Exit sign

[lyledunn]

I was asked by a LA building control surveyor to remove a maintained exit sign above the main exit doors from a restaurant to a lobby area. There are two other fire exits giving ample exit capacity. However, it seems that the surveyor is happy to leave the exit doors swinging inwards only providing the exit unit is removed. Am I missing something or is this as daft to you as it is to me?

[Tom Sutton]

Why would you want a fire exit sign over the main doors which would most probably be in constant use. If emergency escape lighting is required then a bog standard emergency escape lighting luminaire would suffice.

[TFEM]

Why would you want a fire exit sign over the main doors which would most probably be in constant use?

Probably because, like many other restaurants in my experience, there is a table of 4 blocking the main fire exit.
Including very recently,a major burger chain where I chose to sit near the front entrance.

John

[nearlythere]

Why would you want a fire exit sign over the main doors which would most probably be in constant use. If emergency escape lighting is required then a bog standard emergency escape lighting luminaire would suffice.

Tom. It might be in constant use but not by the same people.
Restaurants would very likely be occupied by persons unfamiliar with the layout.

[Tom Sutton]

TFEM that a problem of obstructing the MOE it's not about exit signs or are you suggesting they are a reminder for the owners.

NT I would imagine the patrons would be familiar with the main entrance, unless there were many main entrances, in my experience there is usually only one or may be two. There may many others for use of the staff and necessary for means of scape in a fire situation and they should be well signed. Even then illuminated exit boxes are not necessary, as Jim Creak says a standard exit sign with emergency escape lighting is a better solution.

I thought fire risk assessment was about only requiring the minimum for a safe evacuation, now days you see a lot of over provision.

[CivvyFSO]

I would be less concerned about the exit signage and more concerned about the swing of the doors. If those are the doors that people are using to enter the premises, then those are the doors which will be the most relied on in the event of an evacuation. They need to open outwards, (subject to numbers of course) and there should be no need for exit signage. You mention a 'lobby area', is this the normal lobby where the intention is to enable outward opening doors to be in-situ and the inward opening doors (exiting out onto the public path) to be held open?

[nearlythere]

TFEM that a problem of obstructing the MOE it's not about exit signs or are you suggesting they are a reminder for the owners.
NT I would imagine the patrons would be familiar with the main entrance, unless there were many main entrances, in my experience there is usually only one or may be two. There may many others for use of the staff and necessary for means of scape in a fire situation and they should be well signed. Even then illuminated exit boxes are not necessary, as Jim Creak says a standard exit sign with emergency escape lighting is a better solution.
I thought fire risk assessment was about only requiring the minimum for a safe evacuation, now days you see a lot of over provision.

Tom. Why is a standard sign with an EL better? Better for what?

"I thought fire risk assessment was about only requiring the minimum for a safe evacuation..........."

Minimum does not mean to provide nothing.

[Tom Sutton]

1. Tom. Why is a standard sign with an EL better? Better for what?

"I thought fire risk assessment was about only requiring the minimum for a safe evacuation..........."

2. Minimum does not mean to provide nothing.

1. I think it was because most of the signage used on illuminated signs does not conform to the the British standard, International standard and soon to be the European standard. It only applies to the signs and signals regs which eventually will be amended.

2. I couldn't agree with you more maybe I should have said adequate provisions.

[lyledunn]

It may be that the view was taken that the main exit doors were not in fact an exit for use in an emergency, perhaps because of the inward swing of the doors and thus the emergency exit sign should not identify it as such. There is really no safety issue in this circumstance given the fact that the premises are relatively small and have two other exits. However, the request to remove the sign does seem counter-intuitive given that it would probably be used as the first route out in the event of an emergency.

[AnthonyB]

It's all very well saying the main entrance isn't for emergency use in a non public buliding where staff are all familiar, trained and fire drilled.

Unacceptable with assembly as there is absolutely no way you will stop the majority of people going for the main way in - look at the Station Nightclub, look at the Stardust Disco.

How easy we forget!

Take the sign down to get signed off, then get the FRA done which may say put one up, put it back! Job done!

[kurnal]

If we accept that in an emergency most people are likely to try and use the same door as they entered by then why does it need an exit sign? I suggest that is is the routes that they are unfamiliar with that need signs!

[jayjay]

I would agree, in small premises it is only the alternate exits routes that need to be identified.

[lyledunn]

Exits for use in an emergency are required to be marked by Bs5266-8. That then begs the question as to whether it is reasonable to use one door as the primary means of entry to a public building such as a restaurant or bar then disregard it as an escape route.

[CivvyFSO]

Exits for use in an emergency are required to be marked by Bs5266-8.

Not quite true.

"Where direct sight of an exit is not possible and doubt may exist as to its location, a directional sign (or series of signs) shall be provided"

[CivvyFSO]

I think that the simple fact is that there is no requirement to sign the primary way in/out of a building as it will almost always be obvious, so to simply remove a sign that has no business being there will not ensure that people do not walk out that way. Therefore, following ADB it is likely that more than 60 people will use the exit, so it has to open in the direction of escape. The Fire Authority consulting on this should really be coming to that decision too, and should be ensuring that they state as part of their consultation that the door will, under the RRFSO, be required to open in the direction of escape.

Otherwise I would like to see the FRA which tries to justify this, and the level of staff training that such an FRA requires in order to stop god-knows-how-many punters following the accepted human behaviour of retracing their steps. (Once you have managed to pry them away from their food)

Following the BS for the decision making process for signs might actually indicate that if people SHOULDN'T be using the exit in the event of a fire, then signage might technically be required to indicate that specific issue. i.e. Some kind of unique prohibition sign.

This ought to do it: