Safety signage

[The Reiver]

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Even ICEL have withdrawn Technical Support for the so called Euro-Sign and I still find it incredible that this debate continues.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

Jim, please don't find the fact that the debate continues too incredible. It does !!
And it will continue until those that legislate come out into the real world.

Part of my job is installing signage. I would simply love the stuff to be 5499 but in the majority of cases it ain't gonna happen.
We arrive at a new install.
We see what the sparkies have fitted or are fitting (Emergency Lighting).
We follow the Signs and Signals Regs (do not mix types).
We then put the matching type up. Because 100% of the time this is the "Euro" graphic as all E/L light box manufacturers use it.

It would be pure fantasy to suggest that we should stand our ground and demand that the E/L's already fitted at a new premises be changed to 5499 graphic plates because we will only fit BS kit. We would get laughed out of the door.

I would suggest that the rocket science bit should come from the technical commitee sitters (BSI, HSE etc. etc.) as too banning the "Euro" graphic once and for all.
They managed to assert themselves a few years ago and demand that graphic symbols accompany all text. Maybe they should now peek out from behind the commitee room door and look at what they achieved.....UTTER CONFUSION !!!
If they won't, then may I suggest that it is they who are "negligent" and are "playing pictionary" with peoples lives, not the signage installers (proffesional or otherwise) who are following the existing legislation correctly.

[Jim Creak]

This is a point of view that I can understand that in order to have an easy life it is much easier to justify some thing that is wrong and your position by blaming someone else or who ever you like. The simple fact is that you now know that it is not best practice. If your professional integrity allows compromise for an easy life I cannot answer that.

All I can do is give you the facts, If you chose to ignor it and justify and defend the indefencible that is your perogative. I would always recommend the very best solution where fire safety is concerned, that best solution was the British Standard which you now chose to ignor. What guidance do you follow for installation?

[John Webb]

Jim,
It seems that a number of people have not followed the 'Best Practice' long before our friend The Reiver turns up on site:
The architect/designer of the building
The building owner
The E/L trade
The sparkies.

Faced with that lot having done their worst before you get there, I think I'd be inclined to take the pragmatic approach as well! But perhaps point out in writing that the BS should have been followed?

[The Reiver]

This is a point of view that I can understand that in order to have an easy life it is much easier to justify some thing that is wrong and your position by blaming someone else or who ever you like. The simple fact is that you now know that it is not best practice. If your professional integrity allows compromise for an easy life I cannot answer that.

All I can do is give you the facts, If you chose to ignor it and justify and defend the indefencible that is your perogative. I would always recommend the very best solution where fire safety is concerned, that best solution was the British Standard which you now chose to ignor. What guidance do you follow for installation?

Dear Mr Creak,
Before posting this I read and re-read my previous post, just to see if any part of it was a personal insult aimed at your good self. I was even going to post an unreserved apology for upsetting you.
However, I could find nothing in my post that would warrant such a personal attack on my integrity - profesional or otherwise -.
In fact I underlined your previous postings in stating that BS 5499 escape signage would be my prefered option. but in sites that have already been fitted out with "Euro" graphic emergency lighting, it is just not practicable.
I am at a loss to see how any part of my post deserved such a response.
Within two paragraphs you have insinuated that I am idle, incompetent and not fit to carry out the job of specifying and installing escape signage.

However, because I have the unfair advantage of knowing of you and your company and its working practices and also knowing that if I were to respond in kind things would get ugly, I will not rise to your obvious baiting.............however tempting.

I will however - as you have done - deal in facts. These may be harsh facts to you and your ilk, and to avert further insults, I take no side in them. But they are facts.

1. The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 341)
Is THE LAW OF THE LAND.
This regulation was one of the few to survive (without amendment) the recent Fire Reform Order
Section 3.4 of said regulations shows pictograms of the accepted escape route signage as from 1st April 1996.
These pictograms are the "Euro" graphic. The Regulations do not show the BS version.

2. The HSE web site advice document on safety signage:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg184.htm

states that both types are "ACCEPTABLE".
Please note (as these things do not occur by accident) that written below the "Euro" graphic is the term:
"Typical Sign In Regulations" as opposed to "Typical BS5499 Sign"

3. The HSE publication - Safety Signs & Signals (Guidance To The Regulations) states that the "Euro" graphic is now the accepted sign (page 5).
But (section 92 page 23) states: "Fire safety signs containing symbols or pictograms which conform to the requirements of BS 5499 will meet the requirements in the new Regulations, provided they continue to fulfil their purpose effectively".

4. The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 341) almost word for word, adheres to the EC Safety Signs Directive (92/58/EEC) which is where the "Euro" graphic originates from.
This Directive is EUROPEAN LAW
 
5. British Standard 5499 (or any other british standard for that matter) is a "Code Of Practice" put together by a profit making organisation, split into comittees of "Interested Parties".

6. In no section of any British Standard will you find the term: "This Standard Now Supercedes The Law Of Great Britain And Europe". However, you will find that some UK laws take on board British Standard "Codes Of Practice" as the best course to follow. But not in the case of The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 (SI No. 341). BS is not mentioned anywhere as "Best Practice".

What guidance do you follow for installation?

I follow the laws of Europe and the UK. I do not do this for an easy life. I do this to keep my professional integrity honest and in tact. I do not follow the recommendations of speculative best practice from those who have ignored the law of the UK, nor do I judge obeying the law as defending the indefencable.

Rather than facts, this is now my opinion:

By publishing standards, or part of a standard, that intentionally contravenes European and UK Law (even something as small and insignificant as a graphic). The BSI and those that sit on its' committees have directly caused the confusion which was mentioned at the start of this post. For their own gain, be it national pride or otherwise, they have refused to take on board the legally accepted graphics as laid down in the Regulations in 1996.

By sitting on the fence and saying that both signs are OK. The HSE is also culpable for the confusion. However I do like their "Get Out Clause":

"Fire safety signs containing symbols or pictograms which conform to the requirements of BS 5499 will meet the requirements in the new Regulations, provided they continue to fulfil their purpose effectively".

Which surely means that if we now have confusion (which we do) then the BS sign no longer fulfils its' purpose effectively and should therefore be replaced with the legally accepted graphic.

As I said previously, I prefer the design of the BS sign. But I would much more prefer just the one design only in the UK, whatever it may be.

[The Reiver]

Jim,
It seems that a number of people have not followed the 'Best Practice' long before our friend The Reiver turns up on site:
The architect/designer of the building
The building owner
The E/L trade
The sparkies.

Faced with that lot having done their worst before you get there, I think I'd be inclined to take the pragmatic approach as well! But perhaps point out in writing that the BS should have been followed?

Jeez, I'm geeting it from all angles.

Again it is insinuated that I do not follow "Best Practice" and I have "Done My Worst". and now to make things worse I've been lumped in with sparkies and architects..........Nooooooooooo!!! :0
Did I attend HSE Signs and Signals courses and get my company ISO / UKAS registered to be ranked alongside such people..............My life is now over.

I do like the written report suggestion though

I wonder if any "Best Practice Experts" would have the bottle to put their names to the defect report of a site risk assessment (remembering that it may be used legally etc) stating why the "Euro" graphic is not best practice for use on UK sites when it is clearly shown as being best practice in government legislation.
Oh, and don't forget to list qualifications to make such an assessment along side the name.
If the qualifications are "MD Of Company That Makes Only BS Signs" or "Buyer From A Company That Makes Only BS Signs And Fell For The Spiel" Then I'm afraid I can't pay the going consultation rates............Maybe a retainer though

[kurnal]

Keep shooting reiver I will have my guns reloaded and join you again soon up on the parapet....if you survive....

[Jim Creak]

I suggest you read my posting again.... I said I understand your point of view. I said it is much easier to blame it on some one else, Europe, Electrician or whoever.... I said you may wish to compromise, I said I can understand all of those things. I did not attack you personally or professionally. If you interpret it that way I apologise unreservedly.

However the facts remain the same there is no Euro Standard, there is no guidance on how to fit Euro Signs, there is no excuse for accepting signs that cannot be understood and therefore unacceptable, you mentioned you installed signs what guidance do you follow?

There are 5 Different escape route signs in the EC Directive and I asked the question which one is OK to use? If you follow the European UK Law which one do you use and why? Do you always use the This Way arrow as shown in HSE guidance.?

[jokar]

Sometimes being an expert clouds the way we deal in the real world.  As I understand it, we have to obey the law of the land, should follow Approved Codes of Practice and follow Guidance unless we decide there is a better way of doing something.  I understand the frustration of all about the inadequacies of where we are at this minute but attacks whether personnel or from a degree of frustration do no one any good.  I for one attempt some humour in places, define things I know in others and learn a lot from posts on this site, knowing that I have better knowledge than some less than others and am interested in all things to do with fire safety.  The explanations of things such as BS 5499, given by a expert are rare to get and truly informative but consultants and enforcers alike, as well as installers and others who have an interest have to deal in the world as it is with all its frustrations.

[John Webb]

Dear Reiver,

I was, I thought, giving you support in your approach - that's what I meant to do; sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
I too don't particularly like the Euro symbols but it seems in the cause of 'free trade' we are lumbered with them, alas.

[Jim Creak]

The best technical solution for escape route signs is to conform to BS 5499 Part 4 2000, the forward to the Standard deals with the choice of graphical symbol, this was the case in 1990 when the Standard was first published and again when it was revised. This was after the Health and Safety(Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations reached the statute books so conformance to this Standard is deemed to satisfy the law.

Accepting that there is a choice, the argument is therefore which one. My argument is that the decision has to be made as a function of a formal risk assessment as with all fire safety arrangements are specified in accordance with the requirements of the RRO.

The overwhelming technical evidence is that the so called Euro Signs...all 5 of them are not clearly understood when tested had comprehension credentials less than 50%.  BS 5499 Escape Route Signs achieved comprehension credentials of 100% when tested in accordance with ISO 9186.

It is not about personal preference, it is about the correct technical solution.

[Davo]

Mr Creak

Since 2000, hundreds of thousands of Poles, Czechs etc have come to work over here.
Would they even know the BS?
Was the BS/Euro comprehension tests carried out on a mixed ethnicity group?
After all, we changed the lettering to sentence to assist certain types of dyslexia sufferers
BS parts 4 and 5 has white man and green man depending on whether a sign is illuminated internally or externally, so why do most sign companies sell photoluminescent signs with green men?

Davo

[The Reiver]

Dear Reiver,

I was, I thought, giving you support in your approach - that's what I meant to do; sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
I too don't particularly like the Euro symbols but it seems in the cause of 'free trade' we are lumbered with them, alas.

No worries John,
I took it without offence, that's why the smilies were there.

If your professional integrity allows compromise for an easy life I cannot answer that.

That was the bit that riled me.

I did not attack you personally or professionally. If you interpret it that way I apologise unreservedly.

Yes I did interpret it that way. However, I accept your apology now and without any future grudges. And I also sympathise - to some extent -  with your stand point.



And in time honoured forum / board tradition (when the last post has moved "off topic") I will finish with Davos' post in case it looks like I've blocked it out.

Mr Creak

Since 2000, hundreds of thousands of Poles, Czechs etc have come to work over here.
Would they even know the BS?
Was the BS/Euro comprehension tests carried out on a mixed ethnicity group?
After all, we changed the lettering to sentence to assist certain types of dyslexia sufferers
BS parts 4 and 5 has white man and green man depending on whether a sign is illuminated internally or externally, so why do most sign companies sell photoluminescent signs with green men?

Davo

[Jim Creak]

Photoluminescent signs are not internally illuminated signs, therefore the prefered graphical symbol is positive (green man) not negative. Photoluminescent signs are externally illuminated signs and are energised by all ambient light fluorescent, incandescent and daylight above 5 lux.

As far as comprehension testing was concerned, testing was done Internationally under International Standard 9186  and would certainly have considered the needs of all nations not just Europe another reason to use BS 5499, ISO 7010 Graphical Symbol for Escape Route Identification, Location and directional guidance.

[The Reiver]

Jim,
Just to answer one of your questions and to raise a few more points.

When specifying BS escape signage I follow BS 5499 pt 4:2000 as a Code Of Practice.

When "euro" escape signage is the only option then I still follow part 4 as a guidline apart from the time honoured tradition of the final fire exit directional. But to throw a bigger spanner into the works, I always use the "hybrid euro" (+ text).

I follow 5499 pt 4, even though personally I think it is intrinsically flawed, but that could be down to my IMO / SOLAS upbringing.
I have never been able to understand why at sea and on offshore installations, smoke from a fire has been seen to rise. And therefore low level evacuation signage is required in enclosed spaces and compartmented corridors. Because at sea it is understood that rising smoke billowing into an enclosed space will obscure evacuation signage visibility at high level.
Evacuation training requires you to get down low - on all fours if necessary - to escape. Hence the low level stuff.
 
Using that same train of thought on dry land then, smoke must have been found to sink, because on land we fit evacuation signage hanging from the ceiling of a corridor or enclosed space, and above doors etc. Basically, the highest point.
 
Out of all the "typical situation" pictures in 5499 pt 4 only the "directionals" in A14 and A15 get anywhere near the mark due to the perceived fitted height of the sign. But the "final" sign is once more banged above the door. If there is smoke in our typical enclosed underground car park (as per drawing) that sign will never be seen and therefore the exit never found.

Therefore if BS 5499 pt 4: 2000 is termed "Best Practice" (and as previously stated, an easy life or financial considerations cannot be taken into account) I am at a loss to see why.
Low level evacuation signage should be the norm. "Directionals" and "Finals" should (in my worthless opinion) be fitted at a height that takes into account the real and worse case scenario conditions that may arise during a fire evacuation:

Horror of horrors, there could be some smoke about, and a lot of it !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jim Creak]

It might be helpful if you refer to ISO 16069 for low proximity guidance safety wayguidance systems(SWGS). This Standard was developed as a consequence of the fire at Dusseldorf Airport where the scenario was exactly as you describe. It is not a code of practice but introduces components that can be considered so that the evacuee has escape route guidance at floor level.