People often fail to respond quickly to fire alarm signals. A common example: In a hotel, a fire alarm sounds late at night. Only a handful of people actually dress and leave (often using the elevators). A few people call the front desk. Many people periodically poke their heads out their doors to see what's going on. But mostly, people simply wait for the alarm signal to stop. Eventually, the alarm either shuts off, or someone (hopefully) comes to tell them that there is a real emergency and they must leave.
This problem has aggravated and perplexed fire safety professionals over the years. Some denounce the public for their stupidity in failing to recognize the potential danger indicated by a fire alarm signal. Their concern is valid: in many fire emergencies, a rapid response is critical to survival. But attributing the problem to public stupidity is inaccurate and of no value in correcting the problem. In reality, people are simply exhibiting natural tendencies.
Some ways to rise after fire alarm attendance would be to minimize system tests and false and nuisance alarms. This has been a major problem. minimize the use of surprise fire alarms drills. Surprise fire alarm drills are a useful way of evaluating preparedness, but they also reduce the building occupant's perception that alarm signals indicate real emergencies. For this reason, surprise drills can be counterproductive. Fire safety codes have been changed to allow greater use of announced drills in recognition of that they often just as effective for training purposes. In many settings, surprise drills are best reserved for those occasions when the overall emergency response must be evaluated.
Provide information about ALL alarm signals. Provide information about the origin of the alarm and management's efforts to avoid repeats. More often than not, building managers fail to offer any explanation at all. And when they do tell occupants that an alarm signal was false or a systems test,...