Who Makes the Decision

I have been thinking about this blog for a while now and it goes back to one I wrote a few weeks ago.  This relates to fire safety and how people escape from their homes in the event of a fire.  Obviously I have a vested interest in this issue with the product that we manufacture and sell but that doesn't take away from the fact that there are flaws and problems in the system.

Over recent weeks I have been researching this issue more intensively and I still can not find the answers that I believe are fundamental to this issue.

I will outline the facts again relating to Means of Escape from buildings.

1.  The ground floor main entrance will ALWAYS be the primary means of escape.
2.  New buildings will have a hard wired smoke alarm system.  This is brilliant as it gives early warning to the occupants that there is a potential fire and alerts them that they need to escape - hopefully safely via the primary means of escape.
3.  The upper floors of a property must have a secondary means of escape.  This is either by way of fire escape windows i.e. a window with a clear opening of 0.33m2 which enables a fully grow adult easy exit.  In buildings with two or more upper floors the fire escape window rule still applies but this is further enhanced with fire doors - which in theory give the occupants ample time to make escape down the stairs to the primary escape route.

The above is all brilliant but as is the case with some regulations it does not take into account what happens in real life.

If you are in the unfortunate position of a fire starting in your home the chances are that you will be in bed. This means that you will in all probability be upstairs.  When the smoke alarm goes off there is a chance that the primary escape route will be blocked.  If not then you make escape down the stairs and out of the door.  If it is you make your way to the escape window.  At this point you have two choices - wait for the fire service or exit the window.

Most upper floor windows are 4.5 metres or higher.  The regulations actually deem it acceptable to exit a window from this height.  Just look out of a window now and ask yourself if you would want to get yourself and your family out of the window and down to the ground.  My thought is that you would be a little worried about this.

BUT - someone - and this is the point deems it acceptable to do this.  THey say that if you go out backwards and hang from the cill you can then drop safely to the floor.  Have a look at the image in this and let me know what you think.

Now lets take this a step further and consider a 3 storey property - fitted with fire doors to give a safe exit in the event of a fire.  I have a number of friends who live in these properties and without exception they have gone out to but some wedges because they are sick of the fire doors automatically shutting all the time.  I would also guess that not all of these wedges are removed at night which therefore makes the fire door useless and leaves them in the same position of having to exit from a first or even second floor window in the event of a fire.

The simple question I would ask is why does the person who deems it acceptable to exit a building safely from 4.5 metres or Higher not also see these facts.  If I where to be lucky enough to be able to get myself into the position shown above the one worry I would have is that I would catch my feet on the lower cill and topple backwards onto my head.

Would a fire escape ladder not be a reasonable addition to the regulations.  In the majority of cases the answer would undoubtedly be yes.   Not suitable for all eventualities we know but then the current regs are not suitable for all.  For example if I was disabled I would not be able to get out of a first floor window anyway and would have alternative safety measures in place.  

I would welcome some feedback on this issue and also if you feel as I do why not sign our e petition to make this issue more widely known

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18099

Safe means of escape should be a right for all.

The World Without Phones

The problems caused by Blackberry yesterday have prompted these thoughts.  The whole world seemed to be talking about (not emailing I might add) the fact that the Blackberry network was not working and nobody could use BBM and Twitter etc from their phones.

I got me thinking to the days before mobile phones and how peaceful it was.

When you left the office - you left
When you got to work - you where at work

Business still coped and things got done.  If you went out for a day you where out and you could not be reached.

When I was a student I worked as a cycle courier in London.  We used two way radios to communicate.  You woke up and turned it on then waited for your call sign before you set off.

It all seemed easy and less stressful then - if you rang someone and they where out that was it.  Now if you send a text and dont get an immediate response you feel as though the person has fallen out with you or are not talking to you.

Our whole way of communication has changed beyond recognition in 15 years.

Now we must answer a text before anything else

If the mobile rings it has to be answered

We check for emails every five minutes

We check Twitter and Facebook for updates and mentions

We are available 24 hours a day.

My boss texted me the other day at about 11.30 pm
"you up" he said
"I am now" I replied
The phone was next to my bed - the alarm clock

I am not decrying mobile technology because I would not be without mine - I am just thinking back to the days when people talked and not texted, when people worked 8 hours and then went home.

I wonder what the next 15 years will bring and how things will move forward again.

Green Deal - Will It Work

Whilst I applaud the initiative of the 'Green Deal' there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions and people jumping the gun when this issue is still being debated and the finer workings still being discussed.

I have seen web sites advising people about green deal suppliers and advisors.  Sites asking consumers to register their interest etc. - yet we do not know who the advisors and suppliers are yet.  We do not even know how the system will fully work.

What springs to my mind is that these 'Companies' are just collecting data from the general public which can then be used at a later date to offer to the final green deal providers.

The names of the providers that are being talked about are all blue chip household names - British Gas, M & S, B & Q etc.

I suppose my main concern is how the scheme will actually work.  This is how I see it in my own simplistic way.

The assessor from one of these companies comes to your house and advises that certain improvements should be made to save money on your bills.  The Golden Rule is met and the cost of the work is less than the saving to be made over the time of the plan.

A quotation is then provided by the GD Provider ( B& Q, M& S etc)  The GD Provider must also have a network of GD Installers who are registered under the relevant certification schemes.

The work is then carried out and the supplier of the products is paid, the installer is paid and the provider takes their cut (rest assured they will not be doing it for the love of the planet)

Now this is where I am getting confused.  Once all these people are paid and the 'payback scheme' is set up through an Energy Company there would appear to be a massive hole.  Are we led to believe that the energy companies are going to fund the up front work or are the government going to give the money to the energy companies who it will then get the money back from as they collect it over a 25 year period.

I suppose what I am saying is that somewhere along the line the people who install, supply and manage these projects will want to be paid on completion.  So are the government using tax payers money to fund this project up front because there is no way that B&Q etc will be funding it - these are businesses out to make money.  Then energy companies will not fund it - they are out to make money.  This leaves me with the only conclusion that as tax payers we will be funding the big companies once again in the same way that we funded the banks.

If 100k homes take up the green deal to a value of £10 000 the bill would be £1 Billion.

I thought we where in really bad debt in the UK so where do we find another billion to pay the likes of B&Q, M&S etc.

comments please and correct me if I have got this wrong.

Please bear in mind though that I support the green deal - just questioning the way it is funded