Dangerous condition

[nearlythere]

At which point, where fire safety measures are amiss, would one consider persons are exposed to danger from fire or are in a dangerous condition? Can we use dangerous as a greater degree of risk in that possibly the exposure of someone to harm from fire is imminent?
I think I may have read here that classifying a considerable risk as a dangerous condition is quite difficult to demonstrate and even the absence of protected routes and a fire warning system would not be considered as something "dangerous". Perhaps there has to be a very dangerous process going on with no protected routes to define something as a dangerous condition.
In my FS time I don't ever recall a "Dangerous Condition" situation.

[kurnal]

Not sure where you are coming from NT. Is it not the quantum of likelihood and consequence? Take for example a run down converted block of flats with a single staircase and poor compartmentation with a motorbike and old furniture dumped in the staircase? Or the 3 storey Asian restaurant with a single unprotected  staircase and up to 20 persons living in improvised accommodation on the top floor and roof space? Both examples I have found in the centre of Nottingham . They were both dangerous conditions in my book.

[Mike Buckley]

'Dangerous condition' is similar to the phase 'places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire' we all know what it means but actually defining it is a different problem. It is obvious after the event but as a prediction they are much more problematical.

As kurnal says the usual way is the calculation of likelihood and consequences, but even this is psuedoscientific in the field of fire. In any fire on a premises the ultimate consequence has to be death. This is different to other health and safety issues such as dropping a hammer where dropping it 2 feet will only cause a minor injury whereas dropping it 60 feet is likely to kill someone. You can justify that scientifically revering to potential energy, strength of the human body, protective equipment etc.

Another aspect is the complexity of mixing fire with buildings, we are constantly learning, materials and techniques are changing rapidly.

At the end of the day it has to be a matter of judgement based on the competence of the person making that judgement, not a matter of ticking boxes.

[kurnal]

Not sure if NT may be alluding to the formal definition of a fire hazard as set out in BS 4422 et al, which was then used in PAS 79. The definition in 4422 (something with the potential to cause a fire) takes a different approach to most other H&S legislation and guidance which generally defines a hazard as something with the potential to cause harm.

This different approach can be confusing as it is sometimes argued that without a hazard you cannot have a risk ...... We always have to remember that certain benchmark risk control measures are always required in all cases particularly because of the risk of arson and if these risk control measures are absent then if a fire does occur then death or serious injury would be likely  implying dangerous conditions.      Is this where you were coming from NT?

[nearlythere]

This thought arose K et al when i was speaking formally to a pubilc service about housing stock which has been handed over for comunity use. I surveyed after their inspection and they referred to some premises they considered dangerous whereas I thought they just needed some attention. So obviously "dangerous" is a subjective view based on peoples perception based on their judgement based on ones experiences of danger of a higher degree of risk from their understanding of what is normal.
My view of dangerous is where there is a liklihood that one will be  exposed to a risk which is very likely to cause harm. Some may consider dangerous to require a greater level of risk and maybe some less.
Dangerous can also be a hindsight view.
If you were sittiing at the side of the road in your car and a car passed within a few feet from you at 140 miles an hour you might think that was bloody close and dangerous. But every day on the road you pass within a few feet of oncoming cars at a combined speed of 120 - 140 mpg without a thought.
So what really is dangerous? A personnal view or a predetermined level of risk.

[lingmoor]

If you flung 10 professional Fire Risk Assessors into a building and ask them all to come up with a risk assessment I doubt if you would get exactly the same report, some might even rate it a different risk than others...it's all down to the competence of the assessor and how good he/she is at second guessing if something has the potential to ignite and cause harm ( sorry, I mean using their professional knowledge and experience )

Would you consider a photocopier in a room, serviced regularly, 'dangerous'?

I've been to an office building where there is two way travel everywhere. It has a photocopier room with auto detection, and has a fire door to the room cos it is unoccupied. Yet an office with one staff member that has a photocopier next to her does not have a fire door. Yet she might go out on lunch break with the thing copying away merrily, or be on leave etc. This was on the recommendation of a  fire risk assessor, who obviously thought the unoccupied photocopier room 'dangerous'...would you think that?


I have been to a childrens centre, children who mainly have learning difficulties.  Two way travel everywhere, In this building is a soft play room with auto detection. This small room has padded walls up to about four feet from floor level,  there are no ignition souces  and the toys are stored away elsewhere when the room isnt used. The staff struggle to get through the two fire doors with the toys they take in...the fire service back in the day, insisted on two door protection to the corridor, they obviously thought it was 'dangerous', although this padding was flame retardent they said it wasn't the 'required' class 0

interpretations init

[Golden]

My assessment of dangerous conditions was always on the premise that a fire has occurred and in this case would the occupants be reasonably likely to escape unaided; this takes the ignition risk out of the equation and in my opinion is the basis of all our fire safety guidance.

Lingmoor you are right about the risk assessors - just last week I assessed an office in a multi-occupancy where all the FS precautions were in perfect conditions but the landlord's risk assessor had reported a 'moderate' risk when my opinion was 'low' risk - sometimes its a CYA thing where the assessor is not prepared to commit to anything but the path of least resistance! With respect to the children's centre I doubt the FA insisted as that exposes them to legal problems if there was a suitable alternative and you should take it  up with them - I'd imagine they gave some advice.

[nearlythere]

If you flung 10 professional Fire Risk Assessors into a building and ask them all to come up with a risk assessment I doubt if you would get exactly the same report, some might even rate it a different risk than others...it's all down to the competence of the assessor and how good he/she is at second guessing if something has the potential to ignite and cause harm ( sorry, I mean using their professional knowledge and experience )

Would you consider a photocopier in a room, serviced regularly, 'dangerous'?

I've been to an office building where there is two way travel everywhere. It has a photocopier room with auto detection, and has a fire door to the room cos it is unoccupied. Yet an office with one staff member that has a photocopier next to her does not have a fire door. Yet she might go out on lunch break with the thing copying away merrily, or be on leave etc. This was on the recommendation of a  fire risk assessor, who obviously thought the unoccupied photocopier room 'dangerous'...would you think that?


I have been to a childrens centre, children who mainly have learning difficulties.  Two way travel everywhere, In this building is a soft play room with auto detection. This small room has padded walls up to about four feet from floor level,  there are no ignition souces  and the toys are stored away elsewhere when the room isnt used. The staff struggle to get through the two fire doors with the toys they take in...the fire service back in the day, insisted on two door protection to the corridor, they obviously thought it was 'dangerous', although this padding was flame retardent they said it wasn't the 'required' class 0

interpretations init

I don't think your examples have anything to do with differences of view LM. They have more to do with different levels of stupidity.