Research.—Under the heading “Fire Research” should be included theoretical and experimental investigation as to materials and construction, combined with the chronicling of practical experience in fires, then the careful investigation and chronicling of the causes of fires, assisted where necessary by a power for holding fire inquests in interesting, suspicious or fatal cases. Experimental investigation as to natural and accidental causes as distinct from criminal causes can be included. Research in criminal cases may be assisted not only by a fire inquest, but also by immediate formal inquiries held on the spot, by the senior fire brigade and police officers present, or by immediate government investigations held on the same lines as inquiries into explosions and railway accidents.[1] As to general research work, there are several cities which contribute substantially towards the costs of fire tests at independent testing stations. Some towns also have special commissions of experts who visit all big fires occurring within easy travelling distance, take photographs and sketches, and issue reports as to how the materials were affected. Then there are the usual statistics as to outbreaks, their recurrence and causes, and in some places such tables are supplemented by reports on experiments with oil lamps, their burners and wicks, electric wiring, and the like.
The British Fire Prevention Committee.—The British Fire Prevention Committee is an organization founded a few days after the great Cripplegate (London) fire in 1897, and incorporated in February 1899. It comprises some 500 members and subscribers. The members include civil engineers, public officials holding government appointments, fire chiefs, insurance surveyors and architects, whilst the subscribers in the main include the great public departments, such as the admiralty and war office, and municipalities, such as the important corporations of Glasgow, Liverpool and the like. Colonial government departments and municipalities are also on the roll, together with a certain number of colonial members. New Zealand has formed a special section having its own local honorary secretary. The ordinary work of the committee is carried out by a council and an executive, and the necessary funds are provided by the subscription of members and subscribers. The services of the members of council and executive are given gratuitously, no out-of-pocket expenses of any kind being refunded. Whilst the routine work deals mainly with questions of regulations, rules and publications of general technical interest, the tests are probably what have brought the committee into prominence and given it an international reputation. They are not only the recognized fire tests of Great Britain, but they rank as universal standard tests for the whole of the civilized world, and Americans, just as much as Danes, Germans or Austrians, pride themselves when some product of their country has passed the official procedure of a test by the committee. The reports of the tests, which state facts only without giving criticisms or recommendations, are much appreciated by all who have the control of public works or the specification of appliances. The committee does not limit itself solely to testing proprietary forms of construction or appliances, but has a number of tests—quite equal to the proprietary tests—of articles in general use. The ordinary concrete floor or the ordinary wooden joist floor protected by asbestos boards or slag wool receives as much attention as a patent floor; and similarly the ordinary everyday hydrant receives equal attention with the patent hydrant, or ordinary bucket of water with the special fire extinguisher. The door tests of the committee, which cover some thirty different types of doors, deal with no less than twenty ordinary wooden doors that can be made by any ordinary builder or cabinet-maker. These so-called non-proprietary tests are made at the expense of the general funds of the committee, whilst for the proprietary tests the owners have to pay about two-thirds of the expenses incurred in the form of a testing fee. The expenses incurred in a test, of course, not only comprise the actual testing operation of testing, but also the expense of producing the report, which is always a very highly finished publication with excellent blocks. The expense incurred also includes the establishment expenses of the testing station at Regent’s Park.
The British Fire Prevention Committee organized the great Fire Exhibition and International Fire Congress of London in 1903, in both of which it enjoyed the support and assistance of the National Fire Brigades Union and the Association of Professional Fire Chiefs. It from time to time despatches special commissions to the continent of Europe, and these visits are followed by the issue of official reports, well illustrated, presenting the appliances, rules and methods of the countries visited, and serving as most useful reference publications.
Taken generally, the whole of the work of the committee, both in respect of scientific investigations and propagandism, has been most beneficial. Fire waste has been materially reduced, regardless of the fact of the greater fire hazards and the ever-growing amount of property. In Great Britain alone the sum saved in fire wastage annually is about £5,000,000. This great annual saving has been obtained at an expenditure in research work, as far as the British Fire Prevention Committee is concerned, of about £23,000, of which more than half was provided by the membership in voluntary contributions or subscriptions.
There is no similar institution anywhere in the world, although several government laboratories occasionally undertake fire tests, notably the Gross Lichterfelde laboratory near Berlin, and several insurance corporations have testing plants, notably the American Underwriters at Chicago. The efforts at research work outside Great Britain have, however, been spasmodic and in no way compare with the systematic series of inquiries conducted without any substantial state aid in London.
Distribution of Losses.—Property destroyed by fire is practically an absolute loss. This loss may actually only affect the owner, or it may be distributed among a number of people, who are taxed for it in the form of a contribution to their national or local fire fund, a share in some mutual insurance “ring,” or the more usual insurance companies’ premium. In the first two cases some expenses have also to be met in connexion with the management of the fund, “tariff” organization, or “ring.” In the last case, not only the expenses of management have to be covered, but also the costs incurred in running the insurance enterprise as such, and then a further amount for division amongst those who share the risk of the venture—namely, the insurance company’s shareholders.
It is well to distinguish between loss and mere expenditure. The sinking fund of the large property owner should cover a loss with a minimum extra expense; insurance in an extravagantly managed company paying large dividends will cover a loss, but with an unnecessarily large extra outlay. In every case the loss remains; and as property may always be considered part of the community, the province or nation, as the case may be, suffers. It is always in the interest of a nation to minimize its national losses, no matter whether they fall on one individual’s shoulders or on many, and whether such losses are good for certain trades or not. With a suitable system of fire protection it is possible to bring these losses to a minimum, but this minimum would probably only be reached by an extra expense, which would fall heavier on the insurers’ pockets in the form of municipal rates than the higher premium for the greater risk. A practical minimum is all that can be attempted, and that practical minimum varies according to circumstances.
Practical protection must mean smaller annual insurance dues, and the actual extra cost of this protection should be something less than the saving off these dues. Then not only has the nation a smaller dead loss, but the owner also has a smaller annual expenditure for his combined contributions toward the losses, the management of his insurance, and the protective measures. Where there is mutual insurance or municipal insurance in its best sense, the losses by fire and the costs of the protection are often booked in one account, and the better protection up to a certain point should mean a smaller individual annual share. Where there is company insurance the municipal rates are increased to cover the cost of extra protection, while a proportionate decrease is expected in the insurance premiums. Competition and public opinion generally impose this decrease of the insurance rates as soon as there is a greater immunity from fire. Where the insurance companies are well managed and the shareholders are satisfied with reasonable dividends, practical protection can be said to find favour with all concerned, but if the protection is arranged for and the companies do not moderate their charges accordingly, the reverse is the case.
The position of insurance companies subscribing towards the maintenance of a fire brigade should here be referred to, as there is considerable misunderstanding on the subject. The argument which municipalities or fire brigade organizations often use is to the effect that the insurance companies derive all the profit from a good fire service, and should contribute towards its cost. Where properly managed companies have the business, a better fire service, however, means a smaller premium to the ratepayer. If the ratepayer has to pay for extra protection in the form of an increased municipal rate, or in the form of an increased premium raised to meet the contribution levied, this is simply juggling with figures.
Cost.—As to the cost of a practical system of fire protection, better and safer building from the fire point of view means better and more valuable structures of longer life from the economic aspect. Such better and safer constructional work pays for itself and cannot be considered in the light of an extra tax on the building owner. The compilation and administration of the fire protective clauses in a Building Act would be attended to by the same executive authorities as would in any case superintend general structural matters, and the additional work would at the most require some increased clerical aid. If the execution of the fire survey regulations were delegated to the same authority there would again simply be some extra clerical aid to pay for, and the salaries of perhaps a few extra surveyors. To make the inspections thoroughly efficient, it has been found advisable in several instances to form parties of three for the rounds. The second man would, in this case, be a fire brigade officer, and the third probably a master chimney-sweep, who would have to receive a special retaining fee.