Fire Exit Signs: Aesthetics Vs Practicality

Having recently carried out a safety sign installation for a new wing of a large hospital, I found myself embroiled in a large debate about why the signs recommended had been installed directly over the larger of the two double doors, rather than in the centre of the door frame. This article will examine why the debate started and how it was resolved.

Within the new hospital wing, up to thirty double doors had fire exit signs shown above them. The doors themselves were made up of a full leaf door and a two-third leaf door. In other words the secondary door was far smaller than the main door.

The issue here was one of practicality over aesthetics. On the one hand the building's owners wanted their impressive new build to look as good as it possibly could do come the big opening. On the other hand, there was myself, the installer, whose only concern was the long-term speed of egress in an emergency.

I felt the crux of the debate centred around the BSi's statement that says fire exit signs are not installed into buildings for their aesthetics. As BS5499 part 4 says, when it comes to installing fire exits, "fitting in with the decor should not be a consideration in overall sign system design". Fire exit signs are there for one reason only - to ensure evacuees can make their way the shortest route to safety, without confusion or unnecessary delay ("defining the shortest travel distance").

The argument that I strongly put forward was which door did the building owner's actually want would-be evacuees to use in the event of an emergency? Whilst the secondary door could be used without restriction in the event of an emergency, it is clearly not the door that the Building Regulations intends for evacuees to escape through.