Thanks Terry
Your points are a useful background to any discussions.
There seems to be a growing support for the provision of sprinklers in all
buildings (apart from some heritage buildings) which might delay the spread
of fire and smoke and allow for more time to evacuate.
Still it seems that health and safety issues are considered ok to spend
money on, but not access. Maybe we should point out that there is really no
difference. Public buildings, especially, ought to be built to accommodate
numbers of people who might need assistance to leave the building in an
emergency.
Best wishes
Flick
At 17:18 20/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Dave and everyone,
>Some good points on a subject that has been bothering me and my Fire Dept
>colleagues for years.I'd like to add some personal thoughts, though they
>may not prove popular.Bear in mind that the ultimate responsibility for
>Fire Safety rests with the Occupier.
>1.There are limits to what Building Control and Fire Brigade Consultations
>can insist on in terms of design for disabled evacuation.
>2.There are practical limits to what designers can achieve: Fire-fighting
>lifts are beyond the budget of anything but very large projects.Sure, you
>can design massive refuges,compartments or plan phased evacuation such as
>in Residential Care Homes but you need a very large space and an awful lot
>of fit staff to assist with the evacuation of a lot of non-ambulant
>people. Again, bear in mind that the Fire Brigade have no obligation to
>assist people from refuges.
>3.Passenger lifts are normally designed for easy access, i.e. not in fire
>protected areas that lead outside. Therefore, although in theory, with a
>separate power supply, they can be designed to take people down to the
>ground floor in case of fire, they are often likely drop them out
>precisely where the fire may be.
>4. It is a fact that numbers of people are often restricted in different
>types of buildings according to usage, stair widths etc. In private, the
>majority of Fire professionals that I know believe it is madness not to
>restrict the number of people who would require assisted escape to the
>number that management know they can safely handle.This is not out of Ryan
>Airish ignorance but because they know fire and have a healthy fear of it.
> From the Great Fire of London to the present day it has often been
>terrible tragedies that have driven Fire and Building Regs. Occupiers in
>a sense will be damned if they do, damned if they don't - or perhaps a
>frying pan and fire analogy might suit better.In the meantime, I think we
>should all be writing to ODPM and the Chief Fire Officers Association to
>get it top of the agenda. Sorry to be so long-winded.
>Terry Warren
>Inclusive Design Manager
>[log in to unmask]
>
>----------End of Message----------
>
>Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the
>distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
>
>http://www.inclusive-design.it
>
>Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
Chair, MDPAG (Manchester Disabled People's Access Group)
Office: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 0161 273 5033
Fax: 0161 273 2637
Website: http://www.mdpag.org.uk
Personal: [log in to unmask]
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
http://www.inclusive-design.it
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|