Shocking facts about fire safety. Would you survive a fire in your office?
Guildford, United Kingdom - When you turn out the lights in your apartment or hotel room, visit a restaurant or ride the lift to your 4th floor office, you assume you will come out alive. Our safety and peace of mind are based on the assumption that buildings have been built safely and are correctly maintained to keep them that way. The law requires public buildings to be constructed and maintained so that, in a fire, exit routes are kept open, smoke and flames aren’t allowed to spread unchecked and fire fighters can get in to tackle the fire and get out again without loss of life. ` And we all assume the law is complied with.
But how justified are these assumptions? Bluntly, not at all. Even in
our apparently health-and-safety obsessed world it seems that in practice we
care little for compliance and policing and are uninterested in ensuring fire safety
in public buildings. This might seem harsh but recent evidence shows that as a
nation we ignore much of the relevant legislation, whether through ignorance,
laziness, incompetence, economy or just a general belief that ‘it’s someone
else’s responsibility’.
As increasing numbers of prosecutions are brought for breaches of the 2005 regulations it’s becoming obvious it’s not safe to assume anything when it comes to built-in fire protection. It seems that there has to be a disaster – either death or large-scale destruction – before we wake up to reality. The cases detailed below are just the tip of the iceberg – if large scale and prestigious companies, or local authorities and even Government departments are getting it wrong, it’s likely numerous smaller ones are making the same mistakes.
Sometimes it’s just buildings which are lost – traumatic and devastating as that is - and sometimes it’s lives. The Government is convinced that current legislation is sufficient and appropriate, (and the fire safety industry agrees) but compliance and policing of the law are inadequate. The issues must be faced before more lives are lost and businesses destroyed.
These cases are not exceptions
It would be naïve to think that these cases are unusual – they are simply the ones who have been caught. It’s frightening to think how many other Lakanal Houses or Pacific Wharfsthere might be around the country. It seems that it takes death or destruction to make people pay attention to built-in fire safety – faced with the effects of fire, it suddenly becomes important to check that fire safety measures do in fact exist. In the past, miners took canaries down the mines as early warning of dangerous gas. If the canary died the miner didn’t continue. The cases mentioned are like those canaries, indications that all is not well. No-one imagines that these are isolated cases – more likely the tip of the iceberg. It’s time for everyone concerned in the construction and maintenance of buildings to take responsibility and not assume anything. Better to be over-particular than to be the next dead canary.
The answer?
Problems have arisen from the extended chain of design, specification, purchase, assembly and installation – i.e. the steps leading to construction, each allowing a dilution of the original safety specification– and with the rather lax process of scrutiny and approval by the authorities because of clouded responsibilities and overworked resources The authorities responsible for approval are exposed to commercial pressures and market forces - perhaps not a good idea when public safety and public assets are at stake.
No one is claiming to have all the answers, but the core fire safety protection industry (genuinely qualified experts rather than self-appointed gurus), has already raised concerns and has come forward with a number of solutions that should be applied, including the use of third party certified manufacturers and installers
David Sugden, Chairman of the PFPF, is available for interview (contact details below).
The PFPF website (www.pfpf.org) can provide further information and guidance.
David Sugden, Passive Fire Protection Federation, Kingsley House, Ganders Business Park, Kingsley, Bordon GU35 9LU
Tel: 01420 471621
Website:www.pfpf.org
Email:admin@pfpf.org
As increasing numbers of prosecutions are brought for breaches of the 2005 regulations it’s becoming obvious it’s not safe to assume anything when it comes to built-in fire protection. It seems that there has to be a disaster – either death or large-scale destruction – before we wake up to reality. The cases detailed below are just the tip of the iceberg – if large scale and prestigious companies, or local authorities and even Government departments are getting it wrong, it’s likely numerous smaller ones are making the same mistakes.
Sometimes it’s just buildings which are lost – traumatic and devastating as that is - and sometimes it’s lives. The Government is convinced that current legislation is sufficient and appropriate, (and the fire safety industry agrees) but compliance and policing of the law are inadequate. The issues must be faced before more lives are lost and businesses destroyed.
These cases are not exceptions
It would be naïve to think that these cases are unusual – they are simply the ones who have been caught. It’s frightening to think how many other Lakanal Houses or Pacific Wharfsthere might be around the country. It seems that it takes death or destruction to make people pay attention to built-in fire safety – faced with the effects of fire, it suddenly becomes important to check that fire safety measures do in fact exist. In the past, miners took canaries down the mines as early warning of dangerous gas. If the canary died the miner didn’t continue. The cases mentioned are like those canaries, indications that all is not well. No-one imagines that these are isolated cases – more likely the tip of the iceberg. It’s time for everyone concerned in the construction and maintenance of buildings to take responsibility and not assume anything. Better to be over-particular than to be the next dead canary.
The answer?
Problems have arisen from the extended chain of design, specification, purchase, assembly and installation – i.e. the steps leading to construction, each allowing a dilution of the original safety specification– and with the rather lax process of scrutiny and approval by the authorities because of clouded responsibilities and overworked resources The authorities responsible for approval are exposed to commercial pressures and market forces - perhaps not a good idea when public safety and public assets are at stake.
No one is claiming to have all the answers, but the core fire safety protection industry (genuinely qualified experts rather than self-appointed gurus), has already raised concerns and has come forward with a number of solutions that should be applied, including the use of third party certified manufacturers and installers
David Sugden, Chairman of the PFPF, is available for interview (contact details below).
The PFPF website (www.pfpf.org) can provide further information and guidance.
David Sugden, Passive Fire Protection Federation, Kingsley House, Ganders Business Park, Kingsley, Bordon GU35 9LU
Tel: 01420 471621
Website:www.pfpf.org
Email:admin@pfpf.org
© Copyright 2011 Means Of Escape Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2011 Think Agency - Website Designers Kent