Please tell me the media have got this story wrong......... http://www.metro.co.uk/n...y-sticker-is-a-fire-risk

Set light to a sign on a post in the street how far can that spread? Agree with Phil BIZARRE

I will be interested in Bleve's opinion on this? The sign is not on a post in the street it is on the front door, which is probably one of the fire exits from the building. Depending on the type of plastic used for the notice it may be a high fire hazard that could spread to the door itself and cut off the exit. Lots of variables i.e. anything else on the door that would contribute, position of the notice on the door, i.e above or below the letterbox etc. etc.

If this is the usual NW self adhesive sign which is just a few inches in diameter I cannot see how it could possibly be considered a fire risk. Seems to be a 'one rule fits all' approach.

All very fascinating I am sure. But the decision to remove the sign/sticker (if the story is as printed) is still ridiculous. Risk assessing is all about likelihood, impact and common sense. Yes, science is vital to support and influence decisions but not to lead them. An accidental ignition would be challenging. The sticker's role in assisting the development/spread of an existing fire would be less than minimal and how the hell do you deliberately ignite a sticker of a door (unless you use a blowlamp)??

Speechless! Surely removing the sticker will damage paint leaving wood exposed. What about the risk of assault to the removee when he / she is out and about in this risky neighbourhood? What about the environmental impact of the wasted signage. (apparently not speechless!)

just wondering how many signs, stickers are stuck to the outside of doors warning people to keep access clear as it is a fire door or an escape route etc probably millions and I wonder how many have been the source of a fire ZERO. I think they would be better securing the refuse bins and picking litter of the floor as that is more likely to be used as a combustible material as opposed to a sticker on a door. Phil

I have come across issues such as this in the fire risk assessments carried out for social housing providers. After recent events where tenants have been killed social housing providers have gone in to panic mode and have had FRAs carried out for a lot of various properties in a very short space of time. The standard of a lot of these FRAs is some what dubious at best. They high light this and that as a significant risk when it clearly in not. There's a couple of old sayings "you get what you pay for" & "pay peanuts get monkeys". Competent Assessors would look at the whole picture not just tick a box. The client needs educating and the incompetent assessor needs taking out the back and shooting (a bit dramatic I know). It is because of the poor standards of FRAs that these silly stories get in to the press.