AS YOU’LLrecall from previous columns, I can’t claim to be the world’s biggest sports fan. However, I can still remember the Hillsborough disaster, in which 96 people died – making it the most serious tragedy in UK sporting history. The report of the Hillsborough independent panel last month has brought
the events of 15 April 1989 back into the headlines. The panel found that multiple failings contributed to the disaster. Most related to what happened on the day: crowd control by the police was poor; a lack of stewards meant that too many spectators congregated in certain ‘pens’; and poor management and communication meant that the stadium’s emergency plan was never fully implemented. But there were other, longer-term issues: the stadium did not have a safety certificate; and it seems that no action had been taken when similar accidents had been narrowly avoided in the past. We like to think that things are rather different today. Hillsborough had
‘I do believe that stadiums are safer today than they
were a quarter of a century ago’
profound effects on football stadium design in this country, as major stadiums were converted to an all-seater model after the Taylor Report. And modern voice alarm (VA) systems provide the means for crowds to be managed effectively, without panic, when an emergency occurs. There is a nagging worry in my head, though. As we have reported many
times over the past few years, the EN54 part 16 and part 24 regulations lay down a requirement for installers to use products in VA systems that have been type-tested as compliant with the standard. However, as audio consultants Roland Hemming and Steve Jones have pointed out, the overarching Construction Products Directive seems to allow the use of kit systems of non- type tested equipment in VA systems; indeed, they believe that for larger, more complex systems, the kit approach will produce a more suitable result. A year after RH Consulting published its white paper outlining its
reasoning, and its research into the construction products directive, no-one has disproved its claims. As Hemming says: “We even took a trip to Brussels to meet the standards bodies. Their response was to say it is their job to make standards, not to comment on their interpretation. We have struggled to find anyone offering guidance on the matter.” This includes BSI, the UK government and a number of relevant trade associations. Let’s not forget – this isn’t about some arcane box-ticking exercise; it’s
about technology that has a specific requirement to help save lives in major emergencies. And no-one seems to be responsible for advising on compliance with the relevant European regulations. I do believe that stadiums are safer today than they were a quarter of a
century ago, for numerous reasons: changes in design, advances in technology, improvements in management, and the higher profile of safety. But I worry that there would have to be some kind of serious incident before governments and standards bodies sorted out what is a messy and confusing situation.