New Sign Standard

[Alan Owen]

We have been advised by our fire safety consultancy that we should consider changing all our signs as the do not conform to the new standards. Is this correct?

[dave bev]

alan - there are numerous other postings on this - i assume they havent been deleted?

[colin todd]

What signs do you have

[Alan Owen]

The signs we have are symbolic signs but have no text and do not illuminate in a power failure. We have been told that all signs must work under power failure and that our evacuation signs are incomplete and are not understood.

[AnthonyB]

They don't have a Jalite concession do they? Or sell escape lighting?Who were they? Text only signs are not allowed, but ones without it are.
The supplementary test is recommended, but not required. I would guess that being textless they are the EC "man-arrow-fridge" ones that are not as good as the BS5499 "man in doorway" ones, but perfectly acceptable as long as you don't mix designs.
Utter rubbish about the self luminating bit - if your risk assessment suggests there will be a visibility problem then you should have escape lighting, which if to BS5266 will sufficiently light up the signs as well as the exit route.

go on, name them....pinches of salt required with their report as it could cost silly money better spent on other precautions (or not spent at all)

[J.Creak]

The stark reality is that yes the British and International Standards have changed in 2004 with the publication of ISO 7010 and BS 5499 part 5 These Standards for the very first time Standardises the graphical symbol for escape... There is no more debate Internationally, European or dear old UK.

We are in the era of risk assessment and all graphical symbols are now required to be tested to ISO 9186 for comprehension and British Standard does require supplementary text to ensure the meaning is understood. Incidentally a requirement under the Heath and safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations. This is to ensure there is no RISK of misunderstanding. It would be a very brave consultant that would overlook this requirement or professional suicide to make up your own rules.

The law requires all signs to maintain their intrinsic feature in the event of power loss emergency including alarms thats why BS 5839 was changed it is therefore a requirement to ensure that all signs are illuminated by the emergency lighting or at least the provision of photoluminescent signs of adequate intensity tested and certificated to ISO 15370 could be deemed appropriate to satisfy the law.

I applaud the consultant for telling this client the truth.. it is the same with the improvements now required under BS 5839 The whole point of new standards is continual improvement which is also a requirement of  the new Health and safety Legislation

[carol]

Well now I am confused....how can such a simple subject become some complicated?
Are we to insist on changing all signs every few years?
This is nothing to do with enforcers who still haven't got to grips, (understandably so) with Euro signs, BS signs, graphical colours, use of sign standards, ISO standards, H & S Regs, photoluminescence, wayfinding and any other bl~~dy standard. Every supermarket just ignore it and covers them up with BOGOF signs anyway.

I know Jim Creak is knowledgeable on this subject, but the RRO is a complexity virgin compared with signage and lighting. Nothing brings fire safety into more disrepute than this over engineering.

[N.E. Body]

AnthonyB you were probably right about the Jalite concession, J. Creak is the MD of Jalite isn't he !!!

Alan, I am sure you have far more issues to worry about ie training etc, if all the exit routes are clearly indicated with pictogram signs and during your fire drills everyone evacuates safely I wouldn't worry yourself.

[Chris Houston]

Well, I am also confused.  Why do Mr Creak's and Antonys opinions seem to differ on this?

I really feel sorry for the man on the street if us lot can't agree on this.

Can someone post an idiots guide on this for all us confused people?

[AnthonyB]

The intrinsic minimum requirements of safety signs as required by H&S(SS&S)Regs is here:

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19960341_en_2.htm


Note that the law still permits similar but different pictograms (& still gives the original EC directive pictograms as examples)

A British Standard is not law, it's a good way of demonstrating compliance, but not the only way.

Risk Assessment is the key - yes the signage recommendations have improved, but the risks present allow you to decide whether your legal but slightly different to current BS signs need ripping out en-mass now or can wait until a refurb.

Incidentally if they are so illegal why aren't there prosecutions for using EC symbol exit boxes, text less BS picto's and arrows, and why haven't they been withdrawn from sale?

I detest the EC picto & like supplementary text and also use BS5499, resulting in several large sign improvement projects in the last few months, but I'm being paid to assess risk and not be over prescriptive and have equally saved clients money by preventing them wastin thousands on sign changes from other consultants spouting nonsense and instead got them to use that money on more important things like repairing & upgrading fire doors & closers, modernising fire warning systems to current BS, etc so they can know about the fire & still have tenable exit routes which they can safely use to follow the signs along (be they man arrow fridge or man in doorway)

[Jim Creak]

I think it is important to recognise that the Standards were written because there was so much confusion. If you wish to castigate me for being knowledgeable and the MD of Jalite who incidently consigned £65.000 worth of stock to the skip because of the change from Capital letter text to sentence text then so be it. However even this technical change was considered to be necessary because research had shown this to be easier for partial illiterate, dyslexias and learning difficulty diabilities to comprehend and required under the DDA as well as the Health and safety (Safety Sign and Signals ) Regulations.

I agree entirely that priorities have to be set in the process of compliance and significant risk..

If you can substantiate your opinion and to totally disregard best practice then I hope your professional liability insurance can cope.

If you can substantiate against proven research that vital information which you already concede is not clearly understood can remain and should not be replaced in accordance with best practice that is your decision?

I think in the original comment the consultant concerned asked the client to consider changing I think he or she was right...regardless of the fact that I get paid for manufacturing fire safety products 50% of which are exported. 50% of which are for aircraft, ships, trains or high risk oil exploration installations where we get recognition for our expertise on wayguidance and evacuation route marking.

I find it disturbing that I have to defend my position in this way and a somewhat ironic situation as I would have thought that all contributors in someway derive income from Fire Safety I go along with you Chris if we start tearing one another apart the common good will never prevail.

If the fire safety profession had conformed to the correct standard in the first place this total confusion could have been avoided....If you all continue to ignore it, make up your own mind, allow the indefensible to prevail unchallenged... Its simple... signs are a language if we all talk a different one we will get confused.. If thats what you want thats what you will get.

[N. E. Body]

Not meaning to get personal and certainly not tearing you apart, I take your points, but hey, £65,000 worth of signs to the skip doesn't seem that knowledgeable.

Do you have some examples of legal action being taken against a consultant and them having to use a their liability insurance as you imply.

I appreciate you may be a specialist in your field but when you look around at buildings and general standards of fire safety management, if euro or bs signs, old or new, are in place and the exit routes are clearly indicated who really cares.

Yes, with a new building the BS and best practice is obviously the best route but other than that, there is a risk of mixing formats of signs therefore more confusion in the work place and more costs to business who have enough H&S issues to address. No wonder we get fed up with all the changes.

I think the other issue is that many consultants these days actually work with companies that sell signs so recommendations become financially based.

[Jim Creak]

I am sorry but conformance to standards is not discretionary .. you either conform or you do not.

I'm afraid this then becomes personal and in fact it is you that does not care.

It is your personal point of view that you can chose what if any standards you are going to work to and obviously you have every right to have an opinion and you have every right to work to your own assumptions and to your own expertise and if you are being as you put it general not specific and if it sort of looks ok then in your mind it is.  That does not mean it is OK it is wrong and does not conform to a recognised professional standard.

This issue about recommendations being financially based is an absolute fact of life. I don't know anyone that works for nothing. I dont want to put words in your mouth but I think you are actually questioning the integrity of other consultants.. I find that disturbing.

[Chris Houston]

Referee! Debate is healthy, I hope we can avoid getting personal.  Remember this is a public forum.

Do we all agree on this:  

We operate in a risk assessment environment, so there is no legal requirement to comply with the standards, just the Signs and Signals Act.

The Act uses the older EU signs as an example.

British Standards are "recommendations" not "requirements".

If a consultant has an interest or connection with any supplier they should discolse this to the client and let the client make up their own mind regarding consultant's ability to advise imparitally.

[Jim Creak]

The Health and Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations says that you do not need a single sign  however if you determine by risk assessment that a sign or signs are required it then requires that  the signs that are used are understood.......Test is ISO 9186 results are known...graphical symbols are standardised........Best practice is published. Staff can be trained in accordance with the law because meanings are known. Compliance can be deemed and proved. Using signs that  by poor design are not understood is an offence.

Euro Sign failed miserably to be understood .......Fire professionals cannot hide and say they are not aware of this. Blame the illustrations if you want to.. There are 5 different ones illustrated without meaning understanding or clue with regard to appropriate use. The simple fact is that they cannot do the job because ordinary folk do not know what they mean and it has been us the profession that has had a stab at making sense of them. All I am saying is that if we are all making up our own rules on signalling it is not surprising that they are not understood.

True legislation is non prescriptive and we can find engineering solutions but you cannot recommend any system that does not work, discriminates or is a major risk in itself. For excellence in communication you must have a single standardised protocol.

What other British Standards do you totally disregard?? The advice given was sound and cannot be criticised.