Cultural Tolerance for Fire Disasters
Comments presented to the Special Meeting of the NFPA Technical Committee on Assembly Occupancies at the World Trade Center Boston
by
David A. Lucht, P.E.
Professor and Director
Center for Firesafety Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
March 13, 2003
It is curious how outraged we are after a fire disaster but how tolerant we are of buildings that are disasters waiting to happen. Experts will not be surprised if there are few new lessons to be learned from the Rhode Island nightclub incident that killed nearly 100 on February 20, 2003. The sad fact is that many have not learned the old lessons that have been repeated time and time again dating back at least as far as the 1942 Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston. People continue to die needlessly.
This is not rocket science. We know how to build and operate buildings that are not programmed for disaster. The Station nightclub clearly had all the elements needed for catastrophe to happen. It was just waiting for the needed source of heat to set the event into motion. The tragedy is that so many innocent people entered this facility with no knowledge whatsoever that the space they occupied could turn into a deadly, blazing inferno in two or three minutes. Why do we tolerate buildings like this in the first place?
The American culture is soft on unsafe buildings and structural safety law enforcement. For comparison, look at how we deal with traffic safety enforcement. Most people know that if they are caught speeding they will be pulled over and held accountable for their unsafe behavior. The driver will have a sick feeling in the pit of the stomach when the blue police cruiser lights are spotted flashing in the rear view mirror. The police officer will likely issue a summons, which will accompany a fine and possible court appearance. And the next time it happens, the same accountability will apply, often at a more stringent level if the driver is a repeat offender. And, if the offender is found to be driving while under the influence of alcohol, the penalty will be far more severe. Our culture has shifted over the last few decades and become more intolerant of drunk drivers thanks to grass roots organizations like MADD.
Airline safety can be used as another comparison. FAA regulations require the cabin crew to give emergency exiting instructions to passengers before takeoff on every commercial flight. Press reports have suggested patrons in The Station tried to exit via the doors they used to enter and that they were not familiar with the location of three other alternate exits. This is probably true. Maybe if a public announcement were made before the show to give nightclub patrons instructions on emergency exits and the sound of the fire alarm, people would be better prepared to respond. One might ask why 300 passengers on a jet airplane are always instructed on exiting procedures while 300 patrons in a crowded nightclub would not be.
Our culture is soft on operators of unsafe buildings, at least until after the disaster happens. The enforcement of fire safety laws and regulations does not approach the level of accountability that prevails in traffic safety and other areas. If an enforcement officer finds the exit doors blocked or locked, typically the building owner is asked to unlock or unblock them. There is rarely a summons issued or serious fine imposed for the unsafe act. It would be unusual that the violator of a fire safety code would feel the same sick feeling in the pit of the stomach as is the case when caught speeding on the highway. Maybe if our society became more aggressive about holding offenders accountable before the disaster strikes, building safety would be taken more seriously. The public has a right to assume they are not innocently walking into a disaster waiting to happen.
While we will never live in a risk-free society, we know how to make buildings safer from fire. If we are serious about preventing more tragedies like the one that happened in West Warwick, Rhode Island, a more assertive approach is needed before the fires happen. Our culture can be less tolerant of unsafe buildings. A higher level of accountability needs to be engrained in the way we think about building safety and the way we enforce laws and regulations. Cultures do change, as demonstrated in other arenas of public safety and health such as smoking and drunk driving.
The National Fire Protection Association has played a leadership role in improving fire safety attitudes and behaviors for decades. I would urge the NFPA to not only re-examine its codes and standards in light of the Rhode Island tragedy but also "think outside the box", searching for ways to aggressively help public officials on the state and local level develop tougher administration and enforcement strategies that reflect greater intolerance for unsafe buildings. Let's set out to change the culture. I can think of no better memorial for those who perished on February 20th.
David Lucht is professor and director of the Center for Firesafety Studies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. A former state fire marshal, he has had a 37 year fire safety career in business, government and academia. He has served as a presidential appointee in Federal fire safety leadership positions under Presidents Ford and Carter.
Maintained by webmaster@wpi.eduLast modified: September 25, 2006 16:38:10