Author Topic: Protected Routes and Travel Distances  (Read 57372 times)

Offline Fishy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2005, 12:47:29 PM »
Quote from: Firewolf
I think its fair to state that since the 1970's fire safety has generally improved within the workplace and  this has lead to a significant reduction in workplace related fire fatalities. Why is that? I can only think that its down to fire safety legislation, some of which was overbearing and perhaps too onerous in certain areas...

But then again one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure. Whilst we need to risk assess buildings and ensure we don't go over the top by putting in uneccessary provision,we also need to ask that fundemental question that keeps cropping up "If it came to it could I convince a judge that I did everything possible to prevent injury or death from fire in my workplace"...This goes back to the original question I asked - We are again highlighting that different people interpret guidance and fire safety provision in different ways. Who is right? Who decides? Answer: Probably a Judge, someone who doesn't know much about fire safety. To whom or what therefore does the Judge refer to in order to make his decision? An expert and probably written guidance I suggest.

'Safety at all costs' is not really a supportable position.  Society doesn't wish to (and shouldn't) pay for fire casualties to be reduced to zero - so this cannot be the aim for industry, designers or the enforcement authorities.  "one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure" are fine words, but is practically insupportable; as with all risks, there is a balance that must be struck.

Offline Big A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #76 on: November 11, 2005, 12:53:49 PM »
Exactly so. We'd need to have a fire engine parked in every street in the country otherwise.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #77 on: November 11, 2005, 12:57:42 PM »
Are now there is the rub.

To adequately protect myself from Mr Branson's balloon I would need quite a significant structure over my head (his high altitude balloon has a large and heavy capsule hanging from it).

But given that he only crashes about once every couple of years and is unlikely to hit my house I have decided not to worry about it.

Offline Firewolf

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #78 on: November 11, 2005, 02:20:35 PM »
Quote from: Fishy
Quote from: Firewolf
I think its fair to state that since the 1970's fire safety has generally improved within the workplace and  this has lead to a significant reduction in workplace related fire fatalities. Why is that? I can only think that its down to fire safety legislation, some of which was overbearing and perhaps too onerous in certain areas...

But then again one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure. Whilst we need to risk assess buildings and ensure we don't go over the top by putting in uneccessary provision,we also need to ask that fundemental question that keeps cropping up "If it came to it could I convince a judge that I did everything possible to prevent injury or death from fire in my workplace"...This goes back to the original question I asked - We are again highlighting that different people interpret guidance and fire safety provision in different ways. Who is right? Who decides? Answer: Probably a Judge, someone who doesn't know much about fire safety. To whom or what therefore does the Judge refer to in order to make his decision? An expert and probably written guidance I suggest.

'Safety at all costs' is not really a supportable position.  Society doesn't wish to (and shouldn't) pay for fire casualties to be reduced to zero - so this cannot be the aim for industry, designers or the enforcement authorities.  "one fire death a year to me is an unacceptable figure" are fine words, but is practically insupportable; as with all risks, there is a balance that must be struck.


Yep fair point - you are right it would be impossible to achieve zero fire deaths, but i was really trying to get across that maybe the old prescriptive law helped to significantly drive down fire related deaths in the workplace.

Time will tell I guess as to whether Risk assessment will sustain the trend, make it better or make it worse. I remain open minded.
BE ALERT BE VIGILANT BE SAFE  (c)

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #79 on: November 11, 2005, 07:37:12 PM »
so we aspire to a position that allows people to die in fires?

which people dont we care enough about then? any type in particular!

people die in fires. people will always die in fires. therefore we accept that and do away with all fire safety measures, after all if we are prepared to allow 500 per year why not 501, or even 5001 ?

where do we draw the line then? how about we also do away with all h&s measures introduced to protect the community starting with seat belts?

the govt has clearly implemented a policy to reduce deaths by smoking but recognise that it cant be achieved overnight and might take fifty years of increased taxes and 'banning orders' - it could do the same with fire deaths if it really wanted, so a fire death became so socially unacceptable that a fire death would be such a rare occurence it would be met with shock horror john prescott ate my hamster type headlines (apologies to mr p) - has the govt ever stated an acceptable number of deaths caused by smoking or drink driving or do they keep trying to drive them both down!

oi, who keeps moving my soapbox, i havent finished yet!! (but i think you get the message)

dave bev

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #80 on: November 12, 2005, 11:40:18 AM »
Colin wrote – “Ouch well Jas, not a lot of harm in protecting the nice operational chappies. Wee B and I like them. It’s the old guard fire prevention officers we don't like.”  

Well I am one of that old guard and proud of it, we reduced fire deaths in non-domestic premises to very low levels and made a start in reducing them in domestic properties. It was expensive but we achieved our aims, will you, assuming they are also to save lives.
 
The new legislation will reduce costs for the public sector but the costs in the private sector will increase or will the fire protection they provide be reduced to limit their costs and as the military would say accept collateral damage (increased fire fatalities) which some seem to be advocating.

Colin I accept your scenario about the emergency lighting but I applied those principals under the FP act the problem was we were accused by industry of being inconsistent what are they going to say when the new legislation comes into force?

As for enforcement we are going to follow the HSE line, reduce inspectors to the lowest levels and move from proactive to reactive policies with an increase in fire fatalities.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #81 on: November 12, 2005, 02:25:36 PM »
If you want total consistency (and many do) its no problem. You just go back to telling people that all the guides are hard and fast rules. Unfortunately, or fortunately, HMG is to move towards flexibility. If you want flexibility, you will not have consistency. That is a fact of life in a risk assessment regime. It is what we will have to live with, and the important thing is to accept it and deal with it. Unfortunately, it was some of the old guard fire prevention officers that got us into this mess, by reading the words instead of using common sense (probably beacuse of the way they were taught somewhere or other, wonder where). It led to the backlash we now see against prescription, which, actually, has its merits, but has now gone for good.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #82 on: November 12, 2005, 04:42:36 PM »
Colin I accept your comments fully, except the snide remark about Moreton.
But it was industry who was shouting about inconsistence not the old guard they were on a balancing act between applying the guides, word for word and flexibility if they were dogmatic they were accused of being inflexible, if they were flexible they were accused of being inconsistent, no win situation. Also fire prevention departments were in their infancy and were on a steep learning curve; prior to 1960,s they had only paid lip service to fire prevention.

On a personal matter were you around in the 1970,s as there was someone very similar to you, hogging the fire journals at that time.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #83 on: November 12, 2005, 06:39:02 PM »
Snide remark? Moi? Mistaken identity I assure you, guv. I began in fire safety in 1975. I will have done 30 years later this month. Philllllip will be organizing a party to present me with a clock in the mess at Moreton. i do not recall anyone as good looking and full of sex appeal as me hogging the journals. You are right as to where the complaints about inconsistence and inflexibility came from. What the complainants did not appreciate was that the concepts of flexibility and consistency are mutually exclusive to a degree. Alas, there were just too many reading and reiterating the words without a good understanding of the philosophy behind them. And though we clearly will not, and need not, agree on this point, even though we seem to be largely in agreement, a lot was due to the fact that they were trained not educated, in much the same way as graduates from fire engineering degrees are educated but not trained. The two things are different. The sad thing is that flexibility was growing in any case, and so prescription could possibly have remained with a new generation of more flexible guys applying it intelligently. But one still meets the people, and as I have said many times on these boards, now much more rarely, who can only read words. I gave an example on the boards just recently of a F&RS requiring emergency escape lighting in hotel bathrooms. Why? Because sure enough the BS and the AD call for EL in windowless toilets. So, the BS is about to be amended now to say that it does not mean en suite bathrooms in hotel bedrooms. But would such an amendment have been necessary if inflexible reading of words was not still alive and kicking and simply giving ammunition to those who want definitve guidance killed off.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline steve walker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Protected Routes and Travel Distances
« Reply #84 on: November 14, 2005, 12:18:30 PM »
Quote from: colin todd
If you want total consistency (and many do) its no problem. You just go back to telling people that all the guides are hard and fast rules. Unfortunately, or fortunately, HMG is to move towards flexibility. If you want flexibility, you will not have consistency. That is a fact of life in a risk assessment regime. It is what we will have to live with, and the important thing is to accept it and deal with it. Unfortunately, it was some of the old guard fire prevention officers that got us into this mess, by reading the words instead of using common sense (probably beacuse of the way they were taught somewhere or other, wonder where). It led to the backlash we now see against prescription, which, actually, has its merits, but has now gone for good.

Colin,

You do have a point here but I think that you can have consistency of approach. No two premises are exactly the same and there is usually more than one way to achieve a satisfactory result. But consistency is an important principle (especially with an enforcing authority) because it is fair and so that people (including IOs) know what to expect.

I know that there will be minor disagreements when splitting hairs about premises but I think there is a broad consensus.
The views expressed in this forum are personal and not necessarily those of my employer.