5 ms·

The 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 sho

The 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 ago
Panic 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 ago
  I 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.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > It’s also crap written by someone who clearly has never studied fire safety and has assumed that all fire safety experts are fools. If those were "experts" who came with this advise, then they are indeed round morons who should be fired immediately, and people who appointed, and supervised them fired too. People have a head on their shoulders to at least think about obvious life, or death decisions. You do not jump in front of a truck, you do not eat rotten potatoes, and you do not stay in a burning house no matter what "genius" comes with an alternative opinion on that. That is just mind boggling.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      It calls to mind the "terrorism experts" who always told us to obey hijackers' every command, no matter how dangerous it seemed. After all, we could trust that those trustworthy folks wanted to safely arrive at some destination. Until one day, the experts stopped making that recommendation.
  - x0x0 6y ago
    Not sure how you rectify > 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. With the state of play in the UK, where something like 5% of homes need emergency remediation to make them actually firesafe. Or 2m people can't get a mortgage [1]. And that's with a cutoff of 54 feet of height! When all the insulation is retested, but for real, who knows how much will need remediation. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/913cc2ab-7fd5-4d41-a097-df408b4fa57d https://www.ft.com/content/913cc2ab-7fd5-4d41-a097-df408b4fa...
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      At a certain point even experts need to assume that everyone else in their area is being above board, and not actively pushing for unsafe outcomes. In this case there were a number of companies who actively obfuscated critical safety information. That doesn’t make the designs and safely precautions of others invalid, they ultimately have to trust someone. You wouldn’t condemn the entire medical profession because one pharma company produce and sold a dangerous drug, obfuscating it’s risk and only highlighting its benefits. Doctors have to assume that manufactures are outright lying to them and regulators. The same applies to fire safety. Grenfell happened in large part because cladding manufactures obfuscated the failings of their products, and government ignored the advice given by experts. Fire safety experts had issues numerous warnings about Grenfell specifically, before it caught fire. So I reconcile to two points you bring up quite simply. Fire experts didn’t err, they highlighted the problems. Everyone else just ignored them, we’re the fools, not them.
      - x0x0 6y ago
        > In this case there were a number of companies who actively obfuscated critical safety information Did companies lie? Sure, but companies lie all the time. The so-called experts failed wildly too. From the article: > Arconic realised its polyethylene-cored cladding had a horrendous reaction to fire following French tests in 2005, where it burned fiercely and obtained a basement ranking of Class E. Despite this, Arconic continued to market it as the much safer Class B (based on an earlier certification obtained using limited test data which had persuaded a respected British certification body, the British Board of Agrément, to produce the certificate apparently confirming this). The BBA is chock full of these "experts". Who turn out to have been more of an industry-whitewashing exercise. The costs to detect this would have been extremely low; for example, any "modeling" appears not to have been done based on reality (build a model, light a piece on fire) but rather on... who knows. > You wouldn’t condemn the entire medical profession because one pharma company produce and sold a dangerous drug, obfuscating it’s risk and only highlighting its benefits. The experts and the entire testing regime would, quite reasonably, be called wholly into question. Particularly when the experts proved susceptible to what sure looks like bribery. To wit, France managed to ban this stuff just fine.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    > all fire safety experts Here's the thing, not ALL fire safety experts will tell you the same thing. I just looked up the guidance for my city (Seattle) and it gives what I consider to be sane advice: > Every alarm must be treated as a fire emergency. When you hear the fire alarm or if you encounter smoke or fire, take these steps to ensure a safe evacuation of the building. > 1. Leave your unit as quickly as possible, closing the front door as you go. Pull the fire alarm next to the stairwell as you exit if fire alarm is not sounding. > 2. Use the stairs, not the elevators, to evacuate the building. [Point 3 concerns what to do after evacuation.] > 4. If you encounter smoke or fire outside of your apartment and you are unable to exit using the stairs, stay in your unit. Keep your door and windows closed. Use towels or clothing to block openings around doors or vents where smoke might enter. They also say on their website: > If you hear the building fire alarm, take it seriously. Every second delayed wastes valuable time needed to escape. For this reason, developing and practicing a home escape plan with all residents is so important. If a fire starts in your building you must know how to get out quickly. Don't wait to find out the severity of the situation. Your home escape plan should include two ways to exit out of your apartment and a designated outside meeting place away from the building. These experts are telling me to GTFO immediately, and only shelter in place if and only if I am unable to GTFO. It sounds like in London they give different advice either because their experts are fools, or because their buildings are death traps by Seattle standards... Re-quoting for emphasis: "Every second delayed wastes valuable time needed to escape. [...] Don't wait to find out the severity of the situation. "

baybal2 6y ago

Panic 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 ago
I 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.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > It’s also crap written by someone who clearly has never studied fire safety and has assumed that all fire safety experts are fools. If those were "experts" who came with this advise, then they are indeed round morons who should be fired immediately, and people who appointed, and supervised them fired too. People have a head on their shoulders to at least think about obvious life, or death decisions. You do not jump in front of a truck, you do not eat rotten potatoes, and you do not stay in a burning house no matter what "genius" comes with an alternative opinion on that. That is just mind boggling.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    It calls to mind the "terrorism experts" who always told us to obey hijackers' every command, no matter how dangerous it seemed. After all, we could trust that those trustworthy folks wanted to safely arrive at some destination. Until one day, the experts stopped making that recommendation.
- x0x0 6y ago
  Not sure how you rectify > 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. With the state of play in the UK, where something like 5% of homes need emergency remediation to make them actually firesafe. Or 2m people can't get a mortgage [1]. And that's with a cutoff of 54 feet of height! When all the insulation is retested, but for real, who knows how much will need remediation. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/913cc2ab-7fd5-4d41-a097-df408b4fa57d https://www.ft.com/content/913cc2ab-7fd5-4d41-a097-df408b4fa...
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    At a certain point even experts need to assume that everyone else in their area is being above board, and not actively pushing for unsafe outcomes. In this case there were a number of companies who actively obfuscated critical safety information. That doesn’t make the designs and safely precautions of others invalid, they ultimately have to trust someone. You wouldn’t condemn the entire medical profession because one pharma company produce and sold a dangerous drug, obfuscating it’s risk and only highlighting its benefits. Doctors have to assume that manufactures are outright lying to them and regulators. The same applies to fire safety. Grenfell happened in large part because cladding manufactures obfuscated the failings of their products, and government ignored the advice given by experts. Fire safety experts had issues numerous warnings about Grenfell specifically, before it caught fire. So I reconcile to two points you bring up quite simply. Fire experts didn’t err, they highlighted the problems. Everyone else just ignored them, we’re the fools, not them.
    - x0x0 6y ago
      > In this case there were a number of companies who actively obfuscated critical safety information Did companies lie? Sure, but companies lie all the time. The so-called experts failed wildly too. From the article: > Arconic realised its polyethylene-cored cladding had a horrendous reaction to fire following French tests in 2005, where it burned fiercely and obtained a basement ranking of Class E. Despite this, Arconic continued to market it as the much safer Class B (based on an earlier certification obtained using limited test data which had persuaded a respected British certification body, the British Board of Agrément, to produce the certificate apparently confirming this). The BBA is chock full of these "experts". Who turn out to have been more of an industry-whitewashing exercise. The costs to detect this would have been extremely low; for example, any "modeling" appears not to have been done based on reality (build a model, light a piece on fire) but rather on... who knows. > You wouldn’t condemn the entire medical profession because one pharma company produce and sold a dangerous drug, obfuscating it’s risk and only highlighting its benefits. The experts and the entire testing regime would, quite reasonably, be called wholly into question. Particularly when the experts proved susceptible to what sure looks like bribery. To wit, France managed to ban this stuff just fine.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > all fire safety experts Here's the thing, not ALL fire safety experts will tell you the same thing. I just looked up the guidance for my city (Seattle) and it gives what I consider to be sane advice: > Every alarm must be treated as a fire emergency. When you hear the fire alarm or if you encounter smoke or fire, take these steps to ensure a safe evacuation of the building. > 1. Leave your unit as quickly as possible, closing the front door as you go. Pull the fire alarm next to the stairwell as you exit if fire alarm is not sounding. > 2. Use the stairs, not the elevators, to evacuate the building. [Point 3 concerns what to do after evacuation.] > 4. If you encounter smoke or fire outside of your apartment and you are unable to exit using the stairs, stay in your unit. Keep your door and windows closed. Use towels or clothing to block openings around doors or vents where smoke might enter. They also say on their website: > If you hear the building fire alarm, take it seriously. Every second delayed wastes valuable time needed to escape. For this reason, developing and practicing a home escape plan with all residents is so important. If a fire starts in your building you must know how to get out quickly. Don't wait to find out the severity of the situation. Your home escape plan should include two ways to exit out of your apartment and a designated outside meeting place away from the building. These experts are telling me to GTFO immediately, and only shelter in place if and only if I am unable to GTFO. It sounds like in London they give different advice either because their experts are fools, or because their buildings are death traps by Seattle standards... Re-quoting for emphasis: "Every second delayed wastes valuable time needed to escape. [...] Don't wait to find out the severity of the situation. "