Canuk wrote:I think Bovlomov hit the proverbial on the head. We assume that fraud, self interest, connivance and plain greed will not be part of a risk assessment, but factor it out as we imagine these practices to be excluded from Health and Safety measures and research.
But it's clear that at least some of these were at play in the building supervision. Risk assessments should factor them into the final analysis. Perhaps in the form of a question 'how likely is it that the landlord of this property would cut costs and deprive residents of basic safety equipment and means of escape'. Risk assessment for air travel now includes the provision for potential suicide and it's early detection in pilots.
Human interest and human failings should absolutely be factored into any modern risk assessment, especially when there's an opportunity to avoid or compromise basic safety. There's no point jailing people after the fact, after the needless death of innocents. The government are already trying to minimise this disaster.
We shouldn't let them.
Risk Assessments shouldn't have to account for that kind of stupidity, if good legislation, and the staff to enforce it are in place to mitigate it.
In this case, the following would likely have prevented the fire from becoming out of control and/or allowed most residents to escape
-explicit ban on external cladding that isn't fire proof
-sprinkler systems required in the tower block
-adequate fire alarm system
-testing of emergency systems and fire fighting equipment in the tower block
-fire extinguishers in all apartments
-emergency lighting in stair wells and halls (also tested)
-more than one means of escape (e.g. deployable escape slides on every, or every second floor)
-fire drills and training the the use of extinguishers
-frequent inspection of the above (including checking that drills & tests are done regularly with authority to repair & bill the landlord(s)
Also, residents concerns must be listened to & acted upon, as should any concerns expressed by the fire brigade or inspectors. It might be a good idea to have a third party, that can be seen as independent, involved in assessing both fire safety, and residents concerns, or available to mediate in cases where residents are not satisfied with the outcome.
That's not to say that risk assessments should not consider the possibility; some do. But too much focus on this sort of thing may take focus off the main aspects of safety
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
