An evaluation of the role of fire extinguishers

180. The results from this study are helpful in supporting other evidence source that show that the
public are not reliant on training to use extinguishers safely and effectively. However, it remains
the case that whether for research or training, it is hard to fully create the conditions of a real fire.
As such, the reaction of someone to either event may differ, and it is not clear whether one
predicts the other. Pursuing this discussion in generic terms is unhelpful and more needs to be
done to understand the difference between a fire that poses little, if any risk, and those with the
potential to develop and pose a significant risk.
181. Most dwelling/HMO fires pose a low and tolerable risk to those that encounter them. The evidence
shows they are being dealt with effectively, and by people without training or even specialised firefighting
equipment. There are of course options to further reduce the risks for this group, but
these do not seem to be a priority. However, there may be opportunities to enhance the market
for domestic fire-fighting equipment by encouraging adoption of extinguishers suited to a domestic
environment to reduce reliance on improvised equipment. Instead, an urgent focus should
examine why some fires develop to create higher risk and what their characteristics are. This is an
area that has the potential to make the greatest contribution to reducing the harm from
dwelling/HMO fires and is in need of user-centred and targeted interventions.
182. Overall, the case for training being critical for the safe use of extinguishers (and conversely using a
lack of training to justify their non-provision) requires greater scrutiny. Understanding what
difference training makes, what it should include and how often it is required are key questions.
These, in turn, inform whether it is required and, if so, the burden it places on
businesses/organisations because of the scope, duration and frequency required to maintain
competence. If the burden is perceived to be unnecessarily high, then from a financial, if not public
safety perspective, it may become attractive not to provide extinguishers. But available evidence
clearly identifies that extinguishers are being used safely and effectively by untrained persons.
Advice to the contrary should be considered unsound unless there is relevant and robust evidence
to justify its continuation. Removing, or not installing extinguishers, is not a neutral act. It must be
one made from sound evidence and risk management practice if it is to improve, and not be
detrimental to, public safety.
183. Despite this lack of evidence, the requirement for training and the risks to untrained users appear
to be widely promoted within professional fields in the UK.
34
2