FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: johno67 on November 09, 2007, 09:41:04 PM
-
Having recently returned from the Fire Research Symposium at the Fire Service College, I was left asking myself the following question:
Taking into account that the ethos of the Fire Service should be 'Preventing, Protecting, Responding', specifically in that order (indeed it is displayed in the logos of FRS' and even in the mission statements of many) how much emphasis is there on the 'Prevention' element?
From my own observations, it seems that:
60-70% is on Responding (fire engines going out and dealing with the fires);
20-30% is on Protecting (having measures in place to ensure the persons can escape from fire when it occurs); and
<10% on Prevention (making sure the fire doesn't happen in the first place).
Is this not the wrong way round? Should a much greater part of our focus be on 'Prevention'?
Whilst I believe that it is very important to have a well equipped and well trained Fire Service and that there must be measures in place to protect people in case of fire, surely our primary aim has to be preventing the fires occurring in the first place.
To put my thoughts into a little scenario.
I have an elderly neighbour living on his own. Which of the following would I prefer for him.
1. He won't have a fire in his house because resources have been used to cut the risk of fire to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP);
2. When he does have a fire he will be able to get out safely because resources have been used to protect his escape, warn him of fire etc; or
3. We have a well trained Fire Service with good equipment who can rescue him when a fire does occur in his house.
Although I realise all 3 are required, I would ask 'Which should be the priority?'
Your thoughts please.
-
Cultural:
For those within the profession:
In the past most fire fighters have been attracted to the job because they like the idea of going to fires, not because they like the idea of giving advice to vulnerable members of society.
FRSs are huge lumbering beasts that possess almost insurmountable inertia against change. Change only occurs over a generation or more. I've been in over 26 years and, though things look a bit different superficially, nothing much has changed underneath. I'm starting to see some attitude changes that I think are significant - I'm not talking about what people say and do, I'm talking about what they think and believe.
Unless the majority believe that some change is for the good, that change wont happen.
Then, we are all subject to a quirk of the workings of the brain. There is a natural and inevitable tendency to assign priorities incorrectly - what would you respond to first: a house on fire or a house that needs a battery replacing in a smoke detector??
For those outside the profession:
People think of the fire brigade, and I use the word 'brigade' deliberately, and they think of fires. They don't think of talks and advice and everyday assistance. Perhaps this is changing.
Economic:
Fire losses are well documented. They are collected, analysed, apportioned, offset and thoroughly accounted for. They offer an immediate measure of value for money offered by FRSs.
Fire losses which do not occur because preventative measures have precluded their occurrence are immeasurable, unquantifiable and cannot be used to justify investment.
Well, that's couple of things, a cup of tea is calling me, let's hear someone else...
-
Johno
First question is what do you mean by "emphasis" and "focus"?
If you are measuring emphasis and focus in financial terms and in terms of the amount of time allocated by operational firefighters during the working shift to each element then clearly intervention is always going to at the top of the tree.
You cannot address prevention without resources these have been mainly allocated to "Brigades" on the basis of what is needed for effective intervention to whatever standards.
Effective prevention will to some extent reduce demand for intervention but the focus cannot be changed until the cycle is broken, either with maximum effect by introducing additional funding and resources for say a 10 year program, or by fiddling at the edges over generations as we are currently doing - improving building regulations, changing the enforcement regime, and through IRMPs reducing operational standards to allow alternative use of operational resources- inefficient as you try to introduce such a significant cultural change to people who are dedicated and still responsible for delivering first class intervention as their primary function and defending anything they see as detracting from this focus. Any change will be very slow and inefficient this way.
I think "brigades" will lose enforcement to another authority under the HSE in the medium to long term. Many are already paving the way to this by putting so little into the enforcement or protection functions and destroying any possible career progression within the uniformed section.
And the role of prevention will be carried out by another wing - or even organisation integrating social needs. And brigades will then be a shadow of their former selves putting a glossy front on the prevention initiatives but essentially an emergency service.
-
The Audit Commission report on the Fire Service decided that the Japanese Model was ideal for services in the Uk. Therefore, more resources and people were put towards the prevention route, hence the CFS bits in the FRA 2004. Operational response is only 10% of the firefighters role or so it is stated. However, it is chased 100% by those in the service, rightly or wrongly. Fire deaths normally occur in the home and it is almost impossible for any Fire Service to prevent this or to respond in time to save the lives of those who die because of the dynamic nature of fire and the toxicity of smoke and the products of combustion.
As stated above to move the fire service wheel forward and transform it to a truly preventative role is and will take time, effort and resources. However, the public expectation is the reactive bit, a fire station on every corner and being in attendance in a short time frame. This is not only not possible but against the Modernisation agenda of this Government and while this happens the in fighting goes on.
-
Operational response may only be 10% of the firefighters role but it will always take up 80% of the firefighters working time- attending, testing, training and planning for incidents- information gathering etc.
Despite what you say about fire deaths in the home and the role of intervention you will never cancel attendance at a fire call to carry out a home safety risk assessment!
The tax payers hold this side of the service very dear and you are their safety net.
Training and operational readiness will always be time consuming but will always take priority because the potential consequences of not doing so are so high.
-
Slubberdegullion puts his finger on one important point - economics. Having spent 28 years in Fire Research and most of that time being a (scientific) civil servant, I was always aware that behind the whole government ethos was cost, regardless of political party. One of the greatest problems we had was justifying our existance because it was impossible to quantify how much life or property our work would save in the future. One could make intelligent estimates, but that's all they were. Another problem is that politicians have a short time span and just as you've got one minister actually grasping what we were attempting to do, there's either an election or a government 'shuffle' and we had to start the education programme all over again!
It worries me that the FRS (for whom I have the greatest admiration, having worked with them on many occasions) will find that as they move towards prevention and continue to help reducing fires and fire deaths, that politicians will lose sight of the catastrophes where the FRS needs to render assistance - the flooding in S Yorks and the SW this year, Buncefield etc. - and may not have the full resources given them to cope with these major incidents.
-
John, you are right and it is one of the amny problems that the service has. Those CFO's and other Principal officers in the main joined as firefighters and still retain the basic ideals of why they joined. They then adopt the ideals of the politicians but deep down know that is not why they are in post. That is why the 10% is chased a 100% of the time. I too have the greatest respect for todays and yesterdays firefighters, the job they do and the time and effort that they put into it. Unfortuntely in some areas exactly what Kurnal has said will never happen has already, when appliances are off the run for CFS work and miss calls on their station grounds which go to other stations with the associated timing delays.
-
Let's look at things the other way round. If the FRS has to be able to respond adequately to fire and other incidents that are occuring now, it has to have sufficient resources and time to do so in the current environment. Beyond that there is a need to audit and inspect to enforce legislation toward improving the current premises environment to protect persons and property and enable occupants to escape. Then, in order to seek to achieve improvements to prevent future incidents there is a need to promote, educate, teach, advertise, etc, etc. It seems to me, therefore, that, unless resources are adequate to fully discharge these duties, the immediate will always take precedence and whatever's left will go to the more aspirational stuff. Whatever the mission statements say, the primary duty of emergency services will be to respond to emergencies. Fortunately, duty holders and their advisers are also (hopefully) involved in prevention and protection so things aren't all bad.
-
Despite what you say about fire deaths in the home and the role of intervention you will never cancel attendance at a fire call to carry out a home safety risk assessment!
Sadly not quite true:
Perhaps FFs would never choose to perform CFS instead of attending fire calls, but this is happening regularly in London.
Every day, around 30 pumps are effectively taken 'off the run' for the crews to perform whatever duties have been planned for them. Known as the 'Strategic Resource', the bunch of FFs are tasked with training, 72(d) visits, and CFS.
There's no way out as when you are deemed on strategic resource you are off the run unless there's a spate of grass fires, floodings or some other catastrophy is threatened.
So it is quite possible -indeed a daily occurance- that a local pump(s) & crew will be tied up lecturing the local Women's Institute, whilst a standby crew (from several stations away) will be floundering around either attempting to find an address or, panicking over a water supply or finding their way (blindly) around a risk that is well known to the local crews.
Local information, 7(2)d type pre-planning, hydrant inspection & topography are now seen old fashioned fire fighting skills bt 21 century managers, as IRMP, strategic targets and league tables are seen as the way foward.
Personally, I would like to see virtually all CFS and Regulatory Fire Safety taken away from front line crews to leave them time solely to plan and prepare for risk reducing operational response preparation. This would mean huge investments in resources such as training aids and regular off station training courses (perhaps not too popular with some).
However, at a time when the UKFRS is still reeling from the events in Warwickshire, it's worth remembering that the 'safe person concept' (A H&S control measure where training and competence of crews is used instead of controlling workplace/fireground risk) is wholly reliant on regular training and staff input.
Any prospect of maintaining a 'safe person concept' will certainly fail whilst crews spend too many hours installing smoke detectors and posting leaflets
-
There have always been occasions when pumps have been, by prior arrangement, booked off the run for other duties and other crews cover the patch. Even under the old standards of fire cover so sadly missed, out in the sticks we only ever applied the attendance times to the first call and after that it it was whoever was next nearest.
But my point was that if on call you will always drop whatever you are doing to attend a fire call therefore the fire call will remain the most important part of your work.
So it is quite possible -indeed a daily occurance- that a local pump(s) & crew will be tied up lecturing the local Women's Institute, whilst a standby crew (from several stations away) will be floundering around either attempting to find an address or, panicking over a water supply or finding their way (blindly) around a risk that is well known to the local crews
I dont except that there is any excuse for floundering around in someone elses patch though- this should be on a pre planned basis and there is no excuse for poor topography skills and operational knowledge especially now with sat nav, mobile data, GIS systems, GPS vehicle tracking etc.
I guess that with the demise of the old systems for property based categorisation of risk and the new IRMP there has been a reduction in the number of pumps available on immediate turn out? How does the current compare with the previous?
I must admit that my sister set fire to her sofa once- she lived on Talgarth Rd West Kensington- and 6 appliances arrived very quickly- what would happen today? That always seemed way over the top to me for a first attendance.
-
Yes I agree that you will always drop whatever you are doing for a fire call. However this does affect the work you are tasked to do. If you are tasked to do a lecture to the WI then you must be expected to turn up on time for the image of the brigade.
It was bad enough trying to arrange an old 1id visit when you got a fire call on the way there and the representative of the firm was standing around waiting for you to turn up, let alone an audience.
The job of the fire brigade was explained once like a shop. In a conventional shop the emphasis is on how many jars of jam that are sold, in the fire brigade shop the requirement is that you must always have a jar of jam to sell.
To drive the number and cost of fires down you are reducing the number of jars of jam to be sold and this eventually will have a knock on effect on the number of jars you need to keep in stock. You cannot do this by reducing the number of jars and then expect the demand to deminish, all you will get is a larger number fo disatisfied customers.
The solution as I see it will need an increase in staff employed on fire safety work CPS etc.without affecting the number of staff available for operational work. As the fire safety work has increasing effect then the operational requirement will reduce. Unfortunately this would mean an increase in staff and costs in the short term which is probably not what HMG wants.
-
So we have the FRS, HSE, Police and EHOs under-resourced, hospitals being closed and air-ambulances and life boats running on voluntary contributions - but lots more targets and form-filling. There must be something wrong somewhere!
-
switch to marmalade. its the only way forward.
-
Kurnal: You wrote "there is no excuse for poor topography skills and operational knowledge especially now with sat nav, mobile data, GIS systems, GPS vehicle tracking etc"
Sat Nav? Mobile Data? GIS? Vehicle tracking? You must be joking!!!
LFB are still firmly holding on to an A to Z and main scheme radio approach to mobilising
We have only recently got rid of carbon paper! so we are a little behind the times with front line communications. However, I did note that message board (for radio orderings) on the pump at my old station has recently been upgraded, with it's pencll now attached to the board by nylon string rather than an old shoe lace!!
As for 6 pumps to a sofa fire, this would have almost certainly have been due to two calls with differering addresses attracting an 'A' attendance to each location. Today - with the demise of the 'A' risk PDA, you would get 4 pumps - maybe with one on standby from an outer London Station driving up and down the A4 trying to find it!!
-
Still in A-Z mode here on the Isle of Wight too, Messy - but they say that they are expecting a national locating system to come about at some time. Fortunately local knowledge is good in this well-defined area - but 'reinforcements' from the mainland would take some time in arriving.
-
Why don't the stations take it upon themselves to purchase a sat nav? Surely it would be a worthwhile exercise
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/slubberdegullion2/lawofdimreturns-1.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/slubberdegullion2/lawofdimrets.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Some really good points.
If we have reached a plateau in reducing fire deaths, then we will have to look at new strategies.
Does anyone have any new ideas or know of any initiatives that are taking us in different directions?
What about linking the requirement for fire safety measures in housing to peoples right to claim benefits (not wishing to demonise any particular social group)?
I agree with Kurnal, we need to keep our eye on the zero fire deaths target. If our strategies aren't working efficiently at present we need to try something else.
-
If Stu has used fire statistics for his graph then he has used total fire deaths not domestic which is what CFS is all about. I know domestic fire deaths in the 1970’s was about 500 and reduced to minus 400 by the being of this century. A more meaningful graph would be to show all the domestic fire deaths over a long period and indicate any major initiatives during that period, like the introduction of Furniture Regs, Smoke Detector campaign and see if there is an area of a significant downward trend. Conversely look for downward trends and see if there is a reason for it.
I understand there is a report about the Smoke Detector campaign indicating its effectiveness.
-
If Stu has used fire statistics for his graph then he has used total fire deaths not domestic which is what CFS is all about. I know domestic fire deaths in the 1970’s was about 500 and reduced to minus 400 by the being of this century. A more meaningful graph would be to show all the domestic fire deaths over a long period and indicate any major initiatives during that period, like the introduction of Furniture Regs, Smoke Detector campaign and see if there is an area of a significant downward trend. Conversely look for downward trends and see if there is a reason for it.
I understand there is a report about the Smoke Detector campaign indicating its effectiveness.
My graph was only illustrative of trends, so don't try and read too much from it.
But you're right that the effectiveness of initiatives should be statistically analysed. And, of course, it is. Not on one big graph or table but on many small ones that look for correlation between the initiative and the desired outcomes.
I believe the mass availability and introduction of cheap domestic smoke alarms into people's homes about 20 years ago had a very noticeable effect on the number of fire deaths.
But that was a national thing and most FRSs spend most of their efforts on local initiatives. But, if my FRS is an example of all others, no statistical analysis is done on the outcomes of these local initiatives. My FRS just does what it feels might be good, invests a lot of time, money and effort into it .....and then doesn't properly attempt to find out if it did any good!
So yes, tw, FRSs must start to look at outcomes and see if they are influenced by what they are spending their money on.
Here's a tale: a project in one of the less prosperous areas of south London a few years ago fitted tens of thousands of smoke alarms to homes that did not have them fitted. A couple of years later, or so (I haven't got the details at hand), they looked at figures in those areas for fire deaths and injuries to see if these had decreased subsequent to the fitting of the alarms. They had not!
Indeed, something like half of the alarms had been disabled by the householders themselves. Households with smokers were the most likely to have disabled their alarms!
This research was not done by the FRS.
Maybe one day the fire service will catch up.
Maybe not.
Stu
-
A senior figure in local government once told me that his s/c smoke alarm was defective and so he had removed the battery. The problem, of course, being the warning bleeps to say that the battery needed replacing! I still wonder how many of the battery removals were down to this rather than taking the battery for another use - as has also been known. I once went to student dormitory accommodation and found that each room had been fitted with a s/c smoke alarm and that all the batteries were missing. Needless to say they were then required to install a proper system throughout. Information on fire prevention and detection needs to get to the public in a readily-received form such as prime time TV and national press. Cost has always been presented as the problem with this - presumably as those that 'weigh' the cost of the action are not the same as those who bear the cost of the fire.
-
Information on fire prevention and detection needs to get to the public in a readily-received form such as prime time TV and national press. Cost has always been presented as the problem with this - presumably as those that 'weigh' the cost of the action are not the same as those who bear the cost of the fire.
Yes, I find it difficult to imagine fire safety messages being transmitted during the adverts for Coronation Street.
There have been effective safety campaigns over the years, for example, seat belt introduction and usage, reduction in smoking, intolerance to passive smoking and drink driving. Think about these and you realise that they each required sustained pressure over decades, campaigners' messages had to reach the masses and change public opinion before any policy emerged on each issue.
Politicians lead public policy - politicians rely on votes - votes go to those who champion matters perceived as important by the public - therefore politicians (and, consequently, policy) must pander to public opinion.
That kind of makes politicians sound powerless. Maybe that's true but I don't think it is - public opinion can be moulded and adjusted and that is where policy should be directed at the moment.
Sadly, maybe what we need are a few more tragic fires, maybe that'll do the trick.
Maybe our new legislation is a clever way to make that happen....
Stu
-
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:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/slubberdegullion2/lawofdimreturns-1.jpg
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
Stu
Does your graph factor in political interference.
The ODPM decided that if someone jumps from the window of a burning house to escape fire and gets fatally injured it is not classed as a fire death.
-
Ha! That's not massaging figures (which in itself is despicable), that's major surgery on the figures. Specifically, it is ignoring proximate cause and is wrong. Such manipulation would produce a step in the graph arbitrarily located at the point where the change in accounting was made.
Do they really do that?
Stu
-
Let’s not talk about massaging figures its called ethical recording or as I like to call it unethical recording
-
Ha! That's not massaging figures (which in itself is despicable), that's major surgery on the figures. Specifically, it is ignoring proximate cause and is wrong. Such manipulation would produce a step in the graph arbitrarily located at the point where the change in accounting was made.
Do they really do that?
Stu
Read this.
http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/ffmag/2005/1205/ff_dec_05_p20.pdf
-
Talking of massaging figures didn't that same erstwhile organisation once accept 16.2% as being an acceptable equivalent to 40%?
Its rife throughout the damned lies / statisitics industry whenever politics are involved. Did you hear the item on Radio 4 pm program last night on hospital waiting times? To show that targets are being met, rather than measuring the actual time talken from seeing consultant to having the op, they take a snapshot of a particular day and look at how long people have been waiting, then average it. So if you have only seen the consultant today and gone on the waiting list, you count in the figures as only having waited 1 day for your operation, even though it may be five years before it is actually done.
-
Stu, they do "massage" the figures & it is despicable but in a few years time they will announce that "fire" deaths have dropped so we dont need so many F'F's -just because your paranoid.....................
-
It's not paranoia if they really have got it in for you!
Stu