On 18/10/2012 21:01, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:36:43 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick

I had to feed the boys by candlelight, and luckily we only need the gas hob.

Michael

Good practice for the future if the predicted power shortages occur,
most youngsters would enjoy the novelty.
A whole 3 hours ,you do sound a bit precious.
Depending on the type of cables an arc down through a tree may not be
a good idea to be left occurring,stray currents can damage things
nearby that are not immediately obvious such as other cables or cause
voltage gradients in the ground nearby that can be dangerous
especially to 4 legged animals or two persons holding each other such
as a couple or as you have introduced suffering children, a mother and
child.


The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly began
today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning. It just
happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last week, or
last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

If the utility and distribution companies were doing their job, overhead
cables would be inspected every year or two. Clearly they are not.

Michael

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
On 18/10/2012 21:01, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:36:43 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick

I had to feed the boys by candlelight, and luckily we only need the
gas hob.

Michael

Good practice for the future if the predicted power shortages occur,
most youngsters would enjoy the novelty.
A whole 3 hours ,you do sound a bit precious.
Depending on the type of cables an arc down through a tree may not be
a good idea to be left occurring,stray currents can damage things
nearby that are not immediately obvious such as other cables or cause
voltage gradients in the ground nearby that can be dangerous
especially to 4 legged animals or two persons holding each other such
as a couple or as you have introduced suffering children, a mother and
child.


The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly began
today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning. It just
happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last week, or
last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

If the utility and distribution companies were doing their job, overhead
cables would be inspected every year or two. Clearly they are not.

Michael

After we had a series of power cuts men with chainsaws spent a week on
the whole 11KV ring..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:52 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

On 18/10/2012 21:01, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:36:43 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick

I had to feed the boys by candlelight, and luckily we only need the
gas hob.

Michael

Good practice for the future if the predicted power shortages occur,
most youngsters would enjoy the novelty.
A whole 3 hours ,you do sound a bit precious.
Depending on the type of cables an arc down through a tree may not be a
good idea to be left occurring,stray currents can damage things nearby
that are not immediately obvious such as other cables or cause voltage
gradients in the ground nearby that can be dangerous especially to 4
legged animals or two persons holding each other such as a couple or as
you have introduced suffering children, a mother and child.


The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly began
today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning. It just
happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last week, or
last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

Of course. But, if it was reported at 3 p.m., and at 4 p.m. someone was
injured as described, the power company would be liable...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly
began today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning.
It just happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last
week, or last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be
attended to *immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just
bonkers. As I said, trees don't spring up overnight.

JOOI do you happen to know as fact that the cables did not supply
someone reliant on medical gear - for example, a ventilator - and with
time-limited back-up facilities? (Suppliers used to have lists of such
people and prioritise repairs accordingly.) Would you be happy to tell
them to wait while you feed your boys?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 18/10/2012 22:29, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:52 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:



The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly began
today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning. It just
happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last week, or
last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

Of course. But, if it was reported at 3 p.m., and at 4 p.m. someone was
injured as described, the power company would be liable...


Well, it follows that I wouldn't hold them liable. I take the
consequences of my own philosophies, obviously.

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm. Which indicates either that the network should
be inspected regularly to *prevent* such incidents or that it's
pointless trying to eliminate any such liability claims - so just don't
worry about it and do it in the morning (unless the call were made at
10am in which case we'd all expect the team on site by 3pm and hopefully
finished before dusk.

Michael

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:52 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

Of course. But, if it was reported at 3 p.m., and at 4 p.m. someone was
injured as described, the power company would be liable...


Exactly.

Tim

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:52 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:

If the utility and distribution companies were doing their job, overhead
cables would be inspected every year or two. Clearly they are not.

They do check them, both by helicopter or by walking along the route of overhead
lines checking tree growth and using infra red cameras to detect bad joints.
Anything running at the final voltage delivered to the consumer (415v/240v) is
the lowest priority.

Think yourself lucky they did cut the supply, a high resistance phase to earth
fault from tree contact looks just like normal load to protection equipment at
the substation and so won't be detected. This can easily lead to electrocution
for those on the ground, usually large animals but occasionally humans.


--

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
On 18/10/2012 22:29, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:52 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:



The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly began
today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning. It just
happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last week, or
last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

Of course. But, if it was reported at 3 p.m., and at 4 p.m. someone was
injured as described, the power company would be liable...


Well, it follows that I wouldn't hold them liable. I take the
consequences of my own philosophies, obviously.

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. As long as they started mobilising
once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even if operational
reasons caused some delay.

if they sat on their hands and did nothing until the next day, they could
be held negligent if the fault could be considered life threatening and
someone died before they'd started mobilising.

Tim

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:40:10 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

On 18/10/2012 22:29, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:52 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:



The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly
began today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning.
It just happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last
week, or last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended
to *immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers. As I
said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

Of course. But, if it was reported at 3 p.m., and at 4 p.m. someone was
injured as described, the power company would be liable...


Well, it follows that I wouldn't hold them liable. I take the
consequences of my own philosophies, obviously.

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm.

OK, change the timescale and the argument is still valid.

I think you're being precious about it too. Sounds as if your only
priority is your own comfort...!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 18/10/2012 23:00, Tim+ wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. As long as they started mobilising
once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even if operational
reasons caused some delay.


I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

On 18/10/2012 22:39, Robin wrote:
The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly
began today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning.
It just happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last
week, or last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be
attended to *immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just
bonkers. As I said, trees don't spring up overnight.

JOOI do you happen to know as fact that the cables did not supply
someone reliant on medical gear - for example, a ventilator - and with
time-limited back-up facilities? (Suppliers used to have lists of such
people and prioritise repairs accordingly.) Would you be happy to tell
them to wait while you feed your boys?


Err, what? Ask who to wait? The tree-cutters or the ventilated patient?

If they have to cut the power for three hours at some point to do the
tree work, presumably they will notify any such patient and give them
notice such that they can prepare their back-up system (assuming they do
indeed have such lists).

If the tree work takes exactly three hours then it matters not a jot
whether they do it before, during or after my boys have dinner - it's
still a three-hour period for which the patient needs to be prepared.

By the way, if the company is forced not to undertake the tree-cutting
immediately owing to the presence of a ventilated patient who needs time
to prepare or be moved elsewhere, and someone is killed on the street
at 5pm by an arcing power-line/tree, I assume the company will still be
liable?

Michael

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:19:12 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:

I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Best you go offgrid then. Cover your roof with solar panels and stick a wind
turbine up.


--

On Oct 18, 11:19*pm, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:
On 18/10/2012 23:00, Tim+ wrote:

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. *As long as they started mobilising
once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even if operational
reasons caused some delay.

I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

You are clearly a half wit as others have explained.
The trees were likely not there when the line was erected.
And who are "they"?

On Oct 18, 11:34*pm, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:
On 18/10/2012 22:39, Robin wrote:

The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly
began today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning.
It just happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last
week, or last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be
attended to *immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just
bonkers. As I said, trees don't spring up overnight.

JOOI do you happen to know as fact that the cables did not supply
someone reliant on medical gear - for example, *a ventilator - and with
time-limited back-up facilities? *(Suppliers used to have lists of such
people and prioritise repairs accordingly.) Would you be happy to tell
them to wait while you feed your boys?

Err, what? Ask who to wait? The tree-cutters or the ventilated patient?

If they have to cut the power for three hours at some point to do the
tree work, presumably they will notify any such patient and give them
notice such that they can prepare their back-up system (assuming they do
indeed have such lists).

If the tree work takes exactly three hours then it matters not a jot
whether they do it before, during or after my boys have dinner - it's
still a three-hour period for which the patient needs to be prepared.

By the way, if the company is forced not to undertake the tree-cutting
immediately owing to the presence of a ventilated patient who needs time
to prepare or be moved elsewhere, *and someone is killed on the street
at 5pm by an arcing power-line/tree, I assume the company will still be
liable?

Michael

Electrical faults happen all the time. If there is danger they can,
will and should turn the power off as soon as possible.
People can only be notified if there is a planned shut down.
They can shut down when they like, they are entitled to come into your
house if there is danger. They can even break into your house if there
is danger.
You are living on cloud nine.
Now stop whining and get into the real world.

Do you read the Guardian by any chance?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:19:12 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Trees grow story end of. People plant trees under power lines, they grow.

One reported they have to act. The coud simply have switched the supply
off until the start of the next working day cut back the trees then
switched back on.

Which you prefer off from 1700 to 2000 or off from 1700 to 1200 next day?

What are you going to be like in a few years times when the lights start
to go out due to lack of generating capacity?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

On 18/10/2012 23:00, Tim+ wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. As long as they started
mobilising once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even if
operational reasons caused some delay.


I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

Why couldn't they be considered negligent for not inspecting and taking
remidial action beforehand?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

harry wrote:

Electrical faults happen all the time. If there is danger they can,
will and should turn the power off as soon as possible.

The roads are a danger - look at RTA stats.

Do you proposed to close all of them?

People can only be notified if there is a planned shut down.
They can shut down when they like, they are entitled to come into your
house if there is danger. They can even break into your house if there
is danger.
You are living on cloud nine.
Now stop whining and get into the real world.

The real world that the rest of us live in has risks.

You cannot reduce risk to zero - you seek a reasonable balance.

Do you read the Guardian by any chance?
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

Err, what? Ask who to wait? The tree-cutters or the ventilated
patient?

The patient.

If the tree work takes exactly three hours then it matters not a jot
whether they do it before, during or after my boys have dinner - it's
still a three-hour period for which the patient needs to be prepared.

It is not just the 3 hours your power was off. Suppose you were a
patient on a ventilator who had seen the cables arcing and reported the
problem in the morning. Would you have been happy for the work to be
delayed until the next day (or the day after that - see below) in order
to allow consumers to be given notice of the disconnection - something
which very probably can't even start to be done until someone has
visited the site and reported back?

I am unclear as to how much delay would be needed to leave you less
disgruntled. How much notice of disconnection would you consider
reasonable and when could it reasonably be given? Eg would you be
content to be phoned at 03:00 to be told the power would be off from
07:00 to 10:00? Or would you want them to leave the call until the
following morning and postpone the work for 24 hours so as to contact as
many people as possible?

None of this means I wouldn't be annoyed if the power went off
unexpectedly for 3 hours. But it happens sometimes (even here in the
middle of London). And I don't want to pay for an electricity supply
where it never happens: the price of perfection is prohibitive

By the way, if the company is forced not to undertake the tree-cutting
immediately owing to the presence of a ventilated patient who needs
time to prepare or be moved elsewhere, and someone is killed on the
street at 5pm by an arcing power-line/tree, I assume the company will
still be liable?

I rather doubt that question admits a simple answer. But I am fairly
sure that the company's defence to *any* claim would be weaker if it
delayed action in order to identify the customers who would be affected,
to give those customers notice of the time they would be disconnected,
and then wait until that time before starting work.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 19/10/2012 09:12, Tim Watts wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

Why couldn't they be considered negligent for not inspecting and taking
remidial action beforehand?


I didn't say they couldn't. When I said "I disagree" I was referring to
having missed the point or not. If, as someone has suggested here, they
do inspect power lines regularly either by helicopter or otherwise, then
clearly they were negligent. Of course, it only comes to the attention
of the courts of justice if someone gets hurt...

Michael

On 18/10/2012 22:04, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
On 18/10/2012 21:01, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:36:43 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick

I had to feed the boys by candlelight, and luckily we only need the
gas hob.

Michael

Good practice for the future if the predicted power shortages occur,
most youngsters would enjoy the novelty.
A whole 3 hours ,you do sound a bit precious.
Depending on the type of cables an arc down through a tree may not be
a good idea to be left occurring,stray currents can damage things
nearby that are not immediately obvious such as other cables or cause
voltage gradients in the ground nearby that can be dangerous
especially to 4 legged animals or two persons holding each other such
as a couple or as you have introduced suffering children, a mother and
child.


The point is that it is absurd to imagine that the arcing suddenly began
today or that it will be significantly worse tomorrow morning. It just
happened that someone noticed it today, not yesterday or last week, or
last month even. The idea that the problem *must* be attended to
*immediately* if someone phones at, say, 3pm is just bonkers.

It is a statutory duty, under Section 29 of the Electricity Act 1989, to
protect the public from danger arising from the generation, transmission
or supply of electricity. That means that any potentially dangerous
situation must be dealt with immediately it is known about.

As I said,
trees don't spring up overnight.

If the utility and distribution companies were doing their job, overhead
cables would be inspected every year or two. Clearly they are not.

It is the land owner's responsibility to ensure that trees do not
encroach upon overhead lines. However, as working near live overhead
lines takes specialist training, the electricity companies do regular
helicopter checks on the National Grid and will do work on trees near
lower voltage lines, if they are made aware of the need.

Colin Bignell

On 19/10/2012 09:28, Robin wrote:


I am unclear as to how much delay would be needed to leave you less
disgruntled.

How about five minutes, and a knock on the door?

[I'm assuming that's not going to happen if they have to cut off 10,000
houses, obviously!)

Or just a van with a loudhailer? I bet 40 years ago they would have done
so, but those vans with loudhailers seem to be out of fashion. Even
politicians used to use them during election campagns (although I can't
imagine why they thought it would gain votes). Maybe they still do?

By the way, if the company is forced not to undertake the tree-cutting
immediately owing to the presence of a ventilated patient who needs
time to prepare or be moved elsewhere, and someone is killed on the
street at 5pm by an arcing power-line/tree, I assume the company will
still be liable?

I rather doubt that question admits a simple answer. But I am fairly
sure that the company's defence to *any* claim would be weaker if it
delayed action in order to identify the customers who would be affected,
to give those customers notice of the time they would be disconnected,
and then wait until that time before starting work.

Hang on, isn't there some sort of obligation to notify any business
premises if they are going to cut the power manually? I thought there
was. That's obviously more important than my ability to finish writing
my email or to boil a kettle, especially if the business has machinery
or computers.

Michael

On 19/10/2012 09:54, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/10/2012 22:04, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

It is a statutory duty, under Section 29 of the Electricity Act 1989, to
protect the public from danger arising from the generation, transmission
or supply of electricity. That means that any potentially dangerous
situation must be dealt with immediately it is known about.


If the utility and distribution companies were doing their job, overhead
cables would be inspected every year or two. Clearly they are not.

It is the land owner's responsibility to ensure that trees do not
encroach upon overhead lines.

Oh, blimey, now we've got to decide whether those trees are part of a
verge which is Cambridgeshire County Council's concern, or whether they
are actually part of the field which they enclose. Hmmm, fun...

Michael

On 19/10/2012 09:12, Tim Watts wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

On 18/10/2012 23:00, Tim+ wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm but
it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late for
someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. As long as they started
mobilising once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even if
operational reasons caused some delay.


I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

Why couldn't they be considered negligent for not inspecting and taking
remidial action beforehand?

Because it is the land owner's responsibility not to allow trees to
interfere with power lines, not the electricity companies'. The
electricity company only has a duty after they know there is a danger to
the public.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:

On 19/10/2012 09:12, Tim Watts wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

On 18/10/2012 23:00, Tim+ wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm
but it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late
for someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. As long as they started
mobilising once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even
if operational reasons caused some delay.


I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

Why couldn't they be considered negligent for not inspecting and taking
remidial action beforehand?

Because it is the land owner's responsibility not to allow trees to
interfere with power lines, not the electricity companies'. The
electricity company only has a duty after they know there is a danger to
the public.

Colin Bignell

I would argue that since they *know* that private landowners cannot all be
trusted, they should be inspecting anyway. It's surely easier to serve
notice on the landowner than to have to bugger about turning the power off
later.

As has been said, trees do not grow that fast, so surely this could be done
when they do other inspections on the line and poles?


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies."

On 19/10/2012 10:49, Tim Watts wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 19/10/2012 09:12, Tim Watts wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

On 18/10/2012 23:00, Tim+ wrote:
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

Besides, it's a rather fatuous argument. If it were reported at 3pm
but it took 2hrs for a team to be mobilised then it's still too late
for someone injured at 4pm.

I think you're still missing the point. As long as they started
mobilising once notified, they wouldn't be considered negligent, even
if operational reasons caused some delay.


I disagree. The fact that they allowed trees to grow to endanger their
(rather dangerous) power lines, or planted their overhead lines in the
vicinity of extant trees is in itself negligent in the first place.

Michael

Why couldn't they be considered negligent for not inspecting and taking
remidial action beforehand?

Because it is the land owner's responsibility not to allow trees to
interfere with power lines, not the electricity companies'. The
electricity company only has a duty after they know there is a danger to
the public.

Colin Bignell

I would argue that since they *know* that private landowners cannot all be
trusted, they should be inspecting anyway.

If you want that sort of service, just to deal with a minority of land
owners who don't meet their responsibilities, be prepared to pay a lot
more for your electricity.

It's surely easier to serve
notice on the landowner than to have to bugger about turning the power off
later.

When the industry was nationalised, it was usually easier for the Board
to do the work for the land owner without charge, but that did depend
upon the land owner asking for it to be done.

As has been said, trees do not grow that fast, so surely this could be done
when they do other inspections on the line and poles?

They do, but an entire tree could grow in the period between routine
inspections for most low voltage lines. There is not a lot that goes
wrong with them, apart from trees growing too close (0.8m for a 230/415v
distribution line) and a wooden pole should last at least 25 years.

Colin Bignell

On 19/10/2012 11:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/10/2012 10:49, Tim Watts wrote:
Nightjar wrote:


I would argue that since they *know* that private landowners cannot
all be
trusted, they should be inspecting anyway.

If you want that sort of service, just to deal with a minority of land
owners who don't meet their responsibilities, be prepared to pay a lot
more for your electricity.

It's surely easier to serve
notice on the landowner than to have to bugger about turning the power
off
later.

When the industry was nationalised, it was usually easier for the Board
to do the work for the land owner without charge, but that did depend
upon the land owner asking for it to be done.

As has been said, trees do not grow that fast, so surely this could be
done
when they do other inspections on the line and poles?

See my post at the end of the thread - it now appears that UK Power
Networks were aware of the problem, had asked permission of
Cambridgeshire County Council to cut the trees, and had done nothing
about it until someone spotted the arcing yesterday!

Michael

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:18:50 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 19/10/2012 10:49, Tim Watts wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

Because it is the land owner's responsibility not to allow trees to
interfere with power lines, not the electricity companies'. The
electricity company only has a duty after they know there is a danger to
the public.

Colin Bignell

I would argue that since they *know* that private landowners cannot all be
trusted, they should be inspecting anyway.

If you want that sort of service, just to deal with a minority of land
owners who don't meet their responsibilities, be prepared to pay a lot
more for your electricity.


They do, but an entire tree could grow in the period between routine
inspections for most low voltage lines. There is not a lot that goes
wrong with them, apart from trees growing too close (0.8m for a 230/415v
distribution line) and a wooden pole should last at least 25 years.

Colin Bignell

I have a line like that above our garden ,it was converted to aerial
bundled years ago so the danger from some trees is more from physical
damage than electrical mainly from a branch falling from above. The
trees I've never really found who owns them, thought it was the farmer
as they are over the fence but though he does trim them to clear the
combine he says they are actually on a bit of land left when an estate
sold the land we live on 70 years ago ,probably a sort of ransom strip
that has now been forgotten about.
I trim or get someone competent in to do so every so often,they are
sycamores so giant weeds really though the birds like em.
Whenever a branch has threatened the cable a phone call to the
electric supplier has seen someone come out to deal with it,if I am
lucky they sometimes remove a little more than needed in exchange for
a cup of tea and biscuits.

If I had been in the OPs position I think I may have made a call to
the supplier and mentioned that some trees were appearing to get close
to conductors and could they check it. As he states they wouldn't have
grown close over night and he must have seen them growing.
May not actually have been his responsibility but may have saved his
trauma of not being able to send an Email and ending up like Bo peep
losing his sheep.

G.Harman

On 19/10/2012 11:56, wrote:


I have a line like that above our garden ,it was converted to aerial
bundled years ago so the danger from some trees is more from physical
damage than electrical mainly from a branch falling from above. The
trees I've never really found who owns them, thought it was the farmer
as they are over the fence but though he does trim them to clear the
combine he says they are actually on a bit of land left when an estate
sold the land we live on 70 years ago ,probably a sort of ransom strip
that has now been forgotten about.

Lovely, that's helpful! Erm, is that right next to your property? Does
the rule about claiming land by fencing it in and hoping no-one notices
for seven years, still exist? Or was that always a myth?

I trim or get someone competent in to do so every so often,they are
sycamores so giant weeds really though the birds like em.
Whenever a branch has threatened the cable a phone call to the
electric supplier has seen someone come out to deal with it,if I am
lucky they sometimes remove a little more than needed in exchange for
a cup of tea and biscuits.

If I had been in the OPs position I think I may have made a call to
the supplier and mentioned that some trees were appearing to get close
to conductors and could they check it. As he states they wouldn't have
grown close over night and he must have seen them growing.

In an ideal world you'd be quite right. inded. Unfortunately, exiting
our driveway in a car is a matter of looking very carefully between the
parked cars to avoid being hit by someone who hasn't slowed down from
the 60mph to the 30mph zone which starts 20 yards away, and the driveway
is below road level, not above, so visibility is very poor.

If I'm not in the car I'm most likely on the bicycle with children in
tow, and I'm more concerned again with the on-coming cars, not the trees
opposite!

Further down the road, if I'm on foot, I'm more concerned with the trees
that overhand the footpaths - and I usually snap off the odd branch when
I'm passing in order to keep the trees above head height. Nobody else
ever trims them as far as I can tell.

So, perverse as it may seem, looking at the trees right under my nose,
so to speak, doesn't get done!

Michael

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:11:22 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:

On 19/10/2012 11:56, wrote:

t was the farmer
as they are over the fence but though he does trim them to clear the
combine he says they are actually on a bit of land left when an estate
sold the land we live on 70 years ago ,probably a sort of ransom strip
that has now been forgotten about.

Lovely, that's helpful! Erm, is that right next to your property? Does
the rule about claiming land by fencing it in and hoping no-one notices
for seven years, still exist? Or was that always a myth?
It wouldn't be worth the hassle really,if it as the farmer says then
it's only about a 6ft strip. We have the trees on it and I would still
have to deal with them or remove them and despite the fact they are a
nuisance at times they do act as a windbreak and I like to spot the
owls that frequently stop over in them. Some near neighbours without
trees have cultivated a strip of vegetables allotment style on it
The family who may own it are still around and own quite a few parcels
of land in the area via an investment company and the matriarch of
the family who is in her nineties lives nearby . She was refused
planning permission many years ago for an extension/modifications on
her house so a field on the opposite side of our place which the
council in the 60's wanted to build some houses on she has refused to
sell since then. An acquaintance rents it very cheaply as it saves the
old bat the trouble of trimming the hedges etc herself . At the moment
it has some horses in it and we have permission to put some chickens
in but haven't got around to it. There are at least 3 places in the
village within walking distance that have fresh eggs from there own
birds available so probably won't bother. The missus has hankerings
to ask to keep a Donkey there but god know what she would do with it.

G.Harman

On 19/10/2012 14:23, wrote:
... The missus has hankerings
to ask to keep a Donkey there but god know what she would do with it.

Salami

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:23:36 +0100, wrote:

The missus has hankerings
to ask to keep a Donkey there but god know what she would do with it.

Go for rides on the beach?

wrote:
The missus has hankerings
to ask to keep a Donkey there but god know what she would do with it.


On Guensey the locals are called that by the Jerseyians. I asked why
'cos we are bloody well hung and they are jealous'

So watch out..


G.Harman


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Oct 19, 9:27*am, "Robin" wrote:
Err, what? Ask who to wait? The tree-cutters or the ventilated
patient?

The patient.

If the tree work takes exactly three hours then it matters not a jot
whether they do it before, during or after my boys have dinner - it's
still a three-hour period for which the patient needs to be prepared.

It is not just the 3 hours your power was off. *Suppose you were a
patient on a ventilator who had seen the cables arcing and reported the
problem in the morning. * *Would you have been happy for the work to be
delayed until the next day (or the day after that - see below) in order
to allow consumers to be given notice of the disconnection - something
which very probably can't even start to be done until someone has
visited the site and reported back?

I am unclear as to how much delay would be needed to leave you less
disgruntled. *How much notice of disconnection would you consider
reasonable and when could it reasonably be given? *Eg would you be
content to be phoned at 03:00 to be told the power would be off from
07:00 to 10:00? *Or would you want them to leave the call until the
following morning and postpone the work for 24 hours so as to contact as
many people as possible?

None of this means I wouldn't be annoyed if the power went off
unexpectedly for 3 hours. *But it happens sometimes (even here in the
middle of London). *And I don't want to pay for an electricity supply
where it never happens: the price of perfection is prohibitive

By the way, if the company is forced not to undertake the tree-cutting
immediately owing to the presence of a ventilated patient who needs
time to prepare or be moved elsewhere, *and someone is killed on the
street at 5pm by an arcing power-line/tree, I assume the company will
still be liable?

I rather doubt that question admits a simple answer. *But I am fairly
sure that the company's defence to *any* claim would be weaker if it
delayed action in order to identify the customers who would be affected,
to give those customers notice of the time they would be disconnected,
and then wait until that time before starting work.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Would you find a ventilator in a patient's home?

On Oct 19, 10:00*am, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:
On 19/10/2012 09:28, Robin wrote:



I am unclear as to how much delay would be needed to leave you less
disgruntled.

How about five minutes, and a knock on the door?

[I'm assuming that's not going to happen if they have to cut off 10,000
houses, obviously!)

Or just a van with a loudhailer? I bet 40 years ago they would have done
so, but those vans with loudhailers seem to be out of fashion. Even
politicians used to use them during election campagns (although I can't
imagine why they thought it would gain votes). Maybe they still do?

By the way, if the company is forced not to undertake the tree-cutting
immediately owing to the presence of a ventilated patient who needs
time to prepare or be moved elsewhere, *and someone is killed on the
street at 5pm by an arcing power-line/tree, I assume the company will
still be liable?

I rather doubt that question admits a simple answer. *But I am fairly
sure that the company's defence to *any* claim would be weaker if it
delayed action in order to identify the customers who would be affected,
to give those customers notice of the time they would be disconnected,
and then wait until that time before starting work.

Hang on, isn't there some sort of obligation to notify any business
premises if they are going to cut the power manually? I thought there
was. That's obviously more important than my ability to finish writing
my email or to boil a kettle, especially if the business has machinery
or computers.

None whatever in an emergency.

Would you find a ventilator in a patient's home?

Oh yes - though by no means all with the full-blown, invasive,
mechanical stuff. AIUI there's been a big increase in the use of
non-invasive ventilation in recent years.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Robin wrote:
Would you find a ventilator in a patient's home?

Oh yes - though by no means all with the full-blown, invasive,
mechanical stuff. AIUI there's been a big increase in the use of
non-invasive ventilation in recent years.

There are also a fair number of oxygen concentrators in use
domestically, I believe.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Oct 19, 6:40*pm, "Robin" wrote:
Would you find a ventilator in a patient's home?

Oh yes - though by no means all with the full-blown, invasive,
mechanical stuff. * AIUI there's been a big increase in the use of
non-invasive ventilation in recent years.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

I don't think so.
Ventilators are an inherently dangerous device.
Anyone so ill to need one would be in hospital.

You might find home dialysis.

harry wrote:
Ventilators are an inherently dangerous device.
Anyone so ill to need one would be in hospital.

You might find home dialysis.

So, in your opinion, all sufferers from sleep apnoea and other breathing
problems which the current home ventilators can help with should live in
hospitals?

Not to mention all the people round here who suffer from pneumoconiosis
after working in the mines all their lives. The oxygen concentrators can
be dangerous too.

You get worse, Harry.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

harry wrote:

Ventilators are an inherently dangerous device.
Anyone so ill to need one would be in hospital.

Wrong. Google for "home ventilator" and learn. Or look carefully at this
URL:

http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-...028382.article

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".