Proposed changes to BS 5499

[deaconj999]

Colleagues, I have a very short survey with less than 5 questions prepared in an effort to simplify some of the confusion brought about by BS 5499, part 4 in particular.

But before I approach BSI I need a few minutes of your time to assist me in collecting worthwhile, measured repsonses to the 2 proposals I am putting fowrard.

Could I therefore ask you to take a look at the following survey and respond to it.

http://www.dfrmowales.org/fds/index.php?sid=22547&lang=en

Many Thanks in advance

Joe

[kurnal]

Thnks Joe. Though personally I voted against both ideas. "Keep clear" is mandatory and so should be on a blue background, not green. I found two arrows just added to the confusion. But its all good stuff and keeps us thinking.

[John Webb]

I am leaning strongly towards NOT having an arrow where the fire exit beyond the fire door continues in a straight and level line towards the next door or the final exit, that is the arrow is used only where there is a change of direction beyond the door, which is what I think the BS was perhaps attempting to do originally. So the downward or upward arrow currently in use is misleading, I believe!

And is there the slightest chance of persuading BS/CEN/ISO to go from the 'Running man' to a walking one to help drive the message home to walk briskly, not run, when a building is being evacuated?

[SeaBass]

I voted against both proposals based on the fact that if you ask anyone what the present signs mean they get it right far more often than not. Irrespective of their country of origin.  There really is nothing wrong with the present design. Any changes would just be another excuse for suppliers to sell unnecessary signs to well intentioned but ignorant customers.  I'd also suggest that showing a picture of a walking man rather than a running man is neither here not there. Showing a walking man will not stop people running if they feel the need to, in the same way that showing a running man won't encourage people to run.
     

[CivvyFSO]

I voted against both, mainly because I am an awkward ar*e.

You see the down arrow above level exits all the time. I don't even bother pointing it out as nobody cares apart from people who sell/design/covet signs.

All the public need to know is "the fire exit is this way" and eventually "this is an exit".

[wee brian]

I agree with you guys, only use an arrow if it is of any use.

If a door has fire exit written on it (with a pictogram of course) then that's probaly a good door to go through if there is a fire.

[Midland Retty]

I voted against both. As with Civvy the up or down arrow issue to indicate an escape route continues straight ahead is neither here nor there in my opinion.

A double arrow simply create too much confusion.

[Tall Paul]

I replied no to both too.  The current signs, whilst used differently by various people, do not appear to be causing a stir amongst the occupants of buildings.  I have not found many occurances where the 'meaning' of the sign was unclear in the situation that they were found.  And the one or two that were unclear would not have been helped by these proposals.

Paul

[Tom Sutton]

I continued the trend I replied no to both too. ISO 7010 is soon to become PR EN 7010 and entitled - Graphical symbols - Safety colour's and safety signs - Safety signs used in workplaces and public areas. Once this happens most of the confusion will disappear.

[deaconj999]

Wow,

What a good response, thanks everyone and please keep them coming, there is no doubt 2 sides to every coin.

The trend to say NO to both proposals is welcomed but, not the majority repsonse, believe it or not.

I will be posting the results when the survey finishes which is already quite interesting.

I am not convince that 7010 will do anything other than get rid of, the Eurosign and force a rewrite of the RRO Guides in terms of the graphics shown and also in particular, the Signs & Signals Regs.

But, the main point with this, is that the BS 5499 and part 4 in particular is contradictory, too unnecessarily complicated and therefore in need of a rewrite.

After all, having 1 or 2 pictographs and sometimes one or two words on a single pictogram doesn't have to be anything other than simple, even if there are a few combinations required for a few simple scenarios.

And at the end of the day, even though there is a requirement to ensure employees understand the signs, regardless of whether it is seen as important or not, isn't it better to have a clearer, reduced set of combinations to choose from?

Ambiguity Rules OK