Our posting yesterday about the neighbors who chased down the local arsonist (HERE) reminded me of a case of vigilantism that I came in touch with.  It’s been quite a few years ago, way back when I was an engine driver.

We were on our way back to quarters from a 3rd-due run  late at night, somewhere between 11 pm and 2 am, as I recall.  When we were back in our 1st-due area passing an apartment complex, we spotted an auto on fire in one of the parking lots.  So I started driving into the lot towards the fire while the Lieu checked with dispatch, and we learn that no calls have come in on it yet, so we marked out on it.

The car, which was parked on the back row of the lot, was in full blaze and there were a few people standing around watching it as we pulled up and did our thing.  A few feet away from the curbstone was a 3-ft. high anchor fence that separated the property from a vacant lot, but that didn’t hinder us any.  After we knocked the fire down and cooled it off good, maybe 5 or 8 minutes had gone by, we started asking around if anyone knew whose car this was.

Nobody knew who owned it for sure, but a couple of them said, “You want to know who set it?”  That was the first indication we had that it was a deliberate fire. 

“Yeah, we’d like to know who started it.”

“It was him.” said one fellow who was pointing over the fence into the field next door.  So we walk over to the fence and squint into the darkness where we can just barely make out what looks to be a body laying there.  Over the fence we go and check it out.  Sure enough, there’s this poor sap that the neighbors caught setting the fire, laying there all this time still unconscious.  Of course, nobody knew who did this deed to the arsonist, but we didn’t need to know.  But I was always curious how he got so far over the fence, unless that’s where they caught him.

So we called for the ambulance and the police, then went back to bed.  Good job, Guys.

And we’d better be ready for the next one, so let’s get the equipment checked and I’ll go start the coffee pot.

[photopress:buckle_up_et_1_2_3_4_5.jpg,full,alignleft]

One of the myriad of things that governmental agencies have been studying lately is the rapidly-increasing usage of cell phones and in particular, the shifting over to cell-only usage and the gradual abandonment of wired phone service.

Earlier this year, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), who have been assigned this tracking study, released some preliminary findings of a more extensive study into this sociological shift.  They have found, among other things, that:

• More than one-half of all adults living with unrelated roommates (56.9%) lived in households with only wireless telephones. This is the highest prevalence rate among the population subgroups examined.
• Adults renting their home (30.9%) were more likely than adults owning their home (7.3%) to be living in households with only wireless telephones.
• More than one in three adults aged 25-29 years (34.5%) lived in households with only wireless telephones. Nearly 31% of adults aged 18-24 years lived in households with only wireless telephones.
• As age increased, the percentage of adults living in households with only wireless telephones decreased: 15.5% for adults aged 30-44 years; 8.0% for adults aged 45-64 years; and 2.2% for adults aged 65 years and over.
• Men (15.9%) were more likely than women (13.2%) to be living in households with only wireless telephones.
• Adults living in poverty (27.4%) were more likely than higher income adults to be living in households with only wireless telephones.

You can read the entire preliminary report HERE.  That last button is particularly relevant for 911 and dispatch people who are involved in planning and preparations for emergency call centers.

Another group consisting of 30 universities that have combined their resources into studying this trend has broken the cell-only statistics into a state-by-state graphic:

[photopress:cellphone_only_users.jpg,full,centered]

There are some surprises there, too, aren’t there?  Since fire and EMS services rely heavily on telephone reporting of emergencies, it behooves us to keep these trends in mind while planning and even currently responding to calls for service.  Dispatch centers will be undergoing a lot of changes as a result of this.  We’ve already discussed in the past this new practice of using cell phones to send instant photographs and how we should be taking advantage of this.  What better size-up aid than being able to send a picture of an incident in its early stages right to the onboard terminal of the 1st-in engine or the battalion chief?

The land-line folks won’t be going away entirely for a while, though.  If you’ve been watching you’ve noticed that the traditional telephone companies have replaced all their lines with fiber-optics and are now offering internet and tv service along the telephone lines.  Will that be enough for them to hang on?  Time will tell.

Speaking of time, it is now time to get this equipment checked out.  I need to get some coffee going.

There seems to be a gradual awakening in the state legislatures recognizing the deficiencies of older fire and building codes.  For one thing, construction methods have changed drastically over the past two decades and newer buildings, both residential and commercial, are being put up utilizing materials and designs that lead to a very rapid fire spread and structural collapse when fire starts.

The building codes are designed to provide a safe structure when the building is intact.  There is no provision for its integrity when the fabric is attacked by a fire.  But in the past few months we’ve started seeing some action on the part of the legislators to try and offset these hazards.  Following some really disastrous multi-building fires in Edmonton, Calgary and Raleigh last year, we’ve seen the Alberta provincial legislature start upgrading their code by requiring a gypsum-type sheathing underneath any vinyl siding on new homes.  And down in North Carolina the Raleigh City Council has instituted regulations that reduce the opportunity of fire spread from one home to another.  They are a little restricted down there because the state building code is designed and implemented by a poitically-appointed citizen’s committee that is made up of home builders who have a direct financial interest in how the codes are written.

[photopress:vinyl_1_1.jpg,full,centered]

Another recent problem has been the rapid development of rural areas with large housing tracts springing up to accommodate some areas where major cities are experiencing rapid population growths.  Eyeing that irresistable jump in property tax income, county boards are approving these instant fire-load farms without taking into consideration the amenities required to support a compact group of a few thousand people.  Usually there is little or no water supply for the hydrants and in most cases there isn’t even sufficient fire department protection for the new community.  (See LightRock’s article that addresses this problem HERE.)

[photopress:rural03a_1.jpg,full,centered]

In California that very problem has been compounded by the construction of entire communities in areas susceptible to wildland fires.  We’ve witnessed the disastrous results of those decisions several times just in the past four years.  In response to that, the California Legislature just passed a bill requiring that counties certify that adequate fire protection is in place before approving new subdivisions in high fire-hazard areas.  The Los Angeles Times reports:

The number of homes destroyed by wildfires has increased over the years, as developments have gone up in ever-closer proximity to wild lands. Cal Fire (formerly the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) spent $330 million defending homes during the last fiscal year, including those not under its jurisdiction, even though its budget was only $69 million. The gap was paid for out of the state’s general fund.

(The bill) requires that counties certify that the designs and locations of new subdivisions in high-risk areas are consistent with Cal Fire’s standards for slope, turnouts, water pressure and other factors. Also, they must certify that fire protection can be provided by local or state fire agencies in the area, and that firefighters and residents will be able to get in and out of the area from more than one direction. 

There’s a lot of leeway in the wording for the legal-eagles to stretch the results away from the intent, but it’s a start in the right direction.  It’s a good indication that lawmakers everywhere are starting to realize that something needs to be done to rein in this growth in fire potential that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Now let’s mind our own fire potential by checking out this equipment.  I’ll get the coffee started and see how the Sunday breakfast is coming along.

The Sunday Photo
[photopress:close_exposure.jpg,full,centered]