FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: billthefire on September 13, 2007, 04:39:52 PM
-
There seems to be some confusion over the standard of safety signage fitted into buildings. Which standard should we be using in the UK? British Standard or European Standard?
-
Either but do not mix them
-
You can use either but should not mix them in the same building.
There may not be much choice though because the emergency lighting industry seems to have almost universally adopted the european standard, which is considered to be less easily understood than the BS 5499 design.
-
There is no European Standard for Fire Exit Signs, there is an International Standard ISO 7010 and a British Standard BS 5499 Part 4 2000 and believe it or not the Graphical Symbol for "Escape Route" is identical.
The most important thing about the use of graphical symbols is that they are understood, infact any competent risk assessment should insist on this. The Health and Safety(Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations absolutely requires the responsible person to assure this. Conformance to BS 5499 Part 4 2000 will satisfy this requirement as covered in the scope.
The problem with the so called "Euro-Sign" " Running Man Arrow Block of Ice Cream" is that Testing, Familiarity and Intuitively under ISO 9186 it has been shown that it is not understood either in meaning nor actions to be taken in conjunction with these signs. This work and research has been published when the ISO BS Graphical symbol was proven to have excellent comprehension credentials. It would be a brave person that specified the use of these signs under the RRO Risk Assessment regime as the risk of their use is extremely significant should any evacuee fail or have difficulty identifying an escape route.
Under ISO 16069 Safety Wayguidance the so called Euro-Symbol could not be possible to use as it has no direction guidance convention , this guidance convention is required if you require a series os signs along an escape route.
Even ICEL have withdrawn Technical Support for the so called Euro-Sign and I still find it incredible that this debate continues.
It is not rocket science and there is no cost penalty for doing it correctly.It is negligent to play pictionary with peoples lives!!!
-
Sorry Jim I must try and break this habit of calling it the euro standard.
Sadly it still figures in the great majority of sign providers catalogues and especially emergency lighting catalogues where the term euro standard still predominates.
They still are going into most new builds that I see. And following the education you have given us all through this forum I now identify the potential hazard in the risk assessment, though in the scheme of things it generally sits at the lower end of the risk spectrum.
-
Kurnal, your observation about new builds is spot on. There seems to be an acceptance by architects that to comply with the need for signage, any format of signage will do. Within the tendering process through subcontractors, I am getting the impression that the EU signs are cheaper to procure than the BS ones, and there is less variation on the sign content. Therefore it is almost a 'done deal' when arriving at new builds to find the BS signage has been overlooked for the EU system.
Frequently asked question is about legislative compliance, regarding using one system and another and it is debatable whether any proceedings would be taken against someone using the EU system rather than the BS, regardless of what 'guidance' indicates. Simple question 'do I have to replace them' is mostly asked from the cost factor perspective.
Jim has been, and remains, clear, precise and very informed on the topic and I regard his contibutions as valuable insights into the Standards and systems. However, architects and their associates, specifying finishes to buildings are not so well informed, and there does not seem to be any motivation for them to change their way of working. Insistence that the EU signs are replaced with BS ones is normally met with open hostility, rejection and the 'Jobs worth Fire Safety Nerd' type attitude towards those of us who are trying to sort out the clear errors.
-
Jim I fully accept your augment but what about EEC Directive (EEC/92/58) does this not require us to accept the so called Euro-Symbol as a member state or as the directive been rescinded.
-
The EC Directive both in 1977 and 1992 asked member states to work on the subject of Harmonisation and to Legislate on the same as the objectives of standard safety communication was deemed to be essential for the free movement of labour and the RISK of not having a common language.
The 77 EC Directive and the subsequent 92 Directive gave illustrations of some graphical symbols that may be appropriate with the caveat that other symbols with more detail could be used to satisfy the directive. The Member States got together and developed ISO 6309 ( now ISO 7010) and BS 3864 BS 5499 to meet the detail of the Directive this work was concluded well before the EC Directive was copied into UK Law under the Health and Safety(Safety Signs and Signals ) Regulations 1996 enacted 1998. This work by technical experts the world over has now been re confirmed with the publication of ISO 7010 ISO 16069 and BS 5499 Part 4 2000.
This whole business and confusion has been caused by architects and specifiers mixing up emergency lighting marketing rather than understanding means of escape requirements. It should be noted here that quite simply if you used the signs illustrated in the EC Directive you would not have a single choice but 5 different graphical symbols and not one that would indicate escape to any other direction other than down or to the left. That is why it is a significant risk to use them. A clear requirement of these signs is that you need in some cases to have a series of signs that lead you to safety, If you use so called Euro-Signs you can not do this without making up other signs that are not in the EC Directive.
I have for 20 years promoted compensatory solutions and fire engineered solutions to fire safety problems and would expect outcome to be better than prescription. I cannot understand why conformance to Standard is not demanded by fire safety professionals or why acceptance of something that is clearly wrong is justified as appropriate in any circumstance.
I reiterate, this is not rocket science, a communication system will only be effective if it is understood, if it is not it will be ignored at best or misunderstood at worst. The test data is there to prove liability that the Euro Sign is not understood by those that an escape route sign is intended for, not fire safety professionals but people unfamiliar with the escape route or who need confidence that they are following a route designed to be used for evacuation. If that is not important to get right I don't know what is.
Just get a copy of BS5499 Part 4 2000 it just makes so much sense.
-
We are stuck with this dilemma until the emergemcy lighting providers bother to change. The convention in most buildings now is EC man/arrow/fridge on exit boxes, the BS symbol on all other signs, as the prevalance of EC signs is lessening as most catalogues, although selling both types, try to point you to the BS symbol since BS5499 was revised.
You can have BS exit boxes, but it's a lot of faffing - fit a blank exit box and add a seperately bought BS overlay kit - so it's no suprise most people buy & fit the complete unit straight from the catalogue - compete with EC picto!
-
Whilst some of the views in this thread extremely enlightening especially Jim Creak’s submissions, I’m going to be brave and say it 'In the grand scheme of things is it that important'
If people understand the meaning of the signs and do what they are supposed to do then is there a problem. It’s only a guide and it does say SHOULD not be mixed, it doesn’t say that they MUST not be mixed.
I recently carried out an audit of a very large garden centre that had paid someone a large sum of money to carry out a FRA the only point raised was that the shop had a mixture of Euro and BS signs. The important stuff like the lack of escape lighting, the inadequacy of the fire warning system and the lack of staff training had not been mentioned
-
You make a fair point, it's easy to over analyse the little things, but if this is at the expense of more critical matters....
Incidentally, what is going to stop the well paid FRA person doing bad jobs elsewhere? OK the garden centre won't use them again, but after that what?
Is it left to the FRS to tidy up after them or does it require a fatal incident enquiry? Can they be prosecuted and if so would an FRS do it or would the legal eagles say it's too much hassle?
-
I accept what the two previous posts have said but I would like to fully understand how this confusion arose. I checked out the council directive 92/58/EEC but could only find text versions, no pictograms, and then I checked out Safety Signs and Signal regs 1996, based on 92/58/EEC and that showed the EC pictogram. Unless these regs have been amended surely the EC pictogram is the legal one the BS and ISO may be better but are they legal. Why cannot the regs be amended and substitute the BS or ISO standard?
-
The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 is a simple copy out from the EC Directive 92/58 and illustrates 5 Different graphical symbols for escape route provision Which one do you refer to as being the one we should accept? On what technical basis do you make this choice and why would its provision, use and application be appropriate? These are the questions that the International Standards Committee answered in ISO 7010, This was the basis for the development of the British Standard for the use and application and siting of Escape Route Signs in BS5499 Part 4 2000 to sort out the problem.
I find it very difficult to understand why there is any tendancy to defend the indefencible. Given the research that tells us clearly that people do not understand the Euro Signs ( any of the 5 illustrated in EC 92/58 as examples) when tested against 3337 different graphical symbols and that the International Standard specified the very best technical solution. As required by the Regulations. Given that a sign is required to influence behaviour in a life saving application which is the very reason for putting any sign up in the first place. How can it be possible to defend something that is so clearly wrong? If in fact there really is no difference why avoid mixing them? When we say no mixing them what do we actually mean? Within one escape route?, one building? on one site? one shop? one shopping precinct. one organisation? The very process of answering these questions was the process of International and Domestic Standardisation. Why do we want to ignore this?
An effective communication strategy for safety management , instruction, information, education, location and identification relies almost exclusively on clarity and understanding without ambiguity. Why introduce ambiguity?
The Standard BS 5499 Part 4 is best practice anything else by default has to be worse, if you are prepared to accept that then it is your professional perogative, in my humble opinion that cannot be justified when you are aware of the facts.
-
Jim I am not trying to defend anything I am trying to understand it and I fully agree with your augment.
I have studied Part 2 of the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 more closely, especially Para 1.3. The pictograms used may be slightly different from or more detailed than those shown in paragraph 3 provided that they convey the same meaning and that no difference or adaptation obscures the meaning.
This in my opinion allows you to use the BS or ISO pictograms and still conform to the legislation a point I needed to clarify in my own mind.
-
Exactly and was the basis for all the technical work. The EC Directive also requires that the Responsible Person must ensure that every person within the working environment understands the signs and the action to be taken with signs.
It was vital from a Standards perspective that the graphical symbol used had the highest comprehension credentials, that testing regime ISO 9186 shows BS 5499 Escape Route Signs at 100% comprehension.
The other reason is as you have already pointed out there are 5 different escape route symbols in the EC Directive with meaning and application unknown which created a problem for blind acceptance and a realisation that it was completely impossible to lead someone to safety using them with the use as described in the Directive of an additional further "This Way" arrow? This has been conveniently ignored by those using the Euro Sign.
As this was HSE legislation it was not surprising that they did not understand means of escape provision, their view at the time was that as BS5499 was already the Standard and acceptable Government did not need to put a lot of effort in to drafting legislation but to just copy EC 92/58 onto our statute books. A typical whitehall farce miles away from good fire safety.
Industry did what it does best...interprets what the customer wants and makes it, customer says Euro Standard, Architect specifies any old sign equivalent will do, electrician fits it from the picture on the box. Hey presto we got an escape route marking system. Enforcement officer doesn,t know the Standard blames lack of understanding on Europe, doesn,t like to question it in case he is made to look a fool as he should know.
Industry has no principles, they are not the policemen of best practice if the wrong product is demanded they make it more widely available, and accept the confusion because there is money in it. That is why we have enforcement officers with highest integrity, technical expertise and promote best practice. Escape Route Signs should conform to BS 5499 Part 4 2000 (ISO 7010)
-
Under ISO 16069 Safety Wayguidance the so called Euro-Symbol could not be possible to use as it has no direction guidance convention , this guidance convention is required if you require a series os signs along an escape route.
Even ICEL have withdrawn Technical Support for the so called Euro-Sign and I still find it incredible that this debate continues.
It is not rocket science and there is no cost penalty for doing it correctly.It is negligent to play pictionary with peoples lives!!!
Jim, please don't find the fact that the debate continues too incredible. It does !!
And it will continue until those that legislate come out into the real world.
Part of my job is installing signage. I would simply love the stuff to be 5499 but in the majority of cases it ain't gonna happen.
We arrive at a new install.
We see what the sparkies have fitted or are fitting (Emergency Lighting).
We follow the Signs and Signals Regs (do not mix types).
We then put the matching type up. Because 100% of the time this is the "Euro" graphic as all E/L light box manufacturers use it.
It would be pure fantasy to suggest that we should stand our ground and demand that the E/L's already fitted at a new premises be changed to 5499 graphic plates because we will only fit BS kit. We would get laughed out of the door.
I would suggest that the rocket science bit should come from the technical commitee sitters (BSI, HSE etc. etc.) as too banning the "Euro" graphic once and for all.
They managed to assert themselves a few years ago and demand that graphic symbols accompany all text. Maybe they should now peek out from behind the commitee room door and look at what they achieved.....UTTER CONFUSION !!!
If they won't, then may I suggest that it is they who are "negligent" and are "playing pictionary" with peoples lives, not the signage installers (proffesional or otherwise) who are following the existing legislation correctly.
-
This is a point of view that I can understand that in order to have an easy life it is much easier to justify some thing that is wrong and your position by blaming someone else or who ever you like. The simple fact is that you now know that it is not best practice. If your professional integrity allows compromise for an easy life I cannot answer that.
All I can do is give you the facts, If you chose to ignor it and justify and defend the indefencible that is your perogative. I would always recommend the very best solution where fire safety is concerned, that best solution was the British Standard which you now chose to ignor. What guidance do you follow for installation?
-
Jim,
It seems that a number of people have not followed the 'Best Practice' long before our friend The Reiver turns up on site:
The architect/designer of the building
The building owner
The E/L trade
The sparkies.
Faced with that lot having done their worst before you get there, I think I'd be inclined to take the pragmatic approach as well! But perhaps point out in writing that the BS should have been followed?
-
This is a point of view that I can understand that in order to have an easy life it is much easier to justify some thing that is wrong and your position by blaming someone else or who ever you like. The simple fact is that you now know that it is not best practice. If your professional integrity allows compromise for an easy life I cannot answer that.
All I can do is give you the facts, If you chose to ignor it and justify and defend the indefencible that is your perogative. I would always recommend the very best solution where fire safety is concerned, that best solution was the British Standard which you now chose to ignor. What guidance do you follow for installation?
Dear Mr Creak,
Before posting this I read and re-read my previous post, just to see if any part of it was a personal insult aimed at your good self. I was even going to post an unreserved apology for upsetting you.
However, I could find nothing in my post that would warrant such a personal attack on my integrity - profesional or otherwise -.
In fact I underlined your previous postings in stating that BS 5499 escape signage would be my prefered option. but in sites that have already been fitted out with "Euro" graphic emergency lighting, it is just not practicable.
I am at a loss to see how any part of my post deserved such a response.
Within two paragraphs you have insinuated that I am idle, incompetent and not fit to carry out the job of specifying and installing escape signage.
However, because I have the unfair advantage of knowing of you and your company and its working practices and also knowing that if I were to respond in kind things would get ugly, I will not rise to your obvious baiting.............however tempting.
I will however - as you have done - deal in facts. These may be harsh facts to you and your ilk, and to avert further insults, I take no side in them. But they are facts.
1. The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 341)
Is THE LAW OF THE LAND.
This regulation was one of the few to survive (without amendment) the recent Fire Reform Order
Section 3.4 of said regulations shows pictograms of the accepted escape route signage as from 1st April 1996.
These pictograms are the "Euro" graphic. The Regulations do not show the BS version.
2. The HSE web site advice document on safety signage:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg184.htm
states that both types are "ACCEPTABLE".
Please note (as these things do not occur by accident) that written below the "Euro" graphic is the term:
"Typical Sign In Regulations" as opposed to "Typical BS5499 Sign"
3. The HSE publication - Safety Signs & Signals (Guidance To The Regulations) states that the "Euro" graphic is now the accepted sign (page 5).
But (section 92 page 23) states: "Fire safety signs containing symbols or pictograms which conform to the requirements of BS 5499 will meet the requirements in the new Regulations, provided they continue to fulfil their purpose effectively".
4. The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 341) almost word for word, adheres to the EC Safety Signs Directive (92/58/EEC) which is where the "Euro" graphic originates from.
This Directive is EUROPEAN LAW
5. British Standard 5499 (or any other british standard for that matter) is a "Code Of Practice" put together by a profit making organisation, split into comittees of "Interested Parties".
6. In no section of any British Standard will you find the term: "This Standard Now Supercedes The Law Of Great Britain And Europe". However, you will find that some UK laws take on board British Standard "Codes Of Practice" as the best course to follow. But not in the case of The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 341). BS is not mentioned anywhere as "Best Practice".
What guidance do you follow for installation?
I follow the laws of Europe and the UK. I do not do this for an easy life. I do this to keep my professional integrity honest and in tact. I do not follow the recommendations of speculative best practice from those who have ignored the law of the UK, nor do I judge obeying the law as defending the indefencable.
Rather than facts, this is now my opinion:
By publishing standards, or part of a standard, that intentionally contravenes European and UK Law (even something as small and insignificant as a graphic). The BSI and those that sit on its' committees have directly caused the confusion which was mentioned at the start of this post. For their own gain, be it national pride or otherwise, they have refused to take on board the legally accepted graphics as laid down in the Regulations in 1996.
By sitting on the fence and saying that both signs are OK. The HSE is also culpable for the confusion. However I do like their "Get Out Clause":
"Fire safety signs containing symbols or pictograms which conform to the requirements of BS 5499 will meet the requirements in the new Regulations, provided they continue to fulfil their purpose effectively".
Which surely means that if we now have confusion (which we do) then the BS sign no longer fulfils its' purpose effectively and should therefore be replaced with the legally accepted graphic.
As I said previously, I prefer the design of the BS sign. But I would much more prefer just the one design only in the UK, whatever it may be.
-
Jim,
It seems that a number of people have not followed the 'Best Practice' long before our friend The Reiver turns up on site:
The architect/designer of the building
The building owner
The E/L trade
The sparkies.
Faced with that lot having done their worst before you get there, I think I'd be inclined to take the pragmatic approach as well! But perhaps point out in writing that the BS should have been followed?
Jeez, I'm geeting it from all angles.
Again it is insinuated that I do not follow "Best Practice" and I have "Done My Worst". and now to make things worse I've been lumped in with sparkies and architects..........Nooooooooooo!!! :0
Did I attend HSE Signs and Signals courses and get my company ISO / UKAS registered to be ranked alongside such people..............My life is now over. :(
I do like the written report suggestion though :)
I wonder if any "Best Practice Experts" would have the bottle to put their names to the defect report of a site risk assessment (remembering that it may be used legally etc) stating why the "Euro" graphic is not best practice for use on UK sites when it is clearly shown as being best practice in government legislation.
Oh, and don't forget to list qualifications to make such an assessment along side the name.
If the qualifications are "MD Of Company That Makes Only BS Signs" or "Buyer From A Company That Makes Only BS Signs And Fell For The Spiel" Then I'm afraid I can't pay the going consultation rates............Maybe a retainer though :)
-
Keep shooting reiver I will have my guns reloaded and join you again soon up on the parapet....if you survive....
-
I suggest you read my posting again.... I said I understand your point of view. I said it is much easier to blame it on some one else, Europe, Electrician or whoever.... I said you may wish to compromise, I said I can understand all of those things. I did not attack you personally or professionally. If you interpret it that way I apologise unreservedly.
However the facts remain the same there is no Euro Standard, there is no guidance on how to fit Euro Signs, there is no excuse for accepting signs that cannot be understood and therefore unacceptable, you mentioned you installed signs what guidance do you follow?
There are 5 Different escape route signs in the EC Directive and I asked the question which one is OK to use? If you follow the European UK Law which one do you use and why? Do you always use the This Way arrow as shown in HSE guidance.?
-
Sometimes being an expert clouds the way we deal in the real world. As I understand it, we have to obey the law of the land, should follow Approved Codes of Practice and follow Guidance unless we decide there is a better way of doing something. I understand the frustration of all about the inadequacies of where we are at this minute but attacks whether personnel or from a degree of frustration do no one any good. I for one attempt some humour in places, define things I know in others and learn a lot from posts on this site, knowing that I have better knowledge than some less than others and am interested in all things to do with fire safety. The explanations of things such as BS 5499, given by a expert are rare to get and truly informative but consultants and enforcers alike, as well as installers and others who have an interest have to deal in the world as it is with all its frustrations.
-
Dear Reiver,
I was, I thought, giving you support in your approach - that's what I meant to do; sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
I too don't particularly like the Euro symbols but it seems in the cause of 'free trade' we are lumbered with them, alas.
-
The best technical solution for escape route signs is to conform to BS 5499 Part 4 2000, the forward to the Standard deals with the choice of graphical symbol, this was the case in 1990 when the Standard was first published and again when it was revised. This was after the Health and Safety(Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations reached the statute books so conformance to this Standard is deemed to satisfy the law.
Accepting that there is a choice, the argument is therefore which one. My argument is that the decision has to be made as a function of a formal risk assessment as with all fire safety arrangements are specified in accordance with the requirements of the RRO.
The overwhelming technical evidence is that the so called Euro Signs...all 5 of them are not clearly understood when tested had comprehension credentials less than 50%. BS 5499 Escape Route Signs achieved comprehension credentials of 100% when tested in accordance with ISO 9186.
It is not about personal preference, it is about the correct technical solution.
-
Mr Creak
Since 2000, hundreds of thousands of Poles, Czechs etc have come to work over here.
Would they even know the BS?
Was the BS/Euro comprehension tests carried out on a mixed ethnicity group?
After all, we changed the lettering to sentence to assist certain types of dyslexia sufferers
BS parts 4 and 5 has white man and green man depending on whether a sign is illuminated internally or externally, so why do most sign companies sell photoluminescent signs with green men?
Davo
-
Dear Reiver,
I was, I thought, giving you support in your approach - that's what I meant to do; sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
I too don't particularly like the Euro symbols but it seems in the cause of 'free trade' we are lumbered with them, alas.
No worries John,
I took it without offence, that's why the smilies were there.:)
If your professional integrity allows compromise for an easy life I cannot answer that.
That was the bit that riled me.
I did not attack you personally or professionally. If you interpret it that way I apologise unreservedly.
Yes I did interpret it that way. However, I accept your apology now and without any future grudges. And I also sympathise - to some extent - with your stand point.
And in time honoured forum / board tradition (when the last post has moved "off topic") I will finish with Davos' post in case it looks like I've blocked it out.
Mr Creak
Since 2000, hundreds of thousands of Poles, Czechs etc have come to work over here.
Would they even know the BS?
Was the BS/Euro comprehension tests carried out on a mixed ethnicity group?
After all, we changed the lettering to sentence to assist certain types of dyslexia sufferers
BS parts 4 and 5 has white man and green man depending on whether a sign is illuminated internally or externally, so why do most sign companies sell photoluminescent signs with green men?
Davo
-
Photoluminescent signs are not internally illuminated signs, therefore the prefered graphical symbol is positive (green man) not negative. Photoluminescent signs are externally illuminated signs and are energised by all ambient light fluorescent, incandescent and daylight above 5 lux.
As far as comprehension testing was concerned, testing was done Internationally under International Standard 9186 and would certainly have considered the needs of all nations not just Europe another reason to use BS 5499, ISO 7010 Graphical Symbol for Escape Route Identification, Location and directional guidance.
-
Jim,
Just to answer one of your questions and to raise a few more points.
When specifying BS escape signage I follow BS 5499 pt 4:2000 as a Code Of Practice.
When "euro" escape signage is the only option then I still follow part 4 as a guidline apart from the time honoured tradition of the final fire exit directional. But to throw a bigger spanner into the works, I always use the "hybrid euro" (+ text).
I follow 5499 pt 4, even though personally I think it is intrinsically flawed, but that could be down to my IMO / SOLAS upbringing.
I have never been able to understand why at sea and on offshore installations, smoke from a fire has been seen to rise. And therefore low level evacuation signage is required in enclosed spaces and compartmented corridors. Because at sea it is understood that rising smoke billowing into an enclosed space will obscure evacuation signage visibility at high level.
Evacuation training requires you to get down low - on all fours if necessary - to escape. Hence the low level stuff.
Using that same train of thought on dry land then, smoke must have been found to sink, because on land we fit evacuation signage hanging from the ceiling of a corridor or enclosed space, and above doors etc. Basically, the highest point.
Out of all the "typical situation" pictures in 5499 pt 4 only the "directionals" in A14 and A15 get anywhere near the mark due to the perceived fitted height of the sign. But the "final" sign is once more banged above the door. If there is smoke in our typical enclosed underground car park (as per drawing) that sign will never be seen and therefore the exit never found.
Therefore if BS 5499 pt 4: 2000 is termed "Best Practice" (and as previously stated, an easy life or financial considerations cannot be taken into account) I am at a loss to see why.
Low level evacuation signage should be the norm. "Directionals" and "Finals" should (in my worthless opinion) be fitted at a height that takes into account the real and worse case scenario conditions that may arise during a fire evacuation:
Horror of horrors, there could be some smoke about, and a lot of it !!!!!!!!!!!! :o
-
It might be helpful if you refer to ISO 16069 for low proximity guidance safety wayguidance systems(SWGS). This Standard was developed as a consequence of the fire at Dusseldorf Airport where the scenario was exactly as you describe. It is not a code of practice but introduces components that can be considered so that the evacuee has escape route guidance at floor level.
-
I saw the following text on a Fire Exit Sign provider’s website.
"As both British Standard fire exit signs(BS5499) and European Standard fire exit signs have a running man and a directional arrow, both are compliant with the Health & Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996. However, only one is recognised by the British Standard. With its supplementary text and open doorway graphic, this range of fire exit signs is proven to be more meaningful under test conditions.
Please note, in EU countries the European standard pictogram must be used."
Does anybody know which sign is more popular in other European countries the ISO or Euro Sign? In UK it appears to be the euro sign.
-
That is a question and a half TW.
UK
If you are refering to straight plastic sign boards I would estimate at 70 - 30 in favour of the "euro" graphic (but that is only based on my companies own experiences).
As most - if not all - emergency light manufacturers use the "euro" graphic too, then the figure could be way higher if you are refering to the overall use of pictograms (both lights and signs)
REST OF EU
I have limited lnowledge of this, but from countries I have visited and being a sad person (looking at fire fighting and evacuation kit is sad when on holiday) I would say that each country tends to have its' own version of the "euro" graphic. I have never seen a cross european standardised sign, all countries seem to have their own quirks.
Maybe Jim could throw more light :lol: (that was not meant to be a quip) on the european scene.
-
The majority of places (& I see a few) use the BS symbol on normal signs, the small blip of Euro signs that sprung up around '98-'00 appears to have subsided with a few exceptions.
Of course the opposite is the case with exit boxes as it is so difficult to get them with BS logos.
We only spec BS signs and provide BS signs and overlays for exit boxes.
The rest of the EU? Many don't have any signs!
-
I saw the following text on a Fire Exit Sign provider’s website.
Please note, in EU countries the European standard pictogram must be used."
Does anybody know which sign is more popular in other European countries the ISO or Euro Sign? In UK it appears to be the euro sign.
This statement by this company has to be totally incorrect as there is NO European Standard, There IS an International Standard that is exactly the same as the British Standard. ISO 7010, BS 5499 Part 4
-
It appears the augment which sign should be used revolves around how understandable the signs are. During my research I came across the following statement.
"Exhaustive testing both comprehension and judgement testing of graphical symbols conforming to BS5499 and ISO 7010, ISO16069 achieved the highest comprehension credentials. However as it only achieved some 80%, the British Standard requires supplementary text to aid comprehension. This too was tested and achieved 100% comprehension under ISO 9186. (Comprehension Testing Standard) Both International and British Standard Technical committee agreed that Escape Route Location and directional identification should not be left to graphic symbols alone. Consequently escape route signs should normally consist of three elements, the internationally-recognised graphical symbol for emergency exits, supplementary text (Exit or Fire exit) and a directional arrow."
I would think if we added the two supplementary signs (directional sign and Text sign) to the euro sign, in line with what the above committee said, then I wonder how that combination would achieve if tested as above?
-
Your suggestion has some validity and is exactly what " The Reiver" is doing to overcome his problems. The only problem here is that you end up with two arrows, one within the graphical symbol and one depicting This Way as described in the Government Guidance Document. The British and International Technical Committee thought this was ludicrous.
In the end some manufacturers went there own way and have created hybrid signs that are neither Euro Signs or Standardised Signs.
Why not stick to BS 5499 ISO 7010 ISO 16069 the have all the credentials we need to do the job properly.
-
I totally agree with you but in building who have opted for the euro sign and its hybrids this is a different matter. If you asked the RP to remove all his euro signs and replace them with BS signs I am sure he would ask you, do the signs meet the requirements of the regulations, which they do, and then require you to remove yourself in short sharp jerky movements.
I think Reiver did all he could do in the circumstances of the case and the fault lies with the directive which failed to achieve its main aim, to have a common standard throughout the member states.
-
As I have said many times before, there is no justification for using signs that could be misunderstood and misleading. The Responsible Person should be told this as a significant finding of the risk assessment, if he wishes to ignor this fact, or justify their use because of Government confusion he can.
As we are all aware nothing in Fire Safety is prescriptive, there are many ways you can acheive the same objectives in Fire Safety so it is possible to make up any sign you want to and it is totally legal to do so. Even for the provision of emergency lighting government guidance tells us a torch readily available can satisfy the legislation.
Euro Signs are not understood, as a fire safety professional I can not accept they can satisfy the requirements for escape route location, identification or directional guidance for evacuees, no more than I can recommend a torch for emergency escape route illumination.
Without wishing to offend any one, It is a matter of professional competence, integrity and above all liability to promote and recommend best practice, any deviation should bring benefit not detriment.
BS 5499 Part 4 2000 for Escape Route Signs, ISO 7010 is the best possible solution.