Costly sprinkler regulations would limit consumer choices

[mtlogcabin]

RFS are a good and worthwhile initiative. My objection is to the mandatory requirement. Statistically it does not make sense to mandate RFS

However, this same report states that only three-quarters of American households have a smoke alarm that works: The odds that a home that had a fire had a smoke alarm are 1 in 1.41 (71%).



[h=2]Residential Fire Sprinklers Save Lives[/h]In 2009, only 20% of reported fires occurred in one- and two-family homes but these fires caused 70% (2,107) of all civilian fire deaths. Homes also account for the largest share of civilian fire injuries and direct property damage.

Despite the fact that these figures represent improvement over the last 30 years, they continue to be appalling. Such losses are unacceptable. Why are they appalling and unacceptable? What is an acceptable number of civilian fire deaths per year. 2,107 out of a population of over 300 million

 

[mtlogcabin]

I found this article to be very informative and I thought very well written. The basic conclusion is if you want to reduce residential fire deaths you need to approach the problem locally and not with a national one size will fix it solution that RFS proponents believe will happen

http://www.dos.ny.gov/DCEA/pdf/Fire%20Deaths%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf

 

[FM William Burns]

a national one size will fix it solution that RFS proponents believe will happen

Not all.....not all!