Are British Standards worth the paper they are written on?

[Wiz]

Are British Standards worth the paper they are written on? The obvious answer is 'no', because for their cost they should be written on gold leaf!

More seriously, many people use BS5839 part 1 as their 'bible' for everything to do with fire alarm systems, but is their reliance on this document misplaced?

Whilst accepting that BS5839 part 1 is just a set of recommendations, then just how useful are they to anyone?

It seems that there are any number of recommendations, approvals and guidances that have equal weight as BS. If there are so may 'competing' documents, and they offer conflicting recommendations then which recommendation is most correct?

As an example of this problem I offer the following extracts from BS5839-1:2002+A2:2008:

20.2.h) Manual call points should be fixed at a height of 1.4m above finished floor level..........

Note 6  The figure of 1.4m is arbitary........A minor difference (e.g. less than 200mm) in mounting height (e.g. to align with the mounting height of light switches) need not be regarded as significant, nor need it be recorded as a variation.

Note 7 Guidance in support of national building regulations (e.g. in England and wales, Approved Document M [3] under the Building Regulations) recommends that switches and controls be mounted no higher than 1.2m above floor level, so that they are accessible for disabled people.

If the guidance of the national building documents is equally as important as the recommendations of BS then surely 1200mm is the only acceptable mounting height? If so why doesn't BS recognise this and amend it's recommendations?

If the guidance of the national building document is not as important as recommendations of BS then why even mention the 'guidance' within the BS?

If the 1200mm or lower mounting height only comes into play if it is likely that a significant number of disabled persons may need to operate the manual call point, then why not say so?

Obviously, there are those who will say that the DDA says that everything has to be suitable for use by disabled persons. If this is so, why doesn't BS say so? The guidance of the national building document certainly seems to infer this is the case.

The whole thing is a mess.

What we need is just one set of recommendations so that everybody is singing from the same hymnsheet.

Obviously, no-one on any of the various committees want to be the ones to go. But surely it's got to happen so that we get some consistancy to theses recommendations, approvals and guidelines.

Looking at the above example it seems that BS is the one trying to pull in all directions at once, so maybe they should be the first to disappear!

[kurnal]

Yes Dr Wiz it seems to be a growing problem. In support of your argument I would cite BS9251 for residential and domestic sprinklers. As soon as this was published the BASA immediately produced its supplementary guidance to add the bits that should have been included in the BS but werent, and to correct the water flow requirements based on the actual sprinkler heads available in the UK.  As you say, from the point of view of the end user or specifier who do you believe when two organisations of this standing give conflicting information? 

[Fergie]

Totally agree with your comments, as you rightly say British Standard Codes of practice are recommendations and are not statutory unlike the Building Regulations.
Unfortunately the British Standards are not clearly defined and as such they will always take the easy option by declaring “Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations”. In other words always check the small print 

[Davo]

Dr Wiz

To add further confusion to DDA, a new BS8300 has been published- there is an extra 80+ pages for your consideration!
And yes, existing pages have been altered also so you need toi read all of it

davo

[nearlythere]

Unfortunately the British Standards are not clearly defined and as such they will always take the easy option by declaring “Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations”.

What if it is deemed to satisfy? Different hymn sheets again?

[Fergie]

Unfortunately the British Standards are not clearly defined and as such they will always take the easy option by declaring “Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations”.

What if it is deemed to satisfy? Different hymn sheets again?

For sure there are too many standards, too many committees and sub committees of people who write them……….. In an ideal world it would be great to have a British Standard Code of practice that encompassed all the relevant means of compliance. But you know it will never ever happen 

[nearlythere]

Reminds me of a someone who contacted this site last year when she had trouble getting a conversion from house to a three storey B&B past BC. BC would not accept single door protection and cited ABD 2.
If there was a similar three storey B&B next door a fire risk assessment using Fire Safety Risk Assessment in Sleeping Accommodation would accept single door as adequate.
This is Local and National Government guidance in conflict.
Dispair or what?

PS. People like her won't be able to do that any more as the Fire Net Forum does not exist to the outsider.

[Wiz]

I am encouraged by the number, and by the content of the replies so far, to suggest that there is a real problem here.

If we can get enough support I propose that we highlight this problem at Govenment ministerial level. Maybe we could even start (if they still exist) one of those on-line petitions at No .10.

To get any action we would obviously need sufficient support for our on-line petition. To get this support, it would take a large number of us to spread the word (by email etc.) to everyone in the industry.

Can anyone who supports the idea of 'one set of standards/recommendations/guidance' please make themselves known by posting on this thread.

Once I can properly gauge the level of support for the idea then we can move on with our petition.

[David Rooney]

I agree.... there are also requirements in part M - strobes in WC's that isn't mentioned in 5839... and the fact that some of the requirements of 7273 pt 4 take precident over 5839.....??!!

The whole system is a bit of a nightmare.... with too many guides by too many quangos....

We have a spec sitting here telling us our system needs to comply with 5588..... where do you start....!?

[GregC]

Count me in, Im fed up with beating up electrical contractors with BS5839 and then having my engineers beat me with it when a dose of common sense would suit everyone but common sense isn't included in any BS I have come across to date.

[John Dragon]

I'm in!   A BS in common sense would be just common sense!
We are drowning under poor conflicting guidance. Even more ridicuously expensive BS documents are not the way forward.
Get rid of RRO & risk assessment and give the power & responsibility to the Fire Service would be a good start.

[kurnal]

Was that John Dragon or John Dinosaur posting?

Hey dont rock the boat john too much, you just put me out of business

[nim]

As I understand it British Standards are written by a committee of unpaid people (sixish) in the trade who have an interest in writing British Standards who are unconnected with the British Standards Institute. (The British Standards Institute get the standards written for free). They get together at intervals and produce drafts which are circulated to others in the trade that are interested. Anyone can read a draft and put forward suggestions. The committee can accept or reject suggestions.

I recently met someone (not in fire alarms) who was on a BSI committee and his experience was that the trade are apathetic to commenting on drafts and  making valuable  suggestions.

The problem I have with the way British Standards are written is that the drafts are not easily available and unless you know someone then you find out that a new standard is published maybe when it is too late to comment. I just stumbled upon one that I was interested in by  searching on the internet one day.

I suppose that if you want to make a difference or you don't agree with a certain part of a standard then you have to get involved at draft stage

[Benzerari]

As I understand it British Standards are written by a committee of unpaid people (sixish) in the trade who have an interest in writing British Standards who are unconnected with the British Standards Institute. (The British Standards Institute get the standards written for free). They get together at intervals and produce drafts which are circulated to others in the trade that are interested. Anyone can read a draft and put forward suggestions. The committee can accept or reject suggestions.

I recently met someone (not in fire alarms) who was on a BSI committee and his experience was that the trade are apathetic to commenting on drafts and  making valuable  suggestions.

The problem I have with the way British Standards are written is that the drafts are not easily available and unless you know someone then you find out that a new standard is published maybe when it is too late to comment. I just stumbled upon one that I was interested in by  searching on the internet one day.

I suppose that if you want to make a difference or you don't agree with a certain part of a standard then you have to get involved at draft stage

Good input though, but I think, it's the other side which may not be open enough, to receive comments and suggestions from all involved people of the field, including engineers... , what I might be sure about is that, the giant companies are the main players, it’s their decisions that count first and last.

[colin todd]

On a point of accuracy, committee FSH/12/1, which is responsible for BS 5839-1 has far more than six members. The trade are actually in the minority on the committee but do have full and proper representation. 

Other members include IFE, CFOA, CLG, IET, NSI,ECA, NICEIC, BCMA etc etc. On a further point of accuracy, a BS cannot be brought to market unless it has been available to entire public for a period of months so that they can comment. All comments, regardless of who they are from must be properly considered and committee response documented.