An article in the February 18, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Sun, “Fire alarm doesn’t mean fire department is coming,” reports on a new policy of the Henderson (NV) Fire Department stating that it will no longer respond to residential fire alarms unless a secondary means of verification is reported (e.g., visible fire) or a water-flow device has been activated.1 Such a policy should not be a total surprise to many fire departments around the country. The Henderson Fire Department is following a growing trend in which many departments are examining data, developing modified response plans, and initiating similar policies. Henderson is not alone in this practice in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. According to the article, the Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Department adopted a similar policy in 2003.
As a fire prevention and investigation specialist, I can fully understand the fire departments’ position. As they study and document false alarm response data, they reconsider their own risk evaluation and the personnel and equipment hours devoted to responding to such calls. Many U.S. departments face a similar degree of difficulty in considering whether to establish similar policies.
我不捍卫任何一个职位，因为我相信公众有权期待在需要时期最好的服务水平。但是，我也相信消防部门有权尽量减少响应人员的风险和他们所服务的公众，并减少纳税人的金额回应不需要服务的情况。这在这些经济短缺，站关闭和裁员中尤其如此。
If you are a current subscriber,login here访问此内容。
If you would like to become a subscriber, please visit ushere.
