News & Comment
For breaking news visit www.fire-magazine.com
Stateside Comment US Correspondent Catherine Levin reports on smart approaches for fire safety campaigns
M
any New Yorkers were glad to see the back of Mayor Bloomberg when he left office a year ago. As a temporary New Yorker, I thank Mr Bloomberg for one thing in particular: calorie counting. Go into Dunkin’ Donuts and fancy a cup of tea and something sweet? Well, if you’re like me and count your calories, you will leave without buying a donut because on the label under each type of donut is the calorie count and it’s frighteningly high. For Bloomberg, this was a simple way of tackling the problem of obesity: exposing
the hidden calories in everyday food that New Yorkers love to eat. But in academic circles focused on behavioural economics, this is known as a nudge. It’s about giving consumers a choice based on better information to make better decisions. In this case it’s about being healthier, but it can apply to many areas of our lives. Americans aren’t keen on being told what to do. When Chicago academic and behavioural economics guru, Cass Sunstein headed up the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, some on the right called him “the most evil, most dangerous man in America”. He was practising nudge theory at the highest levels in the federal government. He didn’t look at the fire problem in the US: maybe he should have. He talks a lot about two systems of the mind, System 1 and System 2, which
are the focus of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Consideration of this idea could help policy makers improve fire safety outcomes both in the US and the UK. System 1 involves the mental events that occur automatically and require little or no effort. The Fire Kills campaign’s quirky 30 second You Tube adverts do just this: they show that pressing the button on the smoke alarm can be combined with every day tasks and does not require much thought. Too much about fire safety is stuck in System 2, the slower response; the one that requires some thinking about. For instance, Dr Matt HindsAldrich from the Atlanta Fire Department suggests that those responsible for fire code enforcement in the US could be nudged to comply through improving choices; nudge business owners to make good on their fire code obligations
in order to keep the more profitable liquor licence. And in South Yorkshire, Steve Chu used a direct marketing campaign to nudge residents into making the better choice to test their smoke alarms. Steve’s now talking to DCLG and the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team about how behavioural economics can be used more widely in the Fire Service and (hopefully) verified through randomised control trials. It would be great if policy makers both here and in the UK could focus fire safety work on System 1. There’s not much sign of that in the US yet, so it’s good to know that policy makers are now starting to think about it in the UK. Next time I want a sweet snack, I’ll avoid Dunkin’ Donuts and go where they haven’t followed Bloomberg’s lead and make my own bad choice. My System 1 can override System 2 just now and then.
Investigating false fire alarms as they happen A multi-agency research partnership into the causes and frequency of false alarms from fire alarm systems in buildings promises to lead to the development of proposed solutions
S
tarting this month, BRE Global will team up with partners from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), British Approvals for Fire Equipment (BAFE), the CBRE Group, CS Todd & Associates Ltd, the Fire Industry Association (FIA), Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), to undertake ground breaking new research. False alarms cost businesses and Fire and Rescue Services an estimated £1 billion per year, with each false alarm costing businesses around £2,900, and the FRS around £300. Two SFRS watch managers, seconded from Glasgow’s group of fire safety enforcement officers, will work alongside a fire alarm industry expert
to gather live intelligence on incidents involving the actuation of fire alarm systems. In this regard the project is unique, as previous studies have involved the use of historical data. “False alarms are a problem worldwide and this revolutionary new approach aims to gather reliable data on their real causes,” said Raman Chagger, Principal Consultant at BRE Global. “Our partners bring different expertise and, coming from varied backgrounds, give this collaborative project a solid foundation from which to achieve a common goal – reducing false alarms.” The project aims to: collate comprehensive data on unwanted false alarm incidents; identify and classify
6 | January 2015 | www.fire–magazine.com
the common causes of unwanted false alarms; improve engagement by the SFRS, the fire industry and businesses on unwanted false alarms; reduce the volume of unwanted false alarms in the Glasgow City area; and provide intelligence to help reduce the volume of unwanted false alarms across Scotland. “Unwanted false alarm signals are a significant issue for fire and rescue services,” says Lewis Ramsay, Assistant Chief Officer (ACO) and SFRS Director of Prevention and Protection, said so it’s important we join with our partners to see them reduced. By working together we can gather information on the common causes of false alarms and identify approaches to reduce the number
that occur.” In addition to researching false alarms, the project will promote the benefits of having automatic fire alarm systems installed in buildings by studying fires where systems have responded appropriately. As fire alarm systems are so widely applied, the outcomes of this work have the potential to impact across Europe as well as in the UK. This includes possibly influencing future standards and codes of practice in respect of automatic fire alarm systems. This work builds on that from a previous study undertaken by the BRE Global. The report from that study, entitled The causes of false fire alarms in buildings, is freely available at http://www. bre.co.uk/podpage.jsp?id=1752