to change their style from "drive safely with compliance definitely second" to "compliance with the law<period>".
I know it's more complicated, but a lot of people fail to see past the "stick to the speed limit and everything's fine" part of the message. Add in the shift to mechanised enforcement (i.e. speed and red light cameras) which can't detect bad driving or offer advice at the point of infraction and you have a recipe for worsening driving standards and worsening accident stats. This takes time to happen.

But back to the original question ...
I agree, the actual hazard from electricity and the presence or absence of any feature hasn't changed significantly. However, our attitude to risk has changed, and the risk arising from hazards has changed (complacency).