Safety signage

[billthefire]

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?

[jokar]

Either but do not mix them

[kurnal]

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.

[Jim Creak]

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Even ICEL have withdrawn Technical Support for the so called Euro-Sign and I still find it incredible that this debate continues.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!!!

[kurnal]

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.

[afterburner]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

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.

[Jim Creak]

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.

[AnthonyB]

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!

[Dinnertime Dave]

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

[AnthonyB]

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?

[Tom Sutton]

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?

[Jim Creak]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

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.

[Jim Creak]

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)