Smoke detector in bedrooms legislation

[Midland Retty]

Mr Retty , Protest away but like MRs retty, who as a woman can multi task, try to think risk at the same time as you are protesting. I had never put you down as a "control" freak, but the issue is nothing to do with control it is about risk. You are not entirely free to do as you please in your home, as if you take your smoke alarms away, you will commit an offence under the building act, and be sent to the salt mines as a punisment, or worse still be sent to work in LFEPA. You are right, there is no legislation to require you to put AFD in your bedroom, same as there is no legislation requiring smoke detectors in bedrooms rather than heat detectors. And at last we agree. The AFd is for others, not the person in the room of origin. Heat detectors eat that objective many times over, so why on earth would you want smoke detectors.

Mr Todd esquire.

I totally accept your reasoning behind HD in hotel rooms and have never disagreed that AFD is installed to protect MOE and not the person in the room.

You questioned why jack booted IO's like me go round telling people to install x,y and z but dont practice what we preach and have such precautions at home.

I gave you the reasons why this is the case. It does come back to control. Control is something you have to consider as part of a risk assessment.

I am master of my own destiny at home. If i choose not to PAT test Mrs Retty, or leave the chip pan on whilst having a bath, or juggle petrol whilst lighting fireworks then it is purely at my own risk. Converseley however if I live in a block of flats and getting up to similar shanniagans then there needs to be precautions to protect other residents from my foolish antics. And thats the crooks of the matter.

You are quite correct - people aren't dying in hotel bedrooms another fact I'm willing to accept, just goes to show that fire safety works in my opinion

More people are dying at home. But until you educate people in private dwellings about trying to live their live safely you arent going to change anything. This is exactly why those big red things with flashy lights are going round installing free smoke detectors and doing HFSC for private dwellings (unless of course you want us jack booted so and so's to have powers to inspect private dwellings too - if so can I have your address?)

I dont advocate that heat detection should be changed to smoke detection. But what I am asking you to accept is that the element of control someone has over a certain space does have a direct bearing on the provisions required.

[wee brian]

Disabled people may not be able to react to a fire in their room in the way an able bodied person could.

You must get things in proportion guys or the whole system gets stupid.

How many of us drive our cars wearing crash helmets?

The codes, standards and guides give us a benchmark as to what is considered reasonable, if we just adopt the "protect everybody form every concievable risk however remote" then you just look like a bunch of arm waving idiots.

[messy]

Meantime the messeys might like to ask for advice from HQ policy.

Colin: I have done exactly that, and as of today's date, I haven't received any formal reply.

However, I was told (unofficially) that a certain highly respected Scottish fire consultant - now operating from his Surrey mansion- has approached the Sec of State for a determination on the subject.

If this is true, it's likely that my bosses will sit on their hands and await that determination.


On a serious note, thanks very much for continuing to provide the background to this policy. I might not agree with it, but such info makes it easier to work with and explain to others.

[jokar]

Messy, what do you want a policy for?  The BS is explicit, the RP does an FRA and uses the BS as a base standard.  Relevant persons are protected by the detection and warning system and all the others FS measures that make up an FRA package.  Why are people making such a fuss?  The room in the main will have electrics tested, furniture to the current standard, a fire door and evacuation notice an evacuation procedure in place and the only other hazrads may be those brought in by the user.  That is their risk and it is down to those people to consider that.

Surely an FRA is suitable and sufficient if it allows a detection and warning system that is to the recommendations in the BS.  And it is not the only protective measure in an FRA.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

It really is ever so simple. If you are in a hotel, and there is a fire in your room, you will jump out of bed  raise the alarm and make pumps 45 (asuming it is only a small fire).

Assuming that is, that you haven't been overcome by somke as the heat detector hasn't detected the souldering fire?

Someone who needs to use a wheelchair cant do that. So to help them, we compensate by giving even earlier warning to give them the same chance as the you have.

So we discriminate against able bodied people? Surely all relevant persons are entitled to the same level of detection and warning and it is the responsibility of the responsible person to ensure that all persons can be evacuated therefore requiring "suitable numbers of persons to impliment the emergency procedures"

Well, surprise surprise NOBODY dies in the room of fire origin in UK hotels whatever type of detector is installed. OH sorry, I tell a lie. You lost one in London a year or two ago. He set fire to his clothes and even the greatest fire brigade in the whole of.... London couldnt save him. Oh and guess what? He had a smoke detector in his bedroom.

I think there is a minor difference between the person actually setting fire to himself, which would most likely result in the death of that individual and being in a room of origin, clearly two distinct facts I would suggest and, wasn't there a fatal fire in Blackpool ...... with the person in a bedroom of origin? (I apologise in advance if this is incorrect!!)


This is a discussion that will keep resurfacing as mentioned, but surely we must be guided by the requirements of law .... "the premises equipped, to the extent that is necessary....." and "to safeguard the safety of relevant persons"
Surely we must ensure that relevant persons are given the earliest warning of fire in order for them to be provided the greatest chance of escape ... or do we allow relevant persons to be sacrificed because the British Standard says we can have heat detectors in bedrooms?

[colin todd]

1. Doctor Retty, We are straying off topic, but while I acknowldge the difference between imposed risk and voluntarily accpeted risk- I was taught that as a student 33 years ago actually and have been practising the principles continuously ever since without delving off to other career activities. My point is that some correspondents with a clear lack of experience or understanding of the underlying principles are on the basis of nothing objective but merely their subjective opinion are suggesting that HMG guidance, substantial research and the views of specialsit stakeholders who drafted the guidance are all wrong and that there is some risk that all these bodies (and indeed you and I Dr R) are missing and is so serious that all this guidance is to be set aside. I was just curious if the risk is so awful, why they arent bothered that their loved ones are exposed to it.

2. Baldy, a)your assumption about my assumption is correct and is shown to be correct by years and years of experience. b)Yes we treat disabled people differently and rightly so. So what. c) yes I know the difference between someone setting fire to their clothes and someone exposed to a fire while they are asleep. I was merely being magnanimous to messey and accepting that it is not quite true to say that no one dies in the room of origin, and then I went on to show that to the extent it was not true the single case between 2001 and 2006 inclusive was irrelevant, which I am glad you too perceive. d) if someone did die in bedroom of origin in blackpool or anywhere esle for that matter it was not in the 5 year period 2001-2006, for whch the data is as I have already indicated.e) No we dont need to give the earliest possible warning if it is not reasonably practicable to do so (ie if the risk does not justify the cost time and trouble). If you want the earliest possible warning, you had better install a high sensitivity aspirating system in every sngle room because that will operate even earlier than a point detector. No, Messey, thats not reasonably practicable either.
3) Brian, arm waving has been rife since the legislation changed.
4) Messey, why dont you pick up the phone and ask the head of fire safety policy. You do have phones in your new super duper HQ dont you? Also, could you advise us as to whether all fire  resisting doorsets in the building have intumescent strips and smoke seals?

[CivvyFSO]

(ie if the risk does not justify the cost time and trouble).

Have you got any suggestions for an estimated difference in cost between HD and optical SD in a new build? The last time I looked it was quite similar, if anything HD seems slightly more expensive.

Then have you got any nice calculations for the difference in the level of tenability in a room by the time a HD activates compared to a SD?

[CivvyFSO]

The local fire office no longer required smoke seals on any of the doors but wants me to install SD's in all the hotel bedrooms.

There is really no explaining to you or pleasing you is there?

We are a completely non smoking hotel but that does not stop the blighters.
Socks on the HD's EVERY week my friend without fail

At least your clientelle are conscientious enough to want to avoid giving you problems with unwanted fire signals. Should help you when your SD is installed...

[Allen Higginson]

The local fire office no longer required smoke seals on any of the doors but wants me to install SD's in all the hotel bedrooms.

There is really no explaining to you or pleasing you is there?

We are a completely non smoking hotel but that does not stop the blighters.
Socks on the HD's EVERY week my friend without fail

At least your clientelle are conscientious enough to want to avoid giving you problems with unwanted fire signals. Should help you when your SD is installed...

I think in quote (i) David was highlighting how he could have spent money installing seals that were deemed so critical at one time for them to become not so.
I have had a customer (residential home) who had to have an automatic door closure fitted at the top of a single staircase (imagine an H on it's side where the vertical is the rising staircase from ground to first floor and closing fire doors exist at either side of the ground floor ends) the after their NIFA inspection,only to be told the following year that it wasn't really necessary - this from the same brigade sub!

[CivvyFSO]

I think in quote (i) David was highlighting how he could have spent money installing seals that were deemed so critical at one time for them to become not so.

If I remember the situation was that he required the strips because he has HD in the rooms. Now, in the absence of strips & seals, the FRS (for whatever reason) seem to have decided that SD is more appropriate. I think that if he had installed the seals when required then he wouldn't be faced with the requirement to install SD.

[jokar]

Am I going mad here, the detection and warning system is fitted at build or alteration or after an FRA.  FSO have little to do with either as
a.  Building Regulations are the sole property of the BCO or AI ( Holroyd 1972, Bickerdike Allen 1994)
b.  Part 2 of the Order is the duty of the RP

FSO's are enforcers only not to do fire safety.  They audit an FRA and comment on the findings.  How anyone could decide that a warning and detection system installed to BS 5839 part 2002 +A2 in not suitable and sufficient is beyond my small brain.

People get over it.  Until the S of S states otherwise HD will be put in hotel bedrooms.

[messy]

Colin we do have phones in our lovely new HQ, and a terrific restaurant which specialises in poor accoustics & cold sausages.

As for phoning for advice, what for? I get all the help I need here. Often overnight.

It's far more efficient than waiting for a committee to be formed, and then a round of meetings before I get to find the answer to my question is that: I should have gone through my line manager/manageress and not contacted them direct!

[Gel]

You are correct in assumption that domestic h/alarm is somewhat more expensive than an optical smoke, but a lot more than the default ion smoke alarms often fitted in private new build.

(ie if the risk does not justify the cost time and trouble).

Have you got any suggestions for an estimated difference in cost between HD and optical SD in a new build? The last time I looked it was quite similar, if anything HD seems slightly more expensive.

Then have you got any nice calculations for the difference in the level of tenability in a room by the time a HD activates compared to a SD?

[Midland Retty]

1. Doctor Retty, We are straying off topic, but while I acknowldge the difference between imposed risk and voluntarily accpeted risk- I was taught that as a student 33 years ago actually and have been practising the principles continuously ever since without delving off to other career activities. My point is that some correspondents with a clear lack of experience or understanding of the underlying principles are on the basis of nothing objective but merely their subjective opinion are suggesting that HMG guidance, substantial research and the views of specialsit stakeholders who drafted the guidance are all wrong and that there is some risk that all these bodies (and indeed you and I Dr R) are missing and is so serious that all this guidance is to be set aside. I was just curious if the risk is so awful, why they arent bothered that their loved ones are exposed to it.

Professor Todd

Point taken, I see where you are coming from.

I am pleased that determination has been sought from the S of S on this matter. I think it will make everyone's life much easier.

Whenever the Police get new legislation they immediately go for test cases / determinations as soon as they can because it helps to establish the boundaries of that legislation, it can help clear up grey areas, and it helps to establish at what level and how stringently they need to enforce it.

Grey areas are open to interpretation and debate. We could all sit here and argue 'til kingdom come about this subject.

Some may be pleased with the result of determination when it comes, some may not. But the point is that the decision will be made out of our hands. So if that decision is wrong and something catastrophic happens as a result it's certinly not the RP / consultant / RA or Insp Officers at fault.


 

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Excellent point well made!

As for Mr Todds somewhat sarcastic response ...... I think you'll find that most disabled people do not like or want to be treated differently ...... I know this as a fact as I have a disabled family member.

I respect the views put within the post but that doesn't mean to say I agree with them, but thats what makes us different.