Some basic British|safety regulations

There are three accepted considerations in determining the number of people a building can safely accommodate: construction of the building, total floor area and number and width of exits. The maximum number of people that can be safely allowed in a building is calculated using these three factors. Each can be a critical limiting factor. Firstly, the acceptable evacuation time for a building varies from 3 to 2 minutes. A building of traditional construction, ie non-combustible walls with combustible floors/ceilings is 2.5 minutes. This means that once an emergency is called everybody can safely leave the building within 2.5 minutes. Secondly, the total usable floor space; toilets, corridors, stairways, do not count as usable space. As a rough guide in most entertainment venues the amount of space allowed per person ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 of a metre depending on the amount of seating. Thirdly, the number of and width of exits. Exits are calculated on unit widths of 525mm, which is the average width of a person and the rate at which people move through doorways. Therefore a standard door of 750mm only counts as 1 unit width, even though it exceeds the 525mm standard. This is because only 1 person can go through a single doorway at any one time. It has been proved that people will move through a 525mm space at the rate of 40 persons per minute. If a building needs to be evacuated within 2 minutes 30 seconds it can be seen that if 40 persons per minute through a 525mm space is multiplied by 2.5 (acceptable time in minutes to evacuate) = 100 persons that can exit a building through a 525mm space, within an acceptable period (2.5 minutes).Whilst the final calculations are obviously more complex it is a good rule of thumb to consider exits as the limiting factor in most cases, and they are easily observable. If doors are standard width then the sums are quite easy: one door one hundred people. Though in no way precise, perhaps this simple rule might allow patrons who visit establishments whose fire safety concerns them to vote with their feet.

FRED MORRICE

BANGKOK

Since the tragedy of the fire at Santika, I have conducted a small investigation on the safety of other bars in popular areas including the well known backpacking district of Khaosan Road in Bangkok. I would like you to further read my findings on ThaiVisa.com ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Nightclubs-Risk-t233204.html ). I also spoke live to the BBC and Sky News in the United Kingdom on the night of the fire with a news report about what was happening at Santika in Ekkamai.I would like you to either investigate or take the time to work with me to implement safety procedures and to enforce authorities to either shut down, or to invest in safety regulations to clubs, pubs and bars alike.

Andrew Jones

Bangkok

It's the authorities who are to blame

This terrible loss of life at the Santika was completely preventable, and the questions which must be asked in the time after this tragedy are why did this happen, can it happen again and how can catastrophes like this be prevented. The sad fact is that the level of adherence to safety procedures here in Thailand is appallingly and unacceptably low. So the further question that must be asked is why this is so. Is it deliberate with full knowledge of the possible consequences, or is it ignorance? Either is equally unacceptable. The public at large has a right to expect protection from abuses by owners of establishments which put their lives at risk. So whilst the actual cause of the fire may have been non-adherence to safety procedures it is the authorities responsible for enforcing the law, in its present form, that must be held primarily accountable for this needless loss of life as it was their civic duty to ensure that the public was safe and in that duty they failed woefully.

Like it or not this tragedy has once again propelled Thailand to international prominence and once more for all the wrong reasons. The effect on the Kingdom's battered tourism industry is not hard to imagine.What must happen now is an extensive and transparent investigation with the results promptly published and specific recommendations made with responsibility allocated and blame apportioned. Not the usual procedure of a flurry of pointless activity followed by it all being quietly forgotten. The country deserves better than it has had from its officials at every level and the victims deserve a proper investigation with results

DR JOHN PATTERSON

BANGKOK

Police involvement is systematic

What a tragic start to the New Year! Now we will see the police trying to cover up any involvement they had with the owners of this "entertainment venue". The normal practice for the police is to refuse to authorise operating licences so that they can collect money every month from all the operators of these establishments in return for them taking no action against them for operating illegally. Then later, if there is any problem they can always say that they are in no way to blame because they had objected to an operating licence. However, all the time that these places operate, the police themselves are employed as part time security guards!

 Everything is done with the involvement of the police. They don't want legal operations which comply with all the safety regulations etc. If they did, then they wouldn't find it as easy to 'squeeze' the owners. Of course, there are no receipts given and the money is not collected by the police themselves but their 'agents'. If they don't receive payment then they will enforce early closing. Early closing and closure during certain holidays which is discretionary, is controlled by the police. It is a separate issue and not connected to the implementation of safety regulations. In short, the whole problem of safety and many others are only a result of the police being placed in a position of authority in the first place. They abuse that authority and look what happens - higher prices, unwanted police claiming free drinks etc. encouragement not to comply with safety regulations. The police should have no say in any matters relating to business. The regulations should be enforced by a competent agency who cannot use other devices and regulations for their own benefit. If there is a disaster due to non-compliance, then the police should be called to act against the authority involved. They will certainly not take action against themselves.We can now expect the over-zealous enforcement of regulations regarding opening hours and under-age customers. This is purely cosmetic to show the public that they are doing something. They can't afford to tackle the cause of the problem as they will lose money. They will not care either, that the few tourists who are coming here will be inconvenienced and in future look for other places where they can spend their money. All the police care about is money now. They, like the immigration division are having a hard time (hence15 day visas which give an opportunity for more 'squeeze') They all need to keep the corruption money flowing to support those in higher positions. Laws in Thailand are mostly to facilitate corruption, not for the benefit of the people.DAVID AMAAN

Prakanong,BANGKOK

Editor:

The authorities' general reaction to tragedies like the Santika pub blaze which killed 59 and injured 243 patrons is to slap on a few Band-aids instead of attacking the causes or taking effective preventative measures. For example, the Santika owners face charges of allowing underage patrons into the premises, operating without insurance and possibly without a license - yet these violations have long been common in Thailand.

We should make it economically unfeasible for public eateries to break the law, by mandating these preventative measures: (a) the insurance company is responsible for certifying that the premises meet safety standards, with false certification automatically trebling the insurer's liability, (b) insurance remains in force until renewed or the insurance firm informs the authorities of non-renewal, at which point the owners' operating license is automatically suspended, (c) allowing underage persons on the premises automatically suspends the owners' operating license.

As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Band-aids and the "This is Thailand" attitude have no place in matters of life and death.

Best,

Burin Kantabutra

Dear Sir,I'm not sure, given the absence of letters over the last few days, who or what has so clearly offended Mr Max Deadhead to cause him to rise to submit this tirade of examples of faults in the world at large. I am sure we are all perfectly aware that the world is a very imperfect place but the only way to solve problems is to address them in a systematic and effective manner bearing in mind the concept of accountability and responsibility.It is without question that a person or persons as yet not identified were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths and injuries at the Santika to some degree. The matter at hand now is to identify them and to punish them appropriately depending upon their culpability. In reality the list is, I suspect, a long one.Determining such culpability and subsequently delivering punishment must be the first priority here as without the fear of consequences others will continue to flout the law with the perception of impunity and thousands of lives will continue to be at potential risk on a daily basis. Secondly, the present safety standards required in law need to be examined to determine if they are sufficient. Finally, the manner and efficiency of enforcing the present law needs to be addressed as a matter of particular urgency. If these simple steps are not taken, then those in authority who have a clear duty to protect the public will be as guilty by their inaction and inefficiency as those whose negligence led to this totally unacceptable and tragic loss of life, the maiming of others and the ruining of countless other lives.Dr John Symons35 SoiSukhumvit 24KlongtoeiBangkok10110

Israel is its own worst enemy

There can be no winners, only losers, when heartless mindset military superiority declares all-out misguided-missiles warfare, balking at rather than talking about peaceful common good moralistic and humanistic welfare solutions. The in-denial State of Israel has become its own unsettling worst enemy by imposing a politically motivated senseless assault on its oppressively fenced in neighbour. Complicit bullyragging Bush-leaguers will go out in a blasé blaze of gory glory for buying into lobbyists' applied-pressure points of view, discounting that "terrorist" and "extremist" labels apply to both sides in this never-ending madcap farce where hapless Palestinians living and dying in Gaza longingly want and need nothing more than recognition of their very own safe and secure independent homeland.

DR CHARLES FREDERICKSON

BANGKOK