Rank: Super forum user 
|
Now, I'm sure that procedures were followed, I'm just curious ref whether tasering someone on a petrol forecourt is that clever? Compare and contrast with mobile phone use on same forecourt - and yes, I get that phones these days lack the power/energy to actually cause any risk of spark ignition but anyway, this is different. The Police officers may have come to the conclusion that given the risk to themselves / others that they had no choice. http://www.dailyecho.co....VE_times_in_Southampton/Oh, and to be clear, well done the Police, a difficult job in a dynamic environment Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In regards to using mobile phones at a petrol station...this was, interestingly enough covered on myth busters.
After many tests they found actual use of a phone is safe, but th risk they did discover is that if a phone is dropped and the battery flew out as it struck the floor, this action could, in some case create a spark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
one of the episodes of Brainiac on sky had a caravan full of mobile phones and petrol which failed to explode when they called the phones, worked when they wired to the phone to a detonator though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have seen video of a petrol vapour flash from a static spark. The circumstances are unlikely on a British forecourt. In US you can leave your petrol dispensing unattended and get back in your car. As you get out of the car your body can become charged through friction. If the first thing you go to touch is the dispenser, a spark can jump and ignite displaced vapour. In the video nothing else caught fire, just a vapour flash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For authoritive statement regarding Mobile Phones Ignition Risk on Filling Station Forecourts, refer to :- http://www.ukpia.com/ind...hones-on-forecourts.aspxIn the past, there had been widespread but unsubstantiated reports circulating globally of mobile phones igniting petrol vapours on petrol filling station forecourts, or other locations where flammable vapours were present. As a result, the Energy Institute in conjunction with Intellect, the trade association for IT, Telecomms and Electronics industries in the UK, conducted a study into the risks of ignition of flammable vapours by mobile phones. The results of the study were presented at a technical seminar hosted by the EI in March 2003. The main conclusions where that: There were no confirmed ignition incidents associated with mobile phones anywhere in the world. Mobile phones, although not specifically designed to standards as 'protected equipment', pose a negligible ignition risk, and one that is far less than other ignition sources on a fuel forecourt Industry position The use of mobile phones on UKPIA members’ forecourts is actively discouraged for several reasons: Distraction - Using mobile phones can create a serious distraction for people dispensing fuel or crossing the forecourt due to the number of vehicles moving. Traffic movements will always present a risk for customers. However the distraction caused to pedestrians by mobile phones increases the risk of accidents. Risk of incendive sparking - Mobile phones are not designed and certified for use in explosive atmospheres which exist temporarily around the pump and nozzle during refuelling as well as around the fill and vent pipes during petrol deliveries.Such use is expressly forbidden by law under the conditions of the petroleum licence and associated guidance. Whilst the risk of incendive sparking from mobile phones is low, they are not intrinsically safe devices and should not be used in those hazardous areas that exist on a forecourt. Generally,there is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones in other areas of the forecourt, such as in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I now see my mistake - I mentioned mobile phones...... Great answers so far with regards mobile phones, maybe I should go and think about how to better frame a question?
Keep 'em coming,
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Based on the hazardous area classification for a petrol forecourt, there should not be any significant issues from using a Taser. This is why it is OK to drive a vehicle on the forecourt, which is clearly a potential source of ignition.
You do get a small hazardous area when filling a vehicle with petrol. This is in the immediate vicinity of the filling point. You should get nothing for diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The mobile phone thing is a legacy of communications radios and the theory was that if the radio was dropped the battery would come oute and the seperation of the battery points from the unit points could result in a spark to ignite vapours.
A number of years ago I seen one of our local firemen re-fuelling the fire tender while smoking! Pre-mobile phone camera's but would have loved to get a picture. PS> i know it was diesel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Actually, portable radios that were to be used in high-risk situations (refineries etc) were made "intrinsically safe", in that the electronics were "encapsulated" (painted) so that there were no pointed areas where a "corona" discharge could form....I still have a set of Pye PF1 UHF tx/rx-ers....so treated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=AndyBz]Based on the hazardous area classification for a petrol forecourt, there should not be any significant issues from using a Taser. This is why it is OK to drive a vehicle on the forecourt, which is clearly a potential source of ignition.
You do get a small hazardous area when filling a vehicle with petrol. This is in the immediate vicinity of the filling point. You should get nothing for diesel. I think that if we take into account fueling vehicles on a hot day with no wind there could be an explosive mixture present. The statement 'a small hazardous area' may not be correct, as fuel stations on occasions do go up. This could be a test for the mithbusters, cover someone in petrol and tazer them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Maybe all hand help pumps could come with a small LEV attached just off the fore-grip to take away any vapour that would normally dissipate quite harmlessly? Despite the volatility of petrol, it's actually quite hard to set it alight unless you are being quite intentional, and its only then that the vapour will burn to begin. So I would argue that the decision to taser someone posed a small risk and unless there was spilt fuel in and around the immediate proximity, they were quite safe to act as they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No problem with the framing of your question Jim :)
Although I wouldn't advocate the use of a taser in an ATEX zoned area, I think you'd have to try really hard to get any form of ignition in this given scenario: in my mind there would have to be someone filling up with petrol (not diesel) at the time of the tasering to displace the vapour in a car fuel tank forcing it to atmosphere, a scene I feel being unlikely seeing as there was a chap waving two knives around on the forecourt, and secondly the taser would have to be aimed at the mouth of the car fuel cap given that the flammable area will likely be within inches of the fuel cap (please note this part is speculation on my part having not calculated actual ATEX zoning on this).
I think the police made the right call on this, and I have no doubt if this idiot had dowsed himself with petrol they would have re-evaluated the situation and used alternative methods
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Alan
Spot on.
The police will not even taser if they have CS'd a suspect for fear of ignition of the propellant!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
All,
Well, there you go, very interesting, thank you very much,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
With reference 'intrinsically safe' please refer to: http://uk.rs-online.com/...yEq8mByMICFSPmwgodhEcA-AI don't think paint cuts the mustard myself but I may be wrong. Intrinsic safety is when the energy available in the hazardous area is limited to a level below that which could ignite a flammable atmosphere. Encapsulation is something else :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Myles, I meant that training dictates not to taser if the suspect has been sprayed with CS / PAVA (incapacitant spray) The fact that he was dowsed in petrol would scream to me not to taser him but hey ho, that's why he still got disciplined!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
EN 60079 "encapsulation “m” type of protection whereby parts that are capable of igniting an explosive atmosphere by either sparking or heating are enclosed in a compound in such a way as to avoid ignition of a dust layer or explosive atmosphere under operating or installation conditions" http://www.extronics.com...at_radio_frequencies.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As I said John (and you have endorsed) , encapsulation 'm' is different to intrinsically safe 'i'.
I think what you are saying is that in the link it is an extra protection be used in the case of RF but as far as I can see regarding the link it remains unclear if this is effective.
However, the definitions remain as stated. (IMHO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just to make this clear:
'm' = any hot or sparking parts are encapsulated to ensure that the sparks cannot ignite the atmosphere.
'i' = not enough energy to spark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.