5 a Side Player Electrocuted

[securespark]

Leisure firm charged after footballer electrocuted in Portsmouth - BBC News https://share.google/DfH0pMUJ5iQSN1lEZ

 

[ericmark]

What a useless report. Earlier report

Health and Safety Executive inspector Michelle Canning said the mast had become live because of damage caused by it swaying in the wind.

The jury concluded that a fault to the floodlight had first been identified in November 2015, and another player had then reported suffering a shock in December 2015.

These are helpful in stopping it happening again. The picture

seems to show assess both sides of the fence, so why did he climb it?

A report which alerts one to possible problems is good. But to miss out why the problem existed is rather poor journalism, the reference to him climbing the fence makes one think he was doing something wrong which caused the accident, which reading previous reports it seems this was not the case.

 

[SUNRAY]

Almost looks like a couple of cables cut off but the other one not very securely fixed?

 

[JohnW2]

What a useless report. Earlier report ...

I'm a bit confused. Does your 'earlier report' relate to the same case? The report linked by secure relates to a case not due to come to a Magistrate's Court (let alone one with a jury) until 4th December.

 

[ericmark]

I'm a bit confused. Does your 'earlier report' relate to the same case? The report linked by secure relates to a case not due to come to a Magistrate's Court (let alone one with a jury) until 4th December.

It was linked to the report @securespark linked to. And had some of the same pictures. So would assume same case.

 

[JohnW2]

It was linked to the report @securespark linked to. And had some of the same pictures. So would assume same case.

Ah, right - all is now clear (and the situation rather different from what I had thought).

The event occurred in January 2016, more than nine years ago. The 'earlier report' you cited was that of a Coroner's Inquest in 2019 (which did have a jury). It has taken a further 6 years for the recent prosecution to be started, with the first (Magistrates) court hearing being next month.

The chronology is 'not quite as bad' as I previously thought. The fault/defect was first identified in November 2015, so no more than a couple of months before the fatal event (not 'years before', which is what I had previously assumed).

Given what happened, should such things perhaps be RCD-protected, I wonder?

 

[securespark]

You'd think so.

 

[JohnW2]

You'd think so.

Indeed - but I rather suspect/fear that such things probably are not RCD protected. Does anyone know?

 

[bernardgreen]

Given what happened, should such things perhaps be RCD-protected, I wonder?

In this area many street lights are fed from the network cables without RCD protection.

 

[JohnW2]

In this area many street lights are fed from the network cables without RCD protection.

As I just wrote, I suspect/fear that that may be the case everywhere.

Mind you, maybe they are allegedly 'Class II' ?

 

[SUNRAY]

Indeed - but I rather suspect/fear that such things probably are not RCD protected. Does anyone know?

The last I knew street furniture was specified as not RCD protected (but my last involvement was easily 10 years back), on that basis I'd make a guess your suspicians are correct.
Certainly the control panels I work on have very little RCD protection, habitually they have a RCD protected socket for the PC to do the programming but that tends to be all.
However the vast majority of control panels built into this style of enclosures

are in very 'controlled' environments with negligable portable kit and low risk of coming into contact with life parts.

 

[JohnW2]

However the vast majority of control panels built into this style of enclosures ....... are in very 'controlled' environments with negligable portable kit and low risk of coming into contact with life parts.

What about the enclosures themselves - are they not metal? We are, after all, not talking about 'contact with (intentionally) live parts' but, rather about contact with touchable metal parts which may ('accidentally') become live as a result of a fault.

 

[ebee]

What about the enclosures themselves - are they not metal? We are, after all, not talking about 'contact with (intentionally) live parts' but, rather about contact with touchable metal parts which may ('accidentally') become live as a result of a fault.

Previously called "Indirect Contact", whoh I am showing my age now!

Anyways, a sad thing happend, could it have been avoided?

 

[JohnW2]

Previously called "Indirect Contact", whoh I am showing my age now!

Well, an inevitable risk when (in the absence of double/reinforced insulation) there is an unearthed exposed-c-p.

Anyways, a sad thing happend, could it have been avoided?

It would seem that it probably could have been avoided (hence the current prosecution), if it is true that the fault was identified a couple of months before the sad thing happened.

 

[SUNRAY]

What about the enclosures themselves - are they not metal? We are, after all, not talking about 'contact with (intentionally) live parts' but, rather about contact with touchable metal parts which may ('accidentally') become live as a result of a fault.

Yes of course problems and faults can and do occur. However, due to the potential complexity of control systems and the power levels involved, there is potential for hazardous situations, therefore the installations are usually completed and maintained to a higher standard than other electrical work, to keep hazards low and maintain efficient opperation.