Help needed - fatalities

[colin todd]

The ODPm research suggests that sprinklers are not a real substitute for protected routes.

[nearlythere]

The current issue regarding sprinklers in the domestic environment should be viewed with extreme sceptism. We already have the matter of securing the means of escape with the use of smoke detection. I cannot see a sprinkler system making a significant contribution to life protection when smoke detection can give a very high level.
I'm afraid that despite the Government spin on its perceived life saving capabilities, the provision of sprinklers is purely a matter of economics for the Government. The less fires there are involving life the less firefighters and fire stations are needed.
As the British Fire Service is being run down domestic property protection systems will be a good investment for the Government so that fire calls across the country can be stacked. If there is no life risk involved in the fire then the Fire Service will get around to you - eventually.

[Big A]

I'm afraid that despite the Government spin on its perceived life saving capabilities, the provision of sprinklers is purely a matter of economics for the Government. The less fires there are involving life the less firefighters and fire stations are needed.
.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself or is it just the way that I've read it?

[nearlythere]

Where do you see the contradiction?

[Big A]

Because if sprinklers do reduce the number and severity of fires then surely there is a reduced risk of people being injured by fire. Not, perhaps, in the room of origin but in other parts of the building.

[Mike Buckley]

Am I be obtuse but I thought the job of the Fire Service was to protect life and propertyand reduce losses, not to provide jobs for firefighters. If domestic sprinklers can hit and extinguish a fire at an early stage maybe before the fire has been detected, this will result in less overall damage, less risk to people in other parts of the property and an overall reduction in fire losses. Isn't this what we should be aiming at?

[nearlythere]

From my experience sprinkler systems will not neccessarily extinguish a fire but can help control it until arrival of the Fire Service.
Mike. I'm afraid that in order for a Fire Service to help protect of life and property you have to employ people. Any Fire Service can have the best equipment in the world at its disposal but it is completely useless without someone to operate it.
The point I make is that the Government wants to reduce the level of firefighters to save money. I have no doubt that in the future, unless there is a life risk involved in a fire, the standard of cover for property only fires will be severily reduced.  After all most property will be insured and can easily be replaced.

[bolt]

Its always a risk/cost regime.  I dont really think there is evidence to say that sprinklers dont work becuase they are now mandated in many countries like the US and Canada for many types of new builds of certain properties like hostels and nursing homes for some years and death and injury has dropped almost to zero in those buildings. But take aircraft safety. Im sure many lives a year could be saved if we all had to wear a 3 point seatbelts. Access to a drop down smoke hood with 2 mins of air supply for these aircraft ground fires to aid in escape through toxic smoke. Plus an airbag fitted to the seat in front of you for heavy landings and a parachute under your seat just in case:)

Ultimatly its money that dictates the level of safety and not the very best solution in every case. I have been to several meetings in the past with FRS BCO etc and we spend hours agreeing on a level of fire safety at a reasonable cost solution then in comes the building insures and demand a much higher level of fire detection otherwise they wont insure the building. They usually win bringing an L3 system to L2/P  but no can argue becuase all the minimum standards have been met. You often find the "big guys" want more protection not less, its just not the attitude to go looking for the lowest cost solution based on the fact they are insured but they take into account reputation, loss of earnings, business disruption and prospect of huge increase on next years insurance.  On the flip side  the "little guy" wants to know what is the minimum he can get away with.

[The Lawman]

Its always a risk/cost regime.  I dont really think there is evidence to say that sprinklers dont work becuase they are now mandated in many countries like the US and Canada for many types of new builds of certain properties like hostels and nursing homes for some years and death and injury has dropped almost to zero in those buildings. But take aircraft safety. Im sure many lives a year could be saved if we all had to wear a 3 point seatbelts. Access to a drop down smoke hood with 2 mins of air supply for these aircraft ground fires to aid in escape through toxic smoke. Plus an airbag fitted to the seat in front of you for heavy landings and a parachute under your seat just in case:)

Ultimatly its money that dictates the level of safety and not the very best solution in every case. I have been to several meetings in the past with FRS BCO etc and we spend hours agreeing on a level of fire safety at a reasonable cost solution then in comes the building insures and demand a much higher level of fire detection otherwise they wont insure the building. They usually win bringing an L3 system to L2/P  but no can argue becuase all the minimum standards have been met. You often find the "big guys" want more protection not less, its just not the attitude to go looking for the lowest cost solution based on the fact they are insured but they take into account reputation, loss of earnings, business disruption and prospect of huge increase on next years insurance.  On the flip side  the "little guy" wants to know what is the minimum he can get away with.

A quick cost/benefit analysis would suggest that proportionately more lives would be saved by restricting car speeds to the maximum limit of 70 MPH! We now deal with more serious RTCs than house fires.

There must be a "tipping point" where the benefits of domestic sprinkler systems or self closing doors would be outweighed by the opportunity cost of more practical measures of saving lives. In my day job I survey houses and can state categorically that almost 90% of homes I inspect (other that new houses or Public Sector Right to Buys) have inadequate smoke detection. Surely we should concentrate on improving this state of affairs before worrying about more costly alternatives. CFS : the way ahead!

[wee brian]

Absolutely.  The other issue with sprinklers is that they can't cut you out of a crushed car!

[nearlythere]

Hi everyone. I am trying to collect some information that I think can only come from the direct experience of firefighters. I have trawled through loads of stats without success.

The issue I am concered with is whether having closed doors saves lives or the converse that open doors cost lives.

The reason I am interested is that I am trying to provide evidence to ODPM that if there was a mechanism to ensure self closing doors close when a fire starts in a dwelling, lives would be saved.

Sprinkler system would probably be better but it looks like the BRE have ruled them out for dwellings on cost grounds. The cost of an electromagnetic system for a dwelling could be less that £150 when installed as part of the build process.

If I can demonstrate that 10 lives a year might be saved then I believe there is a financial case for ODPM to mandate that all HMO's and social housing are fitted with a domestic version of the electromagnetic door holding systems you see in commercial buildings that hold doors open but release when the smoke/fire alarm systems are triggered.

I must declare a vested interest in that I have been researching the problems of self closing doors being wedged open in the community and I believe that there are viable solutions out there, including an idea I have developed myself. In spite of my own interests, I genuinely believe that if high risk dwellings had automatically closing doors then lives would be saved.

Can I invite an open disussion of what evidence there is out there from incidents that closed doors save lives or open doors cost lives?

Many thanks, Mark

Mark. Good luck with your research and yes it is a good idea. Unfortunately there are more people killed every year choking on peanuts but the shops are still allowed to sell them.
The government cares not one iota about 10 persons or even 100 persons unless there was some political mileage to be gained from it.
Sorry to be so negative but thats life.