Tragic And Bizarre Electrocution

[securespark]

Inquest finds runner was electrocuted in 'rare and complex sequence of events' | ITV News Border https://share.google/ueTm623ecWZjTrb9G

A similar thing has happened before.

Dr James Kew: Firm fined £1m after runner electrocuted

A power firm is fined £1m after a man died when he was electrocuted by a fallen power cable while out running in the countryside.

www.bbc.com

They admit to relying on the public to let them know if there's a problem with their network.

 

[JohnW2]

Inquest finds runner was electrocuted in 'rare and complex sequence of events' | ITV News Border https://share.google/ueTm623ecWZjTrb9G

As you say, tragic and bizarre.

A similar thing has happened before.

Dr James Kew: Firm fined £1m after runner electrocuted

A power firm is fined £1m after a man died when he was electrocuted by a fallen power cable while out running in the countryside.

www.bbc.com

Ditto - but one has to wonder why that case took 13 years to get to court!

They admit to relying on the public to let them know if there's a problem with their network.

It's hard to think of what else they could do to enable them to become aware of 'dangling cables' (that hadn't yet touched anything) in rural settings.

 

[Koolpc]

Ruddy shocking to be honest!

 

[securespark]

As you say, tragic and bizarre.

Ditto - but one has to wonder why that case took 13 years to get to court!

It's hard to think of what else they could do to enable them to become aware of 'dangling cables' (that hadn't yet touched anything) in rural settings.

Spend less on shareholders and more on preventative maintenance?

Send out crews to examine equipment more frequently?

 

[JohnW2]

Spend less on shareholders and more on preventative maintenance?

That would obviously help, although one has to remember that, in the absence of attracted shareholders, there would probably be little or no preventative maintenance and quite possibly no service

Send out crews to examine equipment more frequently?

Again, that would help. However, it only takes 'moments' for an incident such as we are discussing to kill, and they obviously cannot send out crews 'every moment' to every inch of their network - so, as I implied, I think there is always inevitably going to be considerable reliance on reports from the general public in relation to that sort of problem.

 

[securespark]

And it only takes moments to replace parts. More regular routine replacement of parts known to wear out should help to prevent such incidents happening in the first place.

 

[JohnW2]

And it only takes moments to replace parts. More regular routine replacement of parts known to wear out should help to prevent such incidents happening in the first place.

True as a concept, but are the insulators of overhead lines "known to wear out"?

 

[morqthana]

Ditto - but one has to wonder why that case took 13 years to get to court!

It didn't.

18 months to the inquest, because presumably a prosecution can't be considered until the manner of death is official, and then 2 years until the court case.

You're getting the two incidents mixed up.

It's hard to think of what else they could do to enable them to become aware of 'dangling cables' (that hadn't yet touched anything) in rural settings.

In the earlier incident they were aware.

 

[morqthana]

in the absence of attracted shareholders, there would probably be little or no preventative maintenance and quite possibly no service

Not so.

There is a way to not have shareholders.

 

[JohnW2]

It didn't. .... You're getting the two incidents mixed up.

You're right and I am. I blame 'serious old age';

In the earlier incident they were aware.

Yes, it as been reported to them earlier on the day of the incident - but I imagine that that report very probably came from a member of the public.

 

[JohnW2]

Not so. There is a way to not have shareholders.

There is, and we've been through that before. However, I have no time for more of that now - maybe 'after the festive season'

 

[morqthana]

Yes, it as been reported to them earlier on the day of the incident - but I imagine that that report very probably came from a member of the public.

It did, and rather than turn it off as a precaution they sent an engineer to take a look.

Who arrived 20 minutes after the runner was killed.

 

[JohnW2]

It did, and rather than turn it off as a precaution they sent an engineer to take a look. Who arrived 20 minutes after the runner was killed.

All true - and they said that they had now changed that policy.

However, one has to wonder how many 'reports' from the general public they receive that would/will result in their turning off the supply until it has been expected when the nature or severity of the problem did not actually represent an immediate threat to anyone?

 

[SimonH2]

However, one has to wonder how many 'reports' from the general public they receive that would/will result in their turning off the supply until it has been expected when the nature or severity of the problem did not actually represent an immediate threat to anyone?

Indeed.
Not to mention the new game of "get the power turned off with a prank call" !

 

[SimonH2]

And now I remember ...
The first episode of Peak Practice had Dr. Kerruish (Kevin Whately) come across an incident where a child had got himself fried in (IIRC) a substation. I found the plotline where he just phoned up, asked for a circuit to be turned off, and the DNO just did it ... a bit implausible.