Probabalistic risk assessment vs. good practice

[kurnal]

Colin Newman hit it on the head with his belt analogy.
It is not acceptable to remove your belt just because your own and  nobody else's trousers have  fallen down for 10 years.

If I can prove however that MY trousers will not fall down if I remove MY own belt then there is nothing wrong with doing this. But I will have to keep a regular check on the clasp on the trousers and my wasitline  to make sure they are still secure. Otherwise I may face the consequences of prosecution for indecent exposure. I may choose to take that chance - and just to make sure there is no public outrage  the government may set up trouser police to check on decency and issue advice /enforcement/ prohibition  notices or take me to court  if they think I have not done enough.

In short only case law will  decide this. There will be no hard and fast answers until it has been tested in the courts. But it would be very unwise to rely on past history as the basis for your defence. It is only one very minor matter to be taken into account in the risk assessment process.

[Tom Sutton]

Fishy you would not have made that assumption in the 1960`s (500+ fatalities in non domestic premises) it was only the fire legislation that originated then that allows you to make this assumption today. If you start reducing fire precautions, like you suggest, then I can only see us on the slippery slope back to the 1960`s.

[Ken Taylor]

As someone that can recall smoke-filled office buildings, occupants escaping to the sound of ringing alarms and portable extinguishers used with success, I have no doubt of the need for such control measures in office accommodation as well as the indefensibility of claiming a sufficient risk assessment for non-provision in a subsequent court case.

[John Webb]

One of the problems seems to be that few (if any) people have any idea what the precautions required in the past have done to affect the statistics on which much current thought is based. It is extremely difficult to estimate what hasn't happened; ie how many fires have not occured because people have been taking the precautions they were advised (or required) to do to avoid such an event.

As PhilB says, you have to presume that a fire can occur and take reasonable precautions to ensure firstly that people can get out promptly and secondly to minimise property loss. As the precautions for the first can often give assistance to the second, I have found that management is sometimes easier to convince if one can show the overall picture to them as well as their statutory obligations.

[Tom Sutton]

One of the problems seems to be that few (if any) people have any idea what the precautions required in the past have done to affect the statistics on which much current thought is based. It is extremely difficult to estimate what hasn't happened; ie how many fires have not occurred because people have been taking the precautions they were advised (or required) to do to avoid such an event.

I believe it was Wellington who said "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"  and I agree to some extent with that. I would agree you cannot be absolutely certain but making an educated guess would you not agree that the fire precautions required in the past have been a principle factor in reducing fire fatalities in non domestic premises. As to your second statement "people have been taking the precautions they were advised" this has not been my experience quite the opposite both manager and employees seem to constantly find ways to negate the fire precautions provided.

[John Webb]

I think the fact that fires and fire fatilities in non-domestic premises show a decline means that many have been doing what they ought to do. Not everyone does , alas, which is why we have the enforcers to back up the legislation. My own impression of commerce is that over 50% do attempt to do what is required; or maybe I've just been fortunate in the firms I have visited?

[Tom Sutton]

I would disagree that fires and fire fatalities in non-domestic premises show a decline means that many have been doing what they ought to do its mostly due to passive and active fire precautions installed over the past forty years. I also think you have been very fortunate in the firms you have visited.

[Jim Creak]

The real test of any judgement will be in a court of law if you can argue your case in mitigation should the proverbial hit the fan then you will only be fined and you wont go to jail. I agree with all points of view the first contributor was quite right as an academic with current data there does not appear to be any risk therefore his assessment does not find significant reason for action. I have long argued that current data is not valid as reporting and data collection of fire occurence is far from accurate by authorities as a function of fire definition and hate of paperwork.

The more traditional arguments are also valid as a function of knowledge and experience and I am sure as a function of the shear horror of injury by fire. the emotional view will certainly be recognised by the courts in terms of punitive damage and Directors liability as it was in the recent train crash where fire was involved.

This brings me to my real point about business risk assessment and where the cross over occurs and due consideration must be given as  the risk of fire may be low to moderate but the business risk of doing little is extremely great if the proverbial does hit the fan.

My last point is that you overlook guidance documents and British Standards at your peril unless you can justify your deviation from establishment best practice you will need a very clever and expensive defence lawyer or an expert witness  from the BRE to admit that they don't know their **** from their elbow.

[Mike Buckley]

I look at this arguement in the light of the National Lottery. If you look at your personnal chance of winning the lottery statistically it is very small even your chance of winning a small amount is not good. However most weeks someone in the country gets very rich, very quickly.

For a big organisation you are in the role of someone entering the lottery many times a week, your chances of winning (or losing) are increased.

I know the statistical arguement that the cost of the fire precautions over the years is probably greater than the actual cost of a fire and if they put that money into an account they would probably win. The problem is they don't and suddenly they have a major shock.

Incidentally, if I have my information correct put the arguement to a major DIY retailer who lost their unsprinklered store in Leicester a few years ago and whom I understand is busy fitting sprinklers to the rest of their stores.

[Ken Taylor]

- and the risks to be assessed aren't only financial!

[Donna]

'No risk' is fairly straightforward - but what about risks that could be regarded as 'broadly acceptable', according to the HSE guidance?  If you look at the UK fire statistics, next to no-one dies in an office fire each year, despite the fact that there must be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of them in the Country.  Why, then, should we make any great effort to mitigate a risk which is already demonstrably acceptable?  As a manager of such a premises, can I not conclude that much of the existing fire precautions (which cost me money to manage and maintain) are unnecessary, because it is so unlikely that I will have a big fire, and even then there is a low probability that anyone would die?

I have my own views (which aren't entirely in agreement with the above); it's intended to provoke discussion, because there are Responsible Persons out there thinking along the above lines...

...and please let's keep the Insurers out of the picture at the moment - we all know they have a legitimate interest, but it's compliance with the law that's of primary concern.

I sadly had the misfortune of going into a public building about 5 months ago, which was a multi used, and the management have the same sort of "weve never had a fire, so whats the point" attitude, similar to your views, well after my observations of such contempt they showed regarding not giving a stuff about any other member of the public, I reported the various issues to the HSE and the local FSO and the outcome was that they had broken many safety regulations and they have been told, now, to comply.
Its just not good enough that there are big organations out there that are so willing to take a risk with "other peoples lives" and thats it in a nutshell! its not about  "money"  "it might never happen"  one must remember the law of averages!  the longer you approach  green traffic lights, the more the chance of them changing their sequence to RED, as the closer you get, and also what Phil B said about so long as everyone can walk out of your house, but youve got to think how your fire will affect your neighbours, the point I will make is, you must consider that not everyone is able bodied!!! not everyone can scale down stairs quicksticks, before your fire (or any other emergency) takes hold.

[wee brian]

The original question related to varying established standards by considering the probability of fire occuring.

These established standards are developed by considering, amongst other things, the probability of fire occuring in generic groups of buildings. On this basis if a specific building has a particullarly high or low probability compared to the norm for that building type then it would seem reasonable to vary the established standards.

Obviousely I dont think that a client saying "i've never had a fire so I'm alright" is sufficient but perhaps where a building has no significant fire load then some variation may be justified.

This is a fundemental principal of risk assessment. Although, in practice, most of us will be happy if the building and its management systems are in line with the norm.

[TallyHo]

I've been driving for 30 years and I have never had an accident.



But I still wear a seat belt.

[Donna]

Wee Brian, first and foremost the persons responsible for this building actually wrote to my solicitor and stated just that! and I agree, totally unsufficient, the building is very grand 16th century one, example; long heavy most probably antique bone dry velvet curtains, luxury carpeted stairs, chandaliers (excuse spelling) lots of oak and other wooden furniture, and not only that, it has an awful lot of people frequent this building and even though it has a fire limit of 200 for a wedding venue, when there is a craft fair of 100s plus in attendance...no-one has ever given a head count... so on the basis of this, I would think a risk of fire in this building that has kitchens in the basement possibly would hold some sort of "risk" but nevertheless the owners and users are going on the assumption of "well weve been lucky so far so whats the fuss"

[wee brian]

There's a great quote from the Kings Cross enquiry - the absence of accidents is not evidence of safety - or something like that. I'll try and find it.