5 ms·
Shelter in place advice hasn’t changed. In theory flats in the U.K. are built with fire barriers between each Flat, preventing the spread of fire. If you take
by avianlyric 6y ago
Shelter in place advice hasn’t changed.
In theory flats in the U.K. are built with fire barriers between each Flat, preventing the spread of fire. If you take my flat for example, we separated by concrete walls and fire doors from our neighbours on all sides.
Part of the reason why shelter in place still exists, is because the fire exits aren’t designed to handle every flat evacuating at the same time. It would result in people getting stuck on stairs and getting trampled. Almost certainly resulting in greater loss of life, than if everyone stayed put.
Places like Grenfell failed because the central premise of fire insulted flats was broken. Not just by flammable cladding, but also by faulty fire doors that failed to prevent the spread of smoke into common areas and the build up of flammable materials in what should have been fire sterile common areas.
Once again this is an engineering disaster caused by multiple failing over a long period of time. Rather than the failure of a singular policy. Although the cladding ensured that what should have been a small fire became and an inferno that quickly overwhelmed the other, already compromised, fire safety systems.
- bigbubba 6y agoTo be frank, if everybody else is sheltering in place, that means the staircases will be clear for me to run down. If everybody thinks as I do, maybe there will be problems. But, judging by my experience with staircases in America (namely them being fairly wide and numerous), I prefer my odds in the staircase. Even if I only manage to get a few floors down before becoming tangled in other humans, maybe those few floors are enough to put me below the fire, or below the floors now filled with toxic smoke.
- avianlyric 6y ago> But, judging by my experience with staircases in America (namely them being fairly wide and numerous), I prefer my odds in the staircase. Quite the opposite is true in the U.K.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Pfhreak 6y agoStaircases often become choked with smoke. You have minutes, perhaps, before you are are risk for hypoxia and smoke inhalation. Opening fire doors can undermine the safety of others if they don't get closed properly (or if you allow smoke or fire to start pouring into a floor.) That said, it's been clearly demonstrated that developers are unwilling (or unable) to pay for proper fire safety, so all bets may be off.
- bigbubba 6y agoI would not enter a stairwell that was filled with smoke. Smoke rises, so if there is smoke in the stairwell below me, it's probably also in the stairwell on my floor as well, though there may be a small window where I get mislead. Nevertheless, in America these stairwells are designed specifically to be used for evacuations, and in my city the official advice is to GTFO as quickly as you can using a stairwell the moment you hear the (building wide) alarm or if you see smoke. So this is certainly what I would do.
- mypalmike 6y agoHaving been a participant in the attempted evacuation of a 15 story building during multiple fire drills, I'm not looking forward to ever having to evacuate for real. After 2 hours under ideal conditions, the stairwells were still clogged with people, and nobody above around the 10th floor got out.
- baybal2 6y ago> It would result in people getting stuck on stairs and getting trampled This logic is absurd. Who came up with this "advice" is a complete idiot, second after a person approving a highrise with a single staircase, and even no external escape stairs. Even without a flammable cladding, you can get as short as minutes for how quick a fire can structurally compromise a even a very well fire proofed, and and better engineered highrise building. I believe, immediate evacuation was a norm in pretty much every country I lived in.
- bigbubba 6y agoThe Station nightclub fire had people get trapped at the entrance by a stampede, so it can happen. Ideally buildings are now designed to mitigate that, and should have occupancy limits set low enough by the fire marshal to facilitate immediate evacuations. But if any of that isn't true, I think my best bet is making the decision to evacuate as early as possible, in hopes of beating the rush.
- baybal2 6y agoPanic is completely not a reason to not evacuate: 1. you do not panic in fire unless you want to die. 2. building may have less than an hour, or even minutes of structural integrity left after first alarm is heard. 3. you may have single minutes until people are incapacitated, and cannot leave on their own, or already dead from poisoning. 4. you may have minutes until smoke penetrates stairwells, or fire gets the emergency ventilation, or smoke gets thick enough to block emergency lighting, and people are trapped, even if they have smoke hoods.
- bigbubba 6y agoI agree. Trampling is a real concern, but one that would have me running for the exits sooner, not waiting longer.
- avianlyric 6y ago> you do not panic in fire unless you want to die. This is not how panic works. Almost by definition no one chooses to panic, that’s why it’s so dangerous. As for the rest of your comment. It’s also crap written by someone who clearly has never studied fire safety and has assumed that all fire safety experts are fools. Rather than experts who have studied and modelled plenty of different scenarios, resulting in modern fire standards that rarely fail.