An evaluation of the role of fire extinguishers

112. That people’s behaviour changes in response to a threat and that they may experience some
distress, does not mean they are not rational or capable. Emotions have understandably been
shown to play a strong role in the public’s response and experience of a fire or emergency (as they
can for professionals). But this does not incapacitate the public in terms of taking rational and
beneficial self-appointed actions.
113. Their concern for, and desire to help others is not lost to selfish behaviour, beyond a few
exceptional and, generally extreme, circumstances. However, in most dwelling/HMO fires the
threat is low to moderate and the public exercise sensible and appropriate risk judgement,
achieving positive outcomes for themselves and others.
The public response versus official advice
114. ‘Government policy seeks to improve fire safety in the home, reducing the incidence of fire and
associated injuries and deaths’ (English Housing Survey 2015: 13).
115. This policy appears to dominate official fire safety guidance and advice in multiple guises. Whilst it
is an important focus, it has already been shown that it does not reflect the full range of public
aspirations in relation to dwelling/HMO fire outcomes.
116. Furthermore, it does not seem to offer any view on whether there are specific priorities for
interventions within a range of injuries, which extend from the very minor to serious or fatal. This
simplistic tendency to treat all injuries the same is reflected in other areas of fire safety. It masks
the need to recognise the different risk characteristics and behaviours associated with various
injury types. Rather than being seen in generic terms, each will require different strategies and
interventions to engage the relevant groups. The evidence shows that a reliance on the FRS
response time is not an appropriate focus or strategy to achieve this.
117. The policy also fails to accord with the public who have been shown to be tolerant, or accepting, of
the incurrence of minor injuries in pursuit of their personal priorities. It is important to
acknowledge that the public will trade off some injury risk (or occurrence) for the attainment of
personally valued rewards. In not recognising, or aiding this process, the public may be put at
greater risk. For example, if an appropriate means of tackling the fire (extinguisher) is not readily
available, they will improvise with whatever they can, which can cause delay in tackling the fire or
mean using something that is unsuitable for the task.
118. Reflecting official policy, national and local fire safety messaging has, for some time, urged the
public, on discovering a fire in the home, to ‘get out, stay out and call us out’, ‘Don’t put yourself at
risk’, ‘Never tackle a fire yourself’ and ‘Leave it to the professionals’.
119. This paternalistic messaging confirms the government and FRS’ belief that a professional response
is the only intervention capable of safely tackling dwelling/HMO fires. Again, this starkly contrasts
with the reality that between 70% and 80% of dwelling fires are tackled effectively and at low risk,
by the public. The public success in extinguishing fires and, in most cases, avoiding any injury is
something that should be worthy of greater study. In that way it would be possible to
develop relevant messaging based on positive actions the public can adopt to tackle the
fire and stay safe. Improving the relevance and usefulness of the advice to the target
group in this way may help close the gap between official guidance and what people
actually do.
23
1