FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Community Fire Safety => Topic started by: Markbr on October 24, 2005, 11:55:29 PM
-
Hi everyone. I am trying to collect some information that I think can only come from the direct experience of firefighters. I have trawled through loads of stats without success.
The issue I am concered with is whether having closed doors saves lives or the converse that open doors cost lives.
The reason I am interested is that I am trying to provide evidence to ODPM that if there was a mechanism to ensure self closing doors close when a fire starts in a dwelling, lives would be saved.
Sprinkler system would probably be better but it looks like the BRE have ruled them out for dwellings on cost grounds. The cost of an electromagnetic system for a dwelling could be less that £150 when installed as part of the build process.
If I can demonstrate that 10 lives a year might be saved then I believe there is a financial case for ODPM to mandate that all HMO's and social housing are fitted with a domestic version of the electromagnetic door holding systems you see in commercial buildings that hold doors open but release when the smoke/fire alarm systems are triggered.
I must declare a vested interest in that I have been researching the problems of self closing doors being wedged open in the community and I believe that there are viable solutions out there, including an idea I have developed myself. In spite of my own interests, I genuinely believe that if high risk dwellings had automatically closing doors then lives would be saved.
Can I invite an open disussion of what evidence there is out there from incidents that closed doors save lives or open doors cost lives?
Many thanks, Mark
-
Mark you need to understand the sums. Building regs only affects new homes. There are about 22 million (ish) homes in the E&W and we build an extra 1% each year. So it will be a long time before sufficient numbers of homes are actually affected.
Read the Impact assesment in ODPMs consultation paper carefully before you make your play.
-
Thanks Brian, i presume you are referring the Part B consultation?
I agree the regs only affect new buidings and conversions. I guess if ODPM require a business case to pay back from day 1 then nothing would ever get passed. Any idea over what period they assess the viability of new measures? Persumably the debate on sprinklers must have had the same challenge?
Cheers, Mark
-
mark there has been some discussion over closing doors etc and advice given to householders - ncfsc may know more. alos if it saves one life a year its good by me, but to be honest i cant see the govt making any prescriptive requirements to save ten lives if they see the cost as disproportionate
dave bev
-
Unless its yours Davey, and then payment of all the camels in the deserts of Arabia, would be a price too small to pay.
-
Davey you may be right but the the proposed amendments to Part B do mandate an addtional smoke alrams to be fitted in the main bedroom. Furthermore look at all the mony ODPM spent investigating whether spinkelrs could be made mandatory in domestic houses. I think the debate is still running on HMO's and care homes.
I guess therefore either when it suits them or there is some sort of business case, ODPM have the menas to introduce new manadatory measures, or as is proposed for self closing doors, take them away.
-
Mark
Its all in the Impact assesment (for Part B) I think its usually judged over ten years.
That's ten years worth of buildings, ten years worth of costs, ten years worth of lives saved.
The added complication is that in year one you have one years worth of new buildings but in year two you get the benefits of year one and two but only the costs of year two etc.
-
Thanks Brian, that very useful information.
The trick though is in assessing just how many lives it could save and at the moment I am drawing a big blank. I really have no idea how to get to any figures, anecdotal or otherwise other than to ask in-service and retired firefighters for their opinions.
Any suggestions very gratefully recieved.
-
what is the 'main bedroom' ? the fbu will be including reference to this in their submission on the consultation document - good try , but no cigar!
dave bev
-
Sorry, Dave I have had a quick skim through the AD B amendments and I can't find a definition. Perhaps someone with sharper eyes may have spotted something?
Ar the FBU supporting the proposal to remove the requirement for self closing doors?
-
Its the largest bedroom.
-
thats the problem colin, the intention i understand is that the alarm would wake the 'parents' - however many single parents let their eldest have the largest bedroom or alllow more than one child to share it - so it may not achieve what it is hoped
mark - we will be making our comments available when we have finished them!
dave bev
-
Beverley Beverley has the largest bedroom in Beverley Towers???? Isnt that taking the commie equality thing too far?
-
it depends essential where the doors lead to and what is the purpose of such doors?
for means of escape, there is 2 situation to consider. for buildings with and without smoke free approach. tall buildings are equipped with smoke free approach generally becos of the stack effect.
prior to the implementation of such "smoke-free lobbies" there has been a nos of incidents where fire-fighters were killed, due to sudden gush of hot gases towards the fire-fighters when the doors are opened.
for lowrise buildings, smoke free approach are generally not needed. however, an interesting reseach by Prof Frantzich of Lund University on IKEA warehouse has shown that evacuees actually moves towards open doors as opposed to general approach of walking towards the same direction where they have entered. I believe G Proulx and Rita Fahy has made some reference in their technical papers as well.
-
Mark
The main problem with the fitting of auto closers...whatever type you install is that the owner will have a fire alarm system installed and working as the trigger to operate all/any devices.
I have found this not to be the case and the main sticking point.....come the day of the revolution and maybe all owners will be really nice fluffy bunnies...ah well we can but dream.
Residentila/domestic sprinklers fitted throughout all areas of the building is the only way forward. But with these we have problems with the costs of the adaption of the water supply from the mains in the street to the internal stopcock.
Davio1960
-
The ODPm research suggests that sprinklers are not a real substitute for protected routes.
-
The current issue regarding sprinklers in the domestic environment should be viewed with extreme sceptism. We already have the matter of securing the means of escape with the use of smoke detection. I cannot see a sprinkler system making a significant contribution to life protection when smoke detection can give a very high level.
I'm afraid that despite the Government spin on its perceived life saving capabilities, the provision of sprinklers is purely a matter of economics for the Government. The less fires there are involving life the less firefighters and fire stations are needed.
As the British Fire Service is being run down domestic property protection systems will be a good investment for the Government so that fire calls across the country can be stacked. If there is no life risk involved in the fire then the Fire Service will get around to you - eventually.
-
I'm afraid that despite the Government spin on its perceived life saving capabilities, the provision of sprinklers is purely a matter of economics for the Government. The less fires there are involving life the less firefighters and fire stations are needed.
.
Haven't you just contradicted yourself or is it just the way that I've read it?
-
Where do you see the contradiction?
-
Because if sprinklers do reduce the number and severity of fires then surely there is a reduced risk of people being injured by fire. Not, perhaps, in the room of origin but in other parts of the building.
-
Am I be obtuse but I thought the job of the Fire Service was to protect life and propertyand reduce losses, not to provide jobs for firefighters. If domestic sprinklers can hit and extinguish a fire at an early stage maybe before the fire has been detected, this will result in less overall damage, less risk to people in other parts of the property and an overall reduction in fire losses. Isn't this what we should be aiming at?
-
From my experience sprinkler systems will not neccessarily extinguish a fire but can help control it until arrival of the Fire Service.
Mike. I'm afraid that in order for a Fire Service to help protect of life and property you have to employ people. Any Fire Service can have the best equipment in the world at its disposal but it is completely useless without someone to operate it.
The point I make is that the Government wants to reduce the level of firefighters to save money. I have no doubt that in the future, unless there is a life risk involved in a fire, the standard of cover for property only fires will be severily reduced. After all most property will be insured and can easily be replaced.
-
Its always a risk/cost regime. I dont really think there is evidence to say that sprinklers dont work becuase they are now mandated in many countries like the US and Canada for many types of new builds of certain properties like hostels and nursing homes for some years and death and injury has dropped almost to zero in those buildings. But take aircraft safety. Im sure many lives a year could be saved if we all had to wear a 3 point seatbelts. Access to a drop down smoke hood with 2 mins of air supply for these aircraft ground fires to aid in escape through toxic smoke. Plus an airbag fitted to the seat in front of you for heavy landings and a parachute under your seat just in case:)
Ultimatly its money that dictates the level of safety and not the very best solution in every case. I have been to several meetings in the past with FRS BCO etc and we spend hours agreeing on a level of fire safety at a reasonable cost solution then in comes the building insures and demand a much higher level of fire detection otherwise they wont insure the building. They usually win bringing an L3 system to L2/P but no can argue becuase all the minimum standards have been met. You often find the "big guys" want more protection not less, its just not the attitude to go looking for the lowest cost solution based on the fact they are insured but they take into account reputation, loss of earnings, business disruption and prospect of huge increase on next years insurance. On the flip side the "little guy" wants to know what is the minimum he can get away with.
-
Its always a risk/cost regime. I dont really think there is evidence to say that sprinklers dont work becuase they are now mandated in many countries like the US and Canada for many types of new builds of certain properties like hostels and nursing homes for some years and death and injury has dropped almost to zero in those buildings. But take aircraft safety. Im sure many lives a year could be saved if we all had to wear a 3 point seatbelts. Access to a drop down smoke hood with 2 mins of air supply for these aircraft ground fires to aid in escape through toxic smoke. Plus an airbag fitted to the seat in front of you for heavy landings and a parachute under your seat just in case:)
Ultimatly its money that dictates the level of safety and not the very best solution in every case. I have been to several meetings in the past with FRS BCO etc and we spend hours agreeing on a level of fire safety at a reasonable cost solution then in comes the building insures and demand a much higher level of fire detection otherwise they wont insure the building. They usually win bringing an L3 system to L2/P but no can argue becuase all the minimum standards have been met. You often find the "big guys" want more protection not less, its just not the attitude to go looking for the lowest cost solution based on the fact they are insured but they take into account reputation, loss of earnings, business disruption and prospect of huge increase on next years insurance. On the flip side the "little guy" wants to know what is the minimum he can get away with.
A quick cost/benefit analysis would suggest that proportionately more lives would be saved by restricting car speeds to the maximum limit of 70 MPH! We now deal with more serious RTCs than house fires.
There must be a "tipping point" where the benefits of domestic sprinkler systems or self closing doors would be outweighed by the opportunity cost of more practical measures of saving lives. In my day job I survey houses and can state categorically that almost 90% of homes I inspect (other that new houses or Public Sector Right to Buys) have inadequate smoke detection. Surely we should concentrate on improving this state of affairs before worrying about more costly alternatives. CFS : the way ahead!
-
Absolutely. The other issue with sprinklers is that they can't cut you out of a crushed car!
-
Hi everyone. I am trying to collect some information that I think can only come from the direct experience of firefighters. I have trawled through loads of stats without success.
The issue I am concered with is whether having closed doors saves lives or the converse that open doors cost lives.
The reason I am interested is that I am trying to provide evidence to ODPM that if there was a mechanism to ensure self closing doors close when a fire starts in a dwelling, lives would be saved.
Sprinkler system would probably be better but it looks like the BRE have ruled them out for dwellings on cost grounds. The cost of an electromagnetic system for a dwelling could be less that £150 when installed as part of the build process.
If I can demonstrate that 10 lives a year might be saved then I believe there is a financial case for ODPM to mandate that all HMO's and social housing are fitted with a domestic version of the electromagnetic door holding systems you see in commercial buildings that hold doors open but release when the smoke/fire alarm systems are triggered.
I must declare a vested interest in that I have been researching the problems of self closing doors being wedged open in the community and I believe that there are viable solutions out there, including an idea I have developed myself. In spite of my own interests, I genuinely believe that if high risk dwellings had automatically closing doors then lives would be saved.
Can I invite an open disussion of what evidence there is out there from incidents that closed doors save lives or open doors cost lives?
Many thanks, Mark
Mark. Good luck with your research and yes it is a good idea. Unfortunately there are more people killed every year choking on peanuts but the shops are still allowed to sell them.
The government cares not one iota about 10 persons or even 100 persons unless there was some political mileage to be gained from it.
Sorry to be so negative but thats life.