Removal of MCP from Halls of Residence

[Allen Higginson]

It is acceptable to remove a device which is causing nuisance if no other solution is feasible.It is listed as a variation (and nit a deviation which is a bad word!!).Too many false alarms = complacency= boy who cried wolf!

[Tom Sutton]

Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service receives over 1,600 calls a year to student accommodation, most of which are false alarms. The majority of false alarms are due to a lack of information about fire safety measures on campus.

Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service worked in partnership with Liverpool University, Hope University College, Liverpool John Moores University and Allerton Community Fire Station personnel to produce a leaflet warning students of the dangers of fire and alerting them to fire safety procedures.

The Student Fire Safety Guide briefly explains fire safety measures, how to avoid setting off fire alarms unnecessarily, and the consequences of setting off alarms. The Guide includes some tips on fire safety off campus.

The results were a 40% reduction.

[Chris Houston]

Hi shaunmckeever
 
I have received some information that some universities fine the students a fixed penalty.
Has any one heard of a university calling in the police and they issue a fixed penalty to the guilty offenders?

Is it not that the malicious activation of a fire alarm is a criminal offence?

Regards Davio1960

It is indeed a criminal offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act of 1974.  It's an offence to mess about with any safety equipment.

[Apollo_SG]

mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.

this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.

I think if employers started using biometic data for this purpose, employees would be unhappy.  The use of personal data is strictly governed by the data protection act.

we can still use card access.

[Apollo_SG]

mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.

this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.

and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?

surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".

and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.

[Chris Houston]

mebbe some1 can integrate their personal card access system/ biometric system to a sealed MCP so tat all alarm are identifiable.

this should be an inventive step to reduce nuisance. but heck, it's no more patentable.

and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?

surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".

and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.

Firstly, it is unacceptable to walk away from the fire, the fire alarm system activation in many buildings summons the fire service.

Secondly, kicking up a din may or may not result in someone else activating a call point, I am not sure I would open my door if there were a din outside, pressing a call point ensures that an alarm will sound in 3 seconds.  Any delay would be unacceptable.  Some people might not be able to kick up a din.

[Graeme]

surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".

and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.

it would have to be a very loud din to wake the whole halls up.

[shaunmckeever]

Thanks guys

Lots of different replies and lots of ideas.

I have a number of observations which may help the thought processes a bit further:-

1. It is not the same call point. There are several Halls on the same site and the call point can be any one of them although as far as I can ascertain it is normally a call point just inside one of the main entrance doors. But the university has several other sites and the letter issued by the fire authority gives the university carte blanche to remove mcp's from all of its sites irrespective of whether there is a problem.

2.  Keeping occupants standing around in the freezing cold in the middle of the night does not work becuase it is not normally the occupants of the building who are the culprits.

3. Disciplinary measures have been taken against culprit when they are caught but the process is long winded (3 months to get a disciplinary board together!) and then the punishment is negilgible (£50 fine). This is one area I am working on.

4. Covert cameras have been installed but perhaps not enough of them.

5. The fire brigade have put it in writing and I have a copy of the letter. I have contacted them directly to discuss the issue. Their fire engineering department has at the momnet supported their officer who issued the letter. I will be meeting them in the near future.

6. The insurance company have 'reluctantly' accepted the fire authority's decision.

7. No previous fire risk assessment was written which adequately considered the risk of removing all mcp's so not sure how the fire brigade formed their decision.

[Graeme]

Shaun-i would recommend that you advertise the fact you have cctv and make it visible.
Covert won't stop them if they can't see them.Preventitive is better.

[wee brian]

perhaps some dummy cameras would help

[jasper]

In my opinion, if detection were provided thoughout why not have a double-knock type system as used in night-clubs. Also if there were a fire and full detection was provided, wouldnt the detection pick up any fire prior to someone activating a call point (break glass) and alternatively do without mcp's?

[colin todd]

Not necessarily. People are better fire detectors than any automatic detector.

[Apollo_SG]

and what about the bloke some student has sneaked in overnight and he discovers a fire first and can't operate the mcp?

surely you can expect him/ her to kick up a din enough to wake up somebody else., viz "Other Cues".

and if he is the only person, then all the more he could just walk away from it.

Firstly, it is unacceptable to walk away from the fire, the fire alarm system activation in many buildings summons the fire service.

Secondly, kicking up a din may or may not result in someone else activating a call point, I am not sure I would open my door if there were a din outside, pressing a call point ensures that an alarm will sound in 3 seconds.  Any delay would be unacceptable.  Some people might not be able to kick up a din.

unacceptable? only on paper.. the 1st rule is still life safety and everything else is secondary. besides, the ground rule is "not take personal risk". if the fire is severe enough, there will be enough heat & smoke & flame to advertise the location over long distance.

next, it is difficult to influence the choice of occupants. even if there is an alarm, some Occupants may not want to evacuate. Guylene Proulx has suggested that when false alarm is >1.4 times / year, people tends to ignore them.

but unfortunately for you, most people will evacuate. In fact, if you look at fire fatalities, most people died with a distinct behavior of being in groups then isolated individuals (social affiliation), case example : triangle shirt factory in NY city.

[jasper]

Not necessarily. People are better fire detectors than any automatic detector.

Not when there intoxicated students

[Chris Houston]

if the fire is severe enough, there will be enough heat & smoke & flame to advertise the location over long distance.

It would be my preference (and I believe all of the sane world would be with me on this one) to want everyone evacuated and in a place of safety BEFORE the fire is big enough to be advertising it's location over a "long distance".