FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Alan Owen on March 05, 2005, 06:55:05 AM
-
We have been advised by our fire safety consultancy that we should consider changing all our signs as the do not conform to the new standards. Is this correct?
-
alan - there are numerous other postings on this - i assume they havent been deleted?
-
What signs do you have
-
The signs we have are symbolic signs but have no text and do not illuminate in a power failure. We have been told that all signs must work under power failure and that our evacuation signs are incomplete and are not understood.
-
They don't have a Jalite concession do they? Or sell escape lighting?Who were they? Text only signs are not allowed, but ones without it are.
The supplementary test is recommended, but not required. I would guess that being textless they are the EC "man-arrow-fridge" ones that are not as good as the BS5499 "man in doorway" ones, but perfectly acceptable as long as you don't mix designs.
Utter rubbish about the self luminating bit - if your risk assessment suggests there will be a visibility problem then you should have escape lighting, which if to BS5266 will sufficiently light up the signs as well as the exit route.
go on, name them....pinches of salt required with their report as it could cost silly money better spent on other precautions (or not spent at all)
-
The stark reality is that yes the British and International Standards have changed in 2004 with the publication of ISO 7010 and BS 5499 part 5 These Standards for the very first time Standardises the graphical symbol for escape... There is no more debate Internationally, European or dear old UK.
We are in the era of risk assessment and all graphical symbols are now required to be tested to ISO 9186 for comprehension and British Standard does require supplementary text to ensure the meaning is understood. Incidentally a requirement under the Heath and safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations. This is to ensure there is no RISK of misunderstanding. It would be a very brave consultant that would overlook this requirement or professional suicide to make up your own rules.
The law requires all signs to maintain their intrinsic feature in the event of power loss emergency including alarms thats why BS 5839 was changed it is therefore a requirement to ensure that all signs are illuminated by the emergency lighting or at least the provision of photoluminescent signs of adequate intensity tested and certificated to ISO 15370 could be deemed appropriate to satisfy the law.
I applaud the consultant for telling this client the truth.. it is the same with the improvements now required under BS 5839 The whole point of new standards is continual improvement which is also a requirement of the new Health and safety Legislation
-
Well now I am confused....how can such a simple subject become some complicated?
Are we to insist on changing all signs every few years?
This is nothing to do with enforcers who still haven't got to grips, (understandably so) with Euro signs, BS signs, graphical colours, use of sign standards, ISO standards, H & S Regs, photoluminescence, wayfinding and any other bl~~dy standard. Every supermarket just ignore it and covers them up with BOGOF signs anyway.
I know Jim Creak is knowledgeable on this subject, but the RRO is a complexity virgin compared with signage and lighting. Nothing brings fire safety into more disrepute than this over engineering.
-
AnthonyB you were probably right about the Jalite concession, J. Creak is the MD of Jalite isn't he !!!
Alan, I am sure you have far more issues to worry about ie training etc, if all the exit routes are clearly indicated with pictogram signs and during your fire drills everyone evacuates safely I wouldn't worry yourself.
-
Well, I am also confused. Why do Mr Creak's and Antonys opinions seem to differ on this?
I really feel sorry for the man on the street if us lot can't agree on this.
Can someone post an idiots guide on this for all us confused people?
-
The intrinsic minimum requirements of safety signs as required by H&S(SS&S)Regs is here:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19960341_en_2.htm
Note that the law still permits similar but different pictograms (& still gives the original EC directive pictograms as examples)
A British Standard is not law, it's a good way of demonstrating compliance, but not the only way.
Risk Assessment is the key - yes the signage recommendations have improved, but the risks present allow you to decide whether your legal but slightly different to current BS signs need ripping out en-mass now or can wait until a refurb.
Incidentally if they are so illegal why aren't there prosecutions for using EC symbol exit boxes, text less BS picto's and arrows, and why haven't they been withdrawn from sale?
I detest the EC picto & like supplementary text and also use BS5499, resulting in several large sign improvement projects in the last few months, but I'm being paid to assess risk and not be over prescriptive and have equally saved clients money by preventing them wastin thousands on sign changes from other consultants spouting nonsense and instead got them to use that money on more important things like repairing & upgrading fire doors & closers, modernising fire warning systems to current BS, etc so they can know about the fire & still have tenable exit routes which they can safely use to follow the signs along (be they man arrow fridge or man in doorway)
-
I think it is important to recognise that the Standards were written because there was so much confusion. If you wish to castigate me for being knowledgeable and the MD of Jalite who incidently consigned £65.000 worth of stock to the skip because of the change from Capital letter text to sentence text then so be it. However even this technical change was considered to be necessary because research had shown this to be easier for partial illiterate, dyslexias and learning difficulty diabilities to comprehend and required under the DDA as well as the Health and safety (Safety Sign and Signals ) Regulations.
I agree entirely that priorities have to be set in the process of compliance and significant risk..
If you can substantiate your opinion and to totally disregard best practice then I hope your professional liability insurance can cope.
If you can substantiate against proven research that vital information which you already concede is not clearly understood can remain and should not be replaced in accordance with best practice that is your decision?
I think in the original comment the consultant concerned asked the client to consider changing I think he or she was right...regardless of the fact that I get paid for manufacturing fire safety products 50% of which are exported. 50% of which are for aircraft, ships, trains or high risk oil exploration installations where we get recognition for our expertise on wayguidance and evacuation route marking.
I find it disturbing that I have to defend my position in this way and a somewhat ironic situation as I would have thought that all contributors in someway derive income from Fire Safety I go along with you Chris if we start tearing one another apart the common good will never prevail.
If the fire safety profession had conformed to the correct standard in the first place this total confusion could have been avoided....If you all continue to ignore it, make up your own mind, allow the indefensible to prevail unchallenged... Its simple... signs are a language if we all talk a different one we will get confused.. If thats what you want thats what you will get.
-
Not meaning to get personal and certainly not tearing you apart, I take your points, but hey, £65,000 worth of signs to the skip doesn't seem that knowledgeable.
Do you have some examples of legal action being taken against a consultant and them having to use a their liability insurance as you imply.
I appreciate you may be a specialist in your field but when you look around at buildings and general standards of fire safety management, if euro or bs signs, old or new, are in place and the exit routes are clearly indicated who really cares.
Yes, with a new building the BS and best practice is obviously the best route but other than that, there is a risk of mixing formats of signs therefore more confusion in the work place and more costs to business who have enough H&S issues to address. No wonder we get fed up with all the changes.
I think the other issue is that many consultants these days actually work with companies that sell signs so recommendations become financially based.
-
I am sorry but conformance to standards is not discretionary .. you either conform or you do not.
I'm afraid this then becomes personal and in fact it is you that does not care.
It is your personal point of view that you can chose what if any standards you are going to work to and obviously you have every right to have an opinion and you have every right to work to your own assumptions and to your own expertise and if you are being as you put it general not specific and if it sort of looks ok then in your mind it is. That does not mean it is OK it is wrong and does not conform to a recognised professional standard.
This issue about recommendations being financially based is an absolute fact of life. I don't know anyone that works for nothing. I dont want to put words in your mouth but I think you are actually questioning the integrity of other consultants.. I find that disturbing.
-
Referee! Debate is healthy, I hope we can avoid getting personal. Remember this is a public forum.
Do we all agree on this:
We operate in a risk assessment environment, so there is no legal requirement to comply with the standards, just the Signs and Signals Act.
The Act uses the older EU signs as an example.
British Standards are "recommendations" not "requirements".
If a consultant has an interest or connection with any supplier they should discolse this to the client and let the client make up their own mind regarding consultant's ability to advise imparitally.
-
The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations says that you do not need a single sign however if you determine by risk assessment that a sign or signs are required it then requires that the signs that are used are understood.......Test is ISO 9186 results are known...graphical symbols are standardised........Best practice is published. Staff can be trained in accordance with the law because meanings are known. Compliance can be deemed and proved. Using signs that by poor design are not understood is an offence.
Euro Sign failed miserably to be understood .......Fire professionals cannot hide and say they are not aware of this. Blame the illustrations if you want to.. There are 5 different ones illustrated without meaning understanding or clue with regard to appropriate use. The simple fact is that they cannot do the job because ordinary folk do not know what they mean and it has been us the profession that has had a stab at making sense of them. All I am saying is that if we are all making up our own rules on signalling it is not surprising that they are not understood.
True legislation is non prescriptive and we can find engineering solutions but you cannot recommend any system that does not work, discriminates or is a major risk in itself. For excellence in communication you must have a single standardised protocol.
What other British Standards do you totally disregard?? The advice given was sound and cannot be criticised.
-
I thankyou for your long debate and in the end I contacted our consultants and asked for further explanation. I was shown the respective parts of BS 5499, the employers guide to fire precautions and the Signs law.
There is no argument our consultant is correct. I am amazed that with the exception of Jim Creak that you did not know this!! What sort of consultants are you? Do you all make it up as you go along?
-
yeah but, no but, yeah but no but, well you see, she said that it was but no but it isnt cos you see blah blah blah
almost an interesting discussion - mr owen - welcome to the world of opinion, where the test of 'reasonableness' (is that a word?) allows for a variety of solutions - so long as they are risk assessed. then it becomes a case of whether the process used and the conclusions would be able to support a justifiable defence (potentialy in a legal setting - though i certainly hope not) - i am also extremely pleased that you were able to fully understand the respective parts of bs 5499 (who told you that they were the correct respective parts?), the employers guide to fire precautions and the signs law within such a short period of time.
as for consultancy - what sort of consultants would run their business on a public forum - i would suggest it may have financial implications on their business if they did (all right i know there are other bits such as validity of answers and legal considertaions/insurance aspects to the giving of consultancy advice)
as for anyone producing and selling signs - i would expect them to know the legal requirements inside and out and therefore their answers should be considered as pretty accurate - though again i would always ask - what is opinion and what is legally required (which is different than what in their opinion is legally required!) and in what ways can that legal requirement be met (which unforunately leads back into opinion!)
in short i think youve found the 'in my opinion' part of fire safety as frustrating as those within the industry have for many years!
dave bev (who doesnt have an opinion on signs cos he doesnt know, though he does like to learn stuff!)
-
Thankyou dave I think I understand..but then I'm a mere nominated person trying to make sense of it all....It would seem that you lot are a closed shop with your own agenda and politics and your own opinions based on a bunch of misinformation.
I cannot understand why you all chose to ignore British standards..what motive can there be for not considering a change to what is described as best practice.
The question I asked was so simple I just wanted to know if the advice was correct!!
Incidently I have now asked if our consultancy can supply the signs they have informed me that they do not supply any fire safety products but recommended I go to the FPA who do.
-
Alan,
I don't think there is any debate as to what is the best practise and latest guidance, the problems stem from clients who have limited budgets. Ones who have perhaps recently installed signs which are very similar to the newer ones and who might have to choose where their funds are best spent.
It would be easy to tell everyone to upgade to the 2004 versions, but for come businesses, they need to prioritise resources and this is where the the principle of "risk assessment" is needed.
It is great to hear that you are willing and able to upgade all your signs, some clients might have felt that changing was a bit onerous given that British Standards are recommendations.
-
Thank you for that explanation ..But what I have found out is that Signs were required to be changed in 1996 not a few months ago as this forum led me to believe.
I telephoned the BSi at Chiswich who informed me that guidance on escape route signs and design standards were actually published in 2000 some 4 years ago.
The next question I have to ask is why are manufacturers not manufacturing to the Standard?
I have now been to our estates department to get the latest sign catalogues 2005 Signs and Labels to find that this major company in this business purport to conform to Standards but quite clearly do not. This cannot be right.
If you as fire safety professionals disregard the standard it is not surprising that these companies do not care either. What a can of worms!!
-
cans of worms indeed!
british standards - seen some of them in my time - many bs are in fact standards to help the manufacturers compete on a level playing field and so that us mere mortals can consider them against a set or known criteria!
ps i wouldnt expect to have all your questions answered - i think theres a bs on this aswell LOL
-
I thankyou for your long debate and in the end I contacted our consultants and asked for further explanation. I was shown the respective parts of BS 5499, the employers guide to fire precautions and the Signs law.
There is no argument our consultant is correct. I am amazed that with the exception of Jim Creak that you did not know this!! What sort of consultants are you? Do you all make it up as you go along?
Pity you didn't ask them in the first place. Looking at your email address it looks like your a fireprofessional yourself. Make it up as you go along !!! Interesting debate but come on, when was the last prosecution for the use of bs or euro signs ?
I am sure Jim will find your comment disturbing, "questioning the integrity of other consultants"
I am sorry but this forum is used for useful debate, most of the time, it's a pity it's wasted on people looking for the easy option and can't be bothered to look up the facts for themselves . I am sure most fire safety professionals do not disregard the standards it is just that they have knowledge and a common sense approach to fire safety.
LOL
-
Thank you for that explanation ..But what I have found out is that Signs were required to be changed in 1996 not a few months ago as this forum led me to believe.
I telephoned the BSi at Chiswich who informed me that guidance on escape route signs and design standards were actually published in 2000 some 4 years ago.
The next question I have to ask is why are manufacturers not manufacturing to the Standard?
I have now been to our estates department to get the latest sign catalogues 2005 Signs and Labels to find that this major company in this business purport to conform to Standards but quite clearly do not. This cannot be right.
If you as fire safety professionals disregard the standard it is not surprising that these companies do not care either. What a can of worms!!
Dear Mr Owen,
I notice that your last message was posted from the same IP address that Mr Creak has also used. Are you two friends?
-
I have been asked to substantiate Mr Owens queries and yes I have on Mr Owens behalf passed on the information to this Forum. Unfortunately I am known for being a party bore on this subject and I get phone calls every day asking for clarification it is not surprising that I would help in this manner.
-
What a discussion! As a consultant myself I have a lot of sympathy for the consultant giving the initial advice. I meet lots of Allan Owens, some (although very few) will want to do everything absolutely by the book and have the funds available but most want to find a way of conforming without having to beg the financial director for the budget required. Finding this balance is key to the consultants job and where the risk assessment comes in.
Faced with a similar situation I would always advise that a uniform and consistent series of signs is required throughout the site. This is key BUT there is also a requirement for employers to ensure that all staff understand the meaning and use of signs. It must be demonstrated that all people who may be in the building including visitors would understand the meaning of the signs and the action to be taken. As there is no definition given of other signs I would always recommend that BS signs are used as there is a definitive meaning written down in the standard which can be used to train all people. However if the Allan Owen is sure that everybody understands the signs that are currently being used then there is no need to change.
-
Can somebody just remind me what the question is? I always enjoy a good arguement, but I am afraid I have lost the plot on this rambling thread. What precisely are we arguing about???????
-
OK heres a similar question for you. If you were drafting guidance on Risk Assessment. Would you recomoned, man chasing fridge signs or BS signs?
-
BS/ISO symbol, arrow and supplementary text over the fridge. Thats what signs we put pictures of in reports
-
Normally BS signs wee B, but if they used the fridge I would not give a """""""""". Worrying about trivia is not what fire safety is about.
-
I couldnt agree more but when your writing guidance its the trivia that causes all the problems.
-
Very rambling but it appears to me a basic question, When a new BS or Standard is published do we have to scrape what we have in place today and start again, simple answer no, unless it's a retrospective law, signage is a small but important part of the whole safety system, and while it’s clearly profitable business practice to recommend replace, are the people who make such recommendation practicing what they preach, i.e. have you removed your fire detection and alarm system and replaced it with a full complaint BS 5839 2002 system, have you demolished and rebuilt the parts of your buildings that don't comply with the current building regulations, clearly not, should you replace your signs because they are not the most current version No.
Building which are new or refurbished clearly should meet the standard in force at the time of the work.
-
Excellent post. Well said! :)
-
i say 'out with the new and in with the old'
dave bev