Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just went off on a rant on another forum regarding fire evacuation.
Seems that there is yet another ISO standard ISO 23601: 2009 Safety Identification- Escape and Evacuation plan signs.
These seem to be as much use as the introduction of directional brail signage for the blind.
When will some people realise that the current positioning of high level signange and emergency lighting is as much use as a chocolate fire blanket.
Smoke/fire effluent will travel and accumulate from ceiling downward but our standards, guidance etc will advocate the positioning of EL & signange at high level. When will we realise that mid to low is a better proposition
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I couldn't agree with you more
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Funny how the airline industry introduced floor lighting to the emergency exits because of that very reason! Agree totally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Agree with bleve completely. There is a man based in the UK who is willing to give talks to any branch/section on this topic (FOC). He has put this system into the Madrid metro system.
There is another chap from Northern Ireland who has developed another type of low level evacuation system who subject to his diary is willing to deliver talks around the world (FOC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree totally regarding the nature of fire debris and smoke obstructing higher levels first. I remember for some reason discussing in the past, required heights for warnings / signage and I was informed it was to prevent them being obscured easily at lower levels by storage, equipment etc. and so they could be seen from further away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
While not disagreeing that in certain special circumstances such as aircraft and also possibly hotels and other sleeping accommodation where evacuation may start at a later stage in the development of a fire, it may be more appropriate to have low level or floor level lighting, I don't agree that high level signs and lighting are "as useful as a chocolate fireblanket".
The great majority of evacuations where people need to refer to signs or need lighting to see the way out happen under conditions where there is no smoke, either becasue there is actually no fire or because even if there is, smoke has not had time to get into the escape routes yet. After all we would hope would we not that the evacuation is proceeding before corridors and the like become smoke-logged?
The previous point about the ease with which signs and lights would become blocked at low levels is well made. Signs in particular could not be seen across a large open building if they were at low level and obscured by plant and machinery. High level signs are much easier to see in such a situation.
I would submit therefore that as with everything else to do with fire safety there is no prescriptive right and wrong answer. It all depends on the assessment of the level, nature and type of risk. Certainly there is a place for high level signs and lighting and there are undoubtedly some circumstances where they would be preferable to low level equivalents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Is this not why BS ISO 16069 was brought in? I'm pretty sure this covers recommendations for intermediate and low location markings.
Also the fact that ISO 7010 is soon to become EN 7010 will see a standard 'look' for fire exit signs, getting rid of the EC directive (92/58/EEC) which have been found to be confusing with poor comprehension results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Do learned colleagues agree that fire call-point and extinguisher location signs belong at high-level?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Personally I would recommend high level signage for both as they wil be easier to see from a distance (obviously depending on site layout) but also at mid/low level, next to the actual call point and extinguisher, a photoluminescent version being preferable to help locate essential equipment in the event of lighting failure in an emergency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What recent evidence is there that these signs being at high level have caused a failure of people to successfully evacuate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I wonder if we are finding a problem where there's not one.
The only issue re avoiding high level signage is perhaps warning signs on doors (including hazchem signs in London) which are for firefighter's information and in some cases are better located a lower levels.
It will be necessary for firefighters to see these signs some time after the discovery of fire (as opposed to fire exit signage which will be viewed by relevant persons almost immediately the alarm is raised) and as such it may be likely that the upper part of the access corridor/room will be affected by smoke or heat which will obscure or damage the signage.
In addition, it's very likely that fire crews will be in a crawl position when working in BA in a fire, so more able to see lower signs than higher ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.