Overdoing Fire Inspection

Overdoing Fire Inspection

In a recent article appearing in a New York daily the assertion was made that the public were becoming tired of fire inspections and were losing interest in the subject of Fire Prevention. The article in question referred in particular to the reluctance of fire insurance field men to perform inspection work for the companies, and the difficulties that were experienced in obtaining men to perform this work. That this latter is true may well be so. but that the first part of the assertion has any foundation in fact we very much doubt. However, if there is any letting down on the part of the public in the matter of Fire Prevention, the fault must be placed at the door of the insurance companies, who send out numberless “inspectors,” many of them the veriest amateurs in the science of Fire Prevention. It is manifestly another case of “too many cooks.” Quite naturally the head of a business will object when after the regular inspection of his establishment by the fire department he is called upon in a few days to undergo another inspection by the representative of an insurance company, and possibly a short time after be requested to again subject his plant to the eagle eye of still another so called inspector—all of whom will probably leave with him “recommendations” the carrying out of which will entail more or less expense, and no doubt occasionally conflict one with the other. Possibly there is some excuse if the employer or manager either refuses the request or tears up the recommendations of one or all of these men and “forgets” to follow their instructions. The cause of Fire Prevention is, no doubt, greatly injured by this unnecessary repetition of work that should be the province of the members of the fire department. It would seem to be a very much wiser plan for the insurance companies to cooperate with the chief of the fire department in the city in which the desired inspection is to be made and confine the work to the members of the department. Perhaps it will be argued that these fire department inspectors are not insurance experts. Possibly not, but, which is more vital, they are thoroughly versed in the science of Fire Prevention. Most important of all, the confining of these inspections to one set of men would avoid the discouragement of the public in matters of care and cleanliness in the avoidance of fire. These men, too, would speak with greater authority when representing the fire department in their visitations. It would seem that the one thing to be avoided should be the letting down-of interest on the part of the public in all things pertaining to Fire Prevention, and any plan which will work to this end should have the earnest support of the insurance companies as it surely would of the fire departments.

In a recent article appearing in a New York daily the assertion was made that the public were becoming tired of fire inspections and were losing interest in the subject of Fire Prevention. The article in question referred in particular to the reluctance of fire insurance field men to perform inspection work for the companies, and the difficulties that were experienced in obtaining men to perform this work. That this latter is true may well be so. but that the first part of the assertion has any foundation in fact we very much doubt. However, if there is any letting down on the part of the public in the matter of Fire Prevention, the fault must be placed at the door of the insurance companies, who send out numberless “inspectors,” many of them the veriest amateurs in the science of Fire Prevention. It is manifestly another case of “too many cooks.” Quite naturally the head of a business will object when after the regular inspection of his establishment by the fire department he is called upon in a few days to undergo another inspection by the representative of an insurance company, and possibly a short time after be requested to again subject his plant to the eagle eye of still another so called inspector—all of whom will probably leave with him “recommendations” the carrying out of which will entail more or less expense, and no doubt occasionally conflict one with the other. Possibly there is some excuse if the employer or manager either refuses the request or tears up the recommendations of one or all of these men and “forgets” to follow their instructions. The cause of Fire Prevention is, no doubt, greatly injured by this unnecessary repetition of work that should be the province of the members of the fire department. It would seem to be a very much wiser plan for the insurance companies to cooperate with the chief of the fire department in the city in which the desired inspection is to be made and confine the work to the members of the department. Perhaps it will be argued that these fire department inspectors are not insurance experts. Possibly not, but, which is more vital, they are thoroughly versed in the science of Fire Prevention. Most important of all, the confining of these inspections to one set of men would avoid the discouragement of the public in matters of care and cleanliness in the avoidance of fire. These men, too, would speak with greater authority when representing the fire department in their visitations. It would seem that the one thing to be avoided should be the letting down-of interest on the part of the public in all things pertaining to Fire Prevention, and any plan which will work to this end should have the earnest support of the insurance companies as it surely would of the fire departments.