Preventing - Protecting - Responding

[BHCC]

Why don't the stations take it upon themselves to purchase a sat nav? Surely it would be a worthwhile exercise

[nearlythere]

Johno67.
It would be very difficult to quantify Prevention and Protecting because we are dealing with peoples attitudes. There certainly is a lot of prevention work going on with various initiatives throughout the country, but speaking to 100 persons about fire safety does not mean 100 persons listening.
We can not make sure that fires do not happen in the first place nor can we put in place measures to ensure the persons can escape from fire when it occurs
That, we hope, will be done by as many as possible that have listened to the advice, but there are none as blind as those who won't look.
If we had the legislation to enter peoples homes and issue improvement notices and had a very robust policing policy there would be very few fire deaths. But there isn't and, in my opinion, nor should there ever be.
The only absolute control we have is over fire engines going out and dealing with the fires and that bit works quite well.

[kurnal]

you make a cracking good point nearlythere and it prompts me to point out that under the fire safety order in regulated premises even having legislative backup requiring the RP to eliminate or reduce fire hazards we still have to put in place control measures to ensure persons are not at risk if a fire does occur.

There is no such legislative requirement to eliminate or reduce fire hazards in a private dwelling so it will always  be much more likely that a fire will occur.

[johno67]

In my original post I was referring more to the CFO's and other senior officers within the organisation.

All of their focus still seems to be on the Response side of things (opertional). Look through the August/September issue of Fire Times (an excellent magazine by the way) and you will find the Fire Service associated with everything from animal rescues through environmental protection to emergency water response.

There are also very good items on Domestic Sprinklers and Driver Training Courses aimed at reducing road deaths amongst young people.

However if you try to find articles on pure 'Prevention' of fire you will be struggling. Those that you do find usually come from the private sector. It was however good to see the CFO from Lancs pushing the 'Fire Safer' Cigarettes.

I don't accept for a minute that we can't do anything more. Look at:

Safer cigarettes;
Polyeurathane foam;
Deep fat fryers;
Fire blanket testing;
Portable appliance testing;
Electrical regs;
Testing of gas appliances;

All initiatives that are designed to prevent something happening in the first place and they have/do make a real difference.

And I agree that education does have a place in the grand scheme of things, and I know a lot of good work goes on in that area. I would however have to ask if it is targetting that hard to reach group that we know have most of the problems. Yes it's great that we can get into schools to get our message across to the kids, but if that one off lesson isn't supported by the parent(s) in the home it is very soon forgotten.

Now I'm in no way saying that funding and resources (including operational staff) used to ensure that the Fire Service provide the most effective response should be diverted to carry out this work. Having worked for the FRS for some years now I realise how important that is.

What I'm saying is that if we aren't prepared to trumpet the Prevention side of things to any real degree, then lets drop it from our logos and corporate statements. I think that currently the phrase 'Responding and Protecting' would be far more accurate.

It comes back to that golden lesson in life 'If you really want something you will probably get it'. How many of us in the FRS and Fire Industry really want to prevent fires from happening?

[nearlythere]

In my original post I was referring more to the CFO's and other senior officers within the organisation.

All of their focus still seems to be on the Response side of things (opertional). Look through the August/September issue of Fire Times (an excellent magazine by the way) and you will find the Fire Service associated with everything from animal rescues through environmental protection to emergency water response.

There are also very good items on Domestic Sprinklers and Driver Training Courses aimed at reducing road deaths amongst young people.

However if you try to find articles on pure 'Prevention' of fire you will be struggling. Those that you do find usually come from the private sector. It was however good to see the CFO from Lancs pushing the 'Fire Safer' Cigarettes.

I don't accept for a minute that we can't do anything more. Look at:

Safer cigarettes;
Polyeurathane foam;
Deep fat fryers;
Fire blanket testing;
Portable appliance testing;
Electrical regs;
Testing of gas appliances;

All initiatives that are designed to prevent something happening in the first place and they have/do make a real difference.

And I agree that education does have a place in the grand scheme of things, and I know a lot of good work goes on in that area. I would however have to ask if it is targetting that hard to reach group that we know have most of the problems. Yes it's great that we can get into schools to get our message across to the kids, but if that one off lesson isn't supported by the parent(s) in the home it is very soon forgotten.

Now I'm in no way saying that funding and resources (including operational staff) used to ensure that the Fire Service provide the most effective response should be diverted to carry out this work. Having worked for the FRS for some years now I realise how important that is.

What I'm saying is that if we aren't prepared to trumpet the Prevention side of things to any real degree, then lets drop it from our logos and corporate statements. I think that currently the phrase 'Responding and Protecting' would be far more accurate.

It comes back to that golden lesson in life 'If you really want something you will probably get it'. How many of us in the FRS and Fire Industry really want to prevent fires from happening?

Good points John0.
Can I start by saying that many of the items you refer to are not fire safety issues. eg PAT is more a safety test for portable electrical equipment in the workplace.
As you know fires are the result of the many and varying habits and practices of homo sapien all too numerous to mention. Logistically and financially it would be impossible to maintain an ongoing intensive community education strategy without direction. One has to have a level of public safety awareness simmering in the background with adequate resourses in reserve to enable a concerted attack when deaths and injuries from a specific cause is identified.
The smoke detector campaign certainly illustrates my point about the public attitude to fire safety. The overwhelming majority of domestic propertys have at least one installed and most certainly this campaign has been very successful because to those who took notice.  
This week, since the Omagh tragedy, we have been inundated with calls from the public seeking  fire safety advice. Many are asking for a home fire safety check because they have young children in the house. In order to prioritise the visits I ask all callers if they have a working detector installed to which some reply that they do not. Despite the relentless smoke detector campaign which has been going on for years many still, to this day, have never learned that smoke detectors will save many lives in those areas where people are more likely to die from fire - their own homes.  
I believe that the various community education initiatives are getting through to many people, help by the misfortune of others, but only the people who want to are listening. What do we do with the rest?

[Ken Taylor]

It can be useful in getting the message to children. Some years ago and shortly after a young schoolgirl had a 'fire safety in the home' talk by one of our officers as part of home safety education in schools they had a fire in their home and it was the schoolgirl who, knowing the action to take, was instrumental in getting the parents out of the building and calling the FRS.

Quite a bit of home safety promotion (including fire safety) used to be carried out by local authorities. This was often based upon enablement under the Home Safety Act 1961. However, as this only allowed the promotion of safety in the home and, therefore, didn't impose a mandatory duty, this type of activity was seriously cut or eradicated during major cuts when only mandatory or politically expedient jobs were safe. By contrast, there is a legal duty upon local authorities to promote road safety and so this continues to some extent. A fairly simple change to the law (generally replacing 'may' by 'shall') backed up by some extra funding could enable a lot more to be done by local authorities to promote fire safety in the home - in addition to that being undertaken by the FRSs. RoSPA and the Institute of Home Safety have tried lobbying for this on a few occasions but always without success - primarily, it seems, on financial grounds. Whilst all the legislation and activity relating to safety in workplaces, hotels, schools, on the road, etc, etc, is welcomed, if the accidents and fires are mainly occurring in the home, that's where more emphasis and attention is needed.

[AnthonyB]

To digress slightly:

PAT testing is a fire safety issue. Some of the faults that cause an appliance to fail the visual phase of the test are faults that would also present a fire risk as well as a shock risk (the fire being more likely - far more electrical fires than electrocutions each year). Although good fire prevention tells you to look at your electrical kit few people did as there was nothing specific in law to compel you to do so - the EaW Regulations changed that as many places now PAT test

[slubberdegullion]

Just to pick up on some of the points above:

First, part of the reasoning behind the new ADB dispensation of the need for self closing devices on certain doors in dwelling houses was the belief that the public would be receiving education on how better to improve the fire safety in their homes.  One thing they would be educated to do would be to shut doors at night (hence obviating the need for self closers).  

This is just one example of where the authors had foresight and faith in anticipating a holistic approach to public fire safety.  FRSs should not let them down in this respect.

Next, on a completely different tack, here's a graph I bandy about:



The graph represents the relationship between effort expended on CFS initiatives and the number of fire deaths and it shows a typical pattern of decrease, asymptotically approaching a certain value, a certain number of fire deaths per year.  Sadly this number is not zero, it is somewhere around 400.  

This represents a sector of society that it is impossible to reach, impossible to change, no matter how much effort is expended.  There's no getting away from it, this sector exists.

I wonder where we sit on the graph at the moment.  Are we still in the cost effective zone or are we beyond that and spending money that, frankly, could be better spent elsewhere?

Wherever we are on the graph, I think it is important that fire data is properly analysed so that we can know where we are.  And, in turn, we can devise appropriate future strategies.

Stu

[kurnal]

Thats a very compelling argument. But the question then arises what is the number of fire deaths that society will tolerate- in the home. in the care environment, in the workplace, in the leisure industry? And once you reach that level should you stop trying to reduce it further? Thats what we did inthe 1960s/ 70s when fire deaths of about 700 a year were common.

The graphical, logical argument based on effort expended be it in terms of cost, time and trouble or other factors has one big flaw. It makes the assumption that all of this effort is being expended efficiently and in the best way. And that is never the case. It may be that these hard to reach groups are not best served by your current type of initiative, and there may be easier, cheaper, different ways to influence them.
It may be that for some of the hard to reach groups  actually need more care, community support, better housing, better mental health care and if addressed and delivered may bring benefits to society in all manner of other areas- crime, health, education? And then it may become very cost effective.  

So I think your graph is a very relevant tool that should be applied to seperate individual initiatives and not to the overall objective of zero tolerance of accidental fire deaths.

[Mike Buckley]

The number of fire deaths is a very broad brush to use. The society's tolerance is much more complex. If you compare the number of fire deaths and the number of deaths on the road society tolerates more road deaths than it does fire deaths.

On a similar tack society tends to ignore single deaths but the death of a family group including children does make headlines and a single incident that kills a larger number of people will attract a change in the law.

I agree with kurnal there will never be a magic bullet that will solve the problem. However his comment does raise the point, should fire safety be looked upon as an aspect of the social care package and not as part of the emergency response package?

(puts pin of hand grenade in pocket and retires smartish).

[slubberdegullion]

I find it a pretty universal graph, applicable to individual initiatives and to much broader strategies - just remove the lable "fire deaths" and replace with some other project objective.  

To extend the idea, I believe that the only way we will ever see the pattern of reducing fire deaths shown below



will be with the introduction of a requirement for domestic sprinklers in all new homes.  And that, if it ever happens, wont be for a long long time.

Stu

[nearlythere]

It may be that for some of the hard to reach groups  actually need more care, community support, better housing, better mental health care and if addressed and delivered may bring benefits to society in all manner of other areas- crime, health, education? And then it may become very cost effective.

Problem is Kurnal there is no way of knowing who the hard to reach group is until they and their families are fire victims.

[jayjay]

To comment on the last two members points, smoke detectors are required in all new housing and have been for some time, the percentage of new housing to exiting housing however means that the fitting of smoke alarms will not drasticily effect the above graph.

With regards to identifying the groups at risk ther has been a vast amount of research carried out over the years and they have produced some interesting results that would assist in directing community fire safety.

If I remember right, the group that had the highest fire risk was identified as being a young single mother living with her children in rented property on a council estate or a low income area. How you access this group however is more difficult.

Also in relation to the graph there will always be a number of fire deaths that will occur even if you have a smoke detector in every room, and these are the people who can not easily respond or react when the warning is given such as the elderly, infirm, small children and of course those affected by alchol or drugs.

How far you can reduce fire deaths in the home will always be debatable, the main issue is that we keep trying and improving based on the knowledge we gain.

To target those in greatest need the demographic nature of  an area is an important factor.

[slubberdegullion]

the main issue is that we keep trying and improving based on the knowledge we gain.

I guess you're right.  Some would say that if it costs £100million to save a single life, it's worth it.  I'd say it if it was my life that was saved!

Stu

[nearlythere]

the main issue is that we keep trying and improving based on the knowledge we gain.

I guess you're right.  Some would say that if it costs £100million to save a single life, it's worth it.  I'd say it if it was my life that was saved!
Stu

Can't see NHS taking that view.