We’re so used to the conventions of visual exit signage and audible alarms, but does anyone ever think of bringing them together
It’s the depths of winter and there are plenty of opportunities for just gazing into an open fire, burning safely in its grate. Which reminds me . . .
. . . an open fire. We associate escape lighting with emergency lighting, but is that really the case? While the ‘escape lighting’ definition is correct for its intended usage, what are we to make about the implied ‘emergency lighting’ situation?
At the moment, the concept of ‘escape’ relates simply to a power failure: the electricity has gone off and it’s gone dark. How can we get out of this building? Without belittling the idea of potentially having to get a lot of people out of a building calmly and in safety, a power failure isn’t really an ‘emergency’. And that is why the term isn’t formally used to describe this in progress e emergency lighting . . . except that’s what we call it.
Let’s look at a true potential emergency. Should a fire break out in an office building, say, there will be fire alarms to set off and a well-designed provision of fire-fighting equipment to hand. But there is no visual indication that an emergency is in progress. The assumption has always been that, unless the fire has disrupted the power supply, occupants will have sufficient general illumination to allow their exit – and if the situation is more serious, then the escape lighting will be illuminated. But that doesn’t allow for a situation where a fire can develop without the building losing power, with smoke restricting visibility of exit signs.
Is there an argument for suggesting that the fire alarm circuit should be connected to the exit signage, which can then be made to pulse when the alarm is activated? We now have LEDs that are low enough in energy and bright enough in output to cater for such a situation, and more smart and wireless control protocols than you can shake a screwdriver at.
Sound and Light
The current argument is that illuminated emergency exit signage already exists, so the directions to leave a building are already obvious. But I would maintain two things: that audible fire alarms are not calls to action. In my experience, an alarm going off is a cue to everyone to look at one another with that “does that mean us?” quizzical air. And exit signage exists as part of the visual wallpaper. Yes, we know what’s meant by it if anyone asks, but do any of us look at an exit sign and say ‘and THAT’S how I get out of this building’? The majority of our sensory input is visual, and I would suggest that pulsing exit signs, combined with the clamour of a fire alarm, might be more of a motivator for us to get the hell out of the building.
And here’s a thing: as I type ‘the majority of our sensory input is visual’ there’s a voice in my head saying ‘not if you can’t see it isn’t’. To which I reply with a flourish: ‘ . . . and neither can you hear an alarm if you’re deaf!’ There’s an opportunity here to improve a call to action for more people and to create a greater sense of awareness to the potential risks of hanging around in a building where there may well be a serious fire.
Its important that we continually question current ways of doing things. We’re doing enough crazy, inconsequential, things with LEDs, isn’t this something that could actually be useful?