Luminous Tube Signs and the RRO

[messy]

Can anyone point out to me why the RR (FSO) goes into such depth on the subject of luminous tube signs in Article 37?

There's over a page of dreary text into this specific 'risk'. No other risk appears to warrant such attention in the remainder of the order other than being grouped together using generic terms such as 'dangerous substances'.

I am sure there must be some kind of history as to why high voltage tube signs are perceived to be such a risk to firefighters. Other risks regularly faced by FFs such as gas cylinders, are not afforded such a prominance in the order (ie mandatory signage etc), even though It could be argued, they pose a larger risk than luminous signs.

Any ideas?

[wee brian]

The main reason it gets picked up is because it was in other legislation that has now been consolidated into the Order. It got a specific mention then so it gets one now.

[jokar]

Strangely, because of this existing Legislation, FSO's are supposedly doing this now.  I have yet to meet one who knows anything about it but it will become a FRS responsibility on enactment.  The fact that they have to be told of every existing switch 21 days after the enactment date could be a heavy workload for support staff.  Don't forget though it doesn't apply to licensed premises for films.

[wee brian]

I suppose the key question is whether firefighters ever use them.