An evaluation of the role of fire extinguishers

Executive summary
1. This report considers the use of portable fire extinguishers in dwellings/HMO. It does so by drawing
largely on evidence and data that provide a human or public perspective on their use and benefit.
2. It finds that the contribution of the extinguisher and the public in using them, attracts little
attention and is poorly recorded within academia, government or the wider fire safety sector. And
yet, it is this perspective which ultimately identifies their true contribution and value.
3. The report identifies that there is a fundamental discrepancy between official/policy assumptions
and the public in relation to priorities in the event of a fire. Government and professionals focus on
avoiding injuries and see that as the sole aspiration, in the pursuit of which everything else is
secondary. As a result, they consider the public role to be one of compliance in which they simply
exit the premises on becoming aware of a fire. If true, this would require little, if any, decisionmaking
by the public.
4. In contrast, the public have a wide and largely unrecognised range of priorities when encountering
a fire, based on their individual circumstances. These include: the avoidance of
embarrassment/inconvenience; mitigating the impact of damage to the property, e.g. avoiding the
risk of being unable to remain in their home; and their concern for the wellbeing of other people,
pets or valued possessions. Pursuing these priorities requires numerous decisions, and yet they are
not aided in this by any guidance from the professional services either before, or during the event.
5. A desire to achieve their self-appointed tasks is a strong motivation for the public’s behaviour
when encountering a fire. For most, this will involve an active response of on average five actions,
although for some it will be as many as 11. This includes investigating the initial cues and tackling
the fire, often using improvised means. They are usually successful in doing so, with 70% to 80% of
fires dealt with by the public without requiring professional assistance. It is important to note that
in doing so, they are willingly acting against official advice and are not being coerced into this. The
evidence shows the public to be effective and capable in tackling fires, even in the absence of any
professional support, or often without specialist equipment.
6. The size of fires is decreasing – both those the fire and rescue service (FRS) attends and those that
the public deal with. In either case, the early interventions of the public are likely to be the most
significant determinant of the outcome.
7. The FRS response time to dwelling fires has increased by nearly 50% over the past 25 years. As the
FRS does not routinely provide any support or intervention until their arrival, the reduction in fire
size, etc. must be attributable to other factors, including the role of the public. The continued focus
on the FRS response time diverts from the exploration of other policy options to share their
professional expertise in the absence of a physical attendance, e.g. remote assistance.
8. Literature shows the relatively small and distinct section of the public at risk of a fatal outcome in a
dwelling fire generally has specific characteristics. These characteristics make them vulnerable by
leaving them to be unable to respond to a fire or causing them to do so in an appropriate way.
9. However, most people do respond appropriately, and the literature confirms that they
do not panic. Typically, most people are at risk of a minor injury at worst, due to the
low risk from the fire and their own ability to assess and act in accordance with the
situation. Where a minor injury is incurred, the public almost unequivocally see it as
a reasonable trade-off for whatever activities they were undertaking.
4