Author Topic: Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises  (Read 36003 times)

Chris Houston

  • Guest
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2005, 11:38:11 AM »
I don't understand it.  The authors say that there is no longer a need for them because some people don't use them.  Some people don't use seatbelts, but I don't hear the police saying we should remove the requirement for them.

Why not recommend the provision of the self closing door AND the smoke detection?

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2005, 12:05:29 PM »
I also take your point Chris.
I feel that the ODPM are in 'no man's land' over this and really haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
I know of many home owners/builders who have been in serious conflict with BCOs over this, and FR protection has been seen as essential. However, protected routes are no good with the door open!
Also, just to add to earlier comments: what about the 'hard to reach' that fire services and ODPM are so concerned about? I'll bet education programmes will really help there.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2005, 01:18:58 PM »
Chris

Its not some people, its almost everybody.

Unlike seatbelts its impossible to enforce their use.

Also unlike seatbelts a doorcloser never saved anybodies life. The doors do the saving and doorclosers in domestic environments are innefective.

If smoke alarms were as useless as doorclosers then they would go in the bin too.

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2005, 01:51:08 PM »
Wee Brian, so why persist with the protected route strategy? ODPM's latest suggestion smacks of a 'fingers crossed' strategy to me.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2005, 03:11:54 PM »
Quote from: wee brian
Chris

Its not some people, its almost everybody.

Unlike seatbelts its impossible to enforce their use.

Also unlike seatbelts a doorcloser never saved anybodies life. The doors do the saving and doorclosers in domestic environments are innefective.

If smoke alarms were as useless as doorclosers then they would go in the bin too.

Even if 99% of people didn't use the things, I remain unconvinced that the authorities should stop advising people about best practise.  

Enforcement might be impossible, but I think that advice should focus on what is best, not what is most easily enforcable.

Surely what saves lifes (or reduces risks) is the package of compartmentation, the door closing mechanism being an essential part of that.

..........just my thoughts......

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2005, 08:57:40 PM »
Ian

The idea is that you build the building in a way which can be safe if people follow the community fire safety advice.

If we ditch the protected route then they cant close the doors even if they want to.

I'd rather have a closed door between me and a fire than share the same space as a sprinklered fire.

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2005, 09:04:57 PM »
Why would you share the same space as a sprinklered fire? You either stay safely in your bedroom (probably behind that door) and with your head out of the window; or walk quickly through the steam!
Maybe we could arrange for you to try it? Indeed, already a few members of the public have - quite safely. This is much more preferable than wondering when the flashover is going to occur!

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2005, 10:09:18 PM »
Ok so you agree that we need a door and the sprinklers. is that what you are saying?

If I walk through the steam how do I see where I am going?

Offline ian gough

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2005, 06:21:25 PM »
Don't forget, we are talking 3 storey domestic here:

1) I've never yet come across a client who wants no bedroom doors. So keep the bedroom doors - they don't seem to cause a problem.

2) I have come across many clients (and others) who do not want FR doors - but moreover, do not want self closing doors (FR or otherwise). So, here is a problem.

3) And I've also come across many who want open-plan lower floors (usually gallery study or lounge). Another problem!

I'm happy therefore with normal doors to bedrooms; window exits; domestic sprinkler  - PLUS smoke detection in risk rooms.

OR: as per current AD 'B' guidance  - as the home owner prefers.

You really must get a shot at walking through a real fire Brian!

Maybe it should be compulsory for all fire engineers at least once?

It's not really as bad as you might think - even without BA (in the bad old days we even used to train in real fires - without BA - because recruits weren't good enough to wear such sophisticated kit). So a sprinklered fire should not prove too difficult for you.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2005, 09:56:43 PM »
Ian don't go down the "I'm a fireman so I know all about fire" thing because you have a strong enough argument without resorting to such rubbish.

As with many fire safety issues we are starting from the wrong place. We have an established principle of protected routes in dwellings over the 4.5m height. Exactly how effective this is we really do not know.

Sprinkler protection does, of course offer some benefits, but to trade it off against physical seperation we need to be convinced that it will provide similar protection. which it doesn't.

The scenario you paint of closed bedroom doors and a sprinklered fire downstairs suggets that the occupants are going to be trapped in their bedrooms. This is not escape to a place of safety this is living a bit longer in the hope that some of your ex-colleagues show up.

Leaving our differences aside and getting back to the point of this particular thread, would you insist on self closers for the bedroom doors that you're suggesting or not?

Offline Markbr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • http://www.holdfire.com
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2005, 11:34:24 PM »
Hi everyone.

I must declare a vested interest since I presented a paper on this issue and demonstrated a solution at the Fire Service College last week. Nevertheless I think the proposal is dangerous for the public and firefighters alike.

I will try to explain why but it is hard without a picture.

My principal concern is in relation to new style three storey houses. From the stats I have collected and figures obtained from one national housebuilder, 85-90% of houses built today are of this type as builders and local authorities strive to meet quotas. This compares with around 10% of existing housing stock being 3 storey.

Therefore my first point is that whatever risk is associated with 3 storey properties, it is getting worse asthe propotion of these houses in the overall housing stock increases

In all the constructions I have seen, the sleeping accomodation is on the top floor, living spaces on the 2nd and the kitchen, utility room and garage entrance on the ground floor.

The stairs go up to the first floor, back on themselves in a gallery and then up to the third floor. All the doors to all the rooms open directoly onto the galleries i.e 3 feet from the stairs themselves. In accordance with current guidance, the smoke alarms are fitted in hallways.

Imagine a family sleeping on the top floor and a fire starts in one of the lower floor rooms. If the doors are open, the smoke alarms will trigger quickly but also the onlty means of escape will quickly become compromised. Even if we assume that someone wakes up, they will look down the stairwell and see smoke and possiblly light from flames as well.

Their reaction will be to wake the children, gather everyone in a bedroom and shut the door. Given that they are 3 storeys up, their chances of surviving a jump are slim. Their only chance is to hope that the Service gets to them before the fire or smoke do.

OPDM quoted a stat in their Fire Kills campaign that 41% of people who died in domestic fires were trapped in some way. As we know Protected stairways exist to give people time to get out safely. The follwing is a chilling qoute form Colin Meech, a senior fire researcher at the Fire Service College


QUOTE
“in a 3 storey house protected by smoke alarms but which is filling with smoke because doors have been left open, most people would die in their bed without ever never knowing their house was on fire.
Those who are awakened by the alarm only gain the opportunity to make peace with their maker before being lost.”


So my second point is that modern constructions increase the risk of people being trapped by fire.

For firefighters this means that as the proportion of 3 storey houses of this type increase, the number of fires that are in 3 storey houses will also increase. If I am corerect and this means a greater number of people are trapped by fire then it follows that an increased number of firefighters will put their lives on the line to rescue them.

My third point therefore is that given all of the above there is a greater risk of firefighers being killed or injured in such properties.

OK lets now look at closers and their use. I believe that all would agree that if these doors were properly used, lives would be saved (although I could really do with finding some evidence where people have died or survived because doors have been closed or left open - any help greatly appreciated)

The problem with closers is that people hate them because they are just impossible to live with. The issue is not that closers themsleves don't work, if they didn't, no doubt there would be advocates for removing them from commercial buildings too. Combine this with a "it will never happen to me" attitude and you get widespread non-compliance.

My view is that we need to tackle two issues here. The first is to make closers easy to live with. The second is to encourage compliance. The former has been something I have been working on and I believe I have a simple cheap and viable solution. If I can think of something surely ODPM with all its resources could come up with something better as opposed to junking a good safety measure?

Compliance is a tricky one -perhaps. Most people know that if they leave their back door unlocked and get burgled, they would expect a hard time getting their insurance to pay. How many people would say the same about wedging doors or removing closers and then claiming for a fire? Even the insurance companies are unclear on their policy. One that I contacted didn't even know that fire resisting doors were fitted in dwellings!

Perhaps if insurers were more clear on their policies about fire safty provisions and we had a workable solution to make closers easy to live with then we could save some of the 450 lives that are lost every year in domestic fires. It is these issues that are the thrust of my paper and my work.

As mentioned above any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.

My final point is that from what I have seen no-one can say that removing the requirement will save more lives. It might not cost any either but I would challenge anyone to say thay are 100% sure of that.

Sorry for the long email but its hard to make the position in a few words.

Regards, Mark

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2005, 09:03:28 AM »
OK mark so what is your simple cheap and viable solution

Offline Markbr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • http://www.holdfire.com
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2005, 09:15:13 AM »
I can find any forum rules that prevent me from mentioninga product here. If there are then perhaps someone could let me know.

In the meantime take a look at www.holdfire.com

The system is quite inexpensive

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2005, 06:11:31 PM »
Including, the additional cosy of smoke alarms with relay bases, and interconnecting wiring to same??
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline Markbr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • http://www.holdfire.com
Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2005, 07:06:14 PM »
Mains linked smoke alarms would be fitted as standard anyway so I have not included the cost of these in my cost build.

Given that the alarms are linked, only one relay base is required and I have included this in the cost.

The costs of wiring are also included.