Karma

[forensics]

Originally Posted by mtlogcabin

Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?

What Builder Bob said !

Furthermore one of the primary differences is the reduced impact on the local government by the obvious cost and risk reduction of the fre service response activity.

RFS transpose the primary fire protection responsibility away from the public and foster personal responsibility for each homeowner for his own family and property.

Obviously reduced response cost benefits the community as a whole by the reduction in response expense

In a far away land (actually right across the Port Royal sound from Builder Bob) is an island beach community that has been requiring sprinklers for many years now if a house exceeds 35 feet in height.

1) This is justified because of the limited ability to fight high challenge fires on the beach especially where the local FD has not invested in the necessary equipment to mount an areial attack at those elevations.

2) The local island water service is challenged in the available fire fighting water supply and the property owners enjoy that reduction in their infastructure expense

 

[forensics]

Now that is the most accurate statement made since this entire endless rant about RFS began.

1- Why should the insurance industry acknowledge the reduction in risk (spelled claims) when they can sit back and enjoy the reduced exposure (spelled cost).

2- The eventual incorporation of RFS is inevitable and they are waiting patiently as they enjoy the benefits of the reduced risk.

3- Offering a fair discount that is based on the lesser risk does not help the bottom line on their balancesheets but every building code life safety requirement is based in that logic.

What discount do they give for smoke detectors, arc fault, impact glass or hurricane and siesmic provisions. The general idea is compliance with the codes reduces the risk and that is reflected in the ISO rating of the insured community.

In these cases a community is penalized for noncompliance rather than incentivized for upgrades like RFS

As my wise father used to tell my brother and me about marrying all the really fun girls "Why would you buy a cow when the milk is so cheap"

 

[mtlogcabin]

Builder Bob

Thanks for the info. My community on average has 2 or 3 structural fires a year the rest of the fire calls are small and usually put out quickly by the one truck that responds. The FD has no idea when a call comes in if the address has a sprinklered building or not we are not that advanced so they roll one truck. Like FM stated it is an operational response We only have 9 firefighters per shift.

 

[brudgers]

Originally Posted by mtlogcabin Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?

What Builder Bob said !

Furthermore one of the primary differences is the reduced impact on the local government by the obvious cost and risk reduction of the fre service response activity.

RFS transpose the primary fire protection responsibility away from the public and foster personal responsibility for each homeowner for his own family and property.

Obviously reduced response cost benefits the community as a whole by the reduction in response expense

In a far away land (actually right across the Port Royal sound from Builder Bob) is an island beach community that has been requiring sprinklers for many years now if a house exceeds 35 feet in height.

1) This is justified because of the limited ability to fight high challenge fires on the beach especially where the local FD has not invested in the necessary equipment to mount an areial attack at those elevations.

2) The local island water service is challenged in the available fire fighting water supply and the property owners enjoy that reduction in their infastructure expense

The infrastructure arguments are based on specious reasoning.

Even in areas with 13D sprinklers fire fighters will still require the same sort of infrastructure to fight structural fires - inadequate infrastructure + 13D = inadequate infrastructure.

What 13D does successfully is provide a less cost effective alternative to adequate fire department funding while providing cover for the cowardice of public officials in regards to raising adequate funds in the face of anti-tax stupidity.

 

[mtlogcabin]

the cowardice of public officials in regards to raising adequate funds in the face of anti-tax stupidity.

Public officials who don't raise taxes are cowards? Tell us what you really think about taxes?

 

[High Desert]

Ah.. motorcycle helmets.. http://www.wcti12.com/news/28441711/detail.htmlKarma. It's a bitch.

I protested aging once........and guess what happened, Karma.

 

[Builder Bob]

I think that the problems of fire protection, taxes, etc. will always be a topic of discussion that people will alwys have a difference of opinion.

 

[High Desert]

Yup. Taxes, religion and fire protection. Not a good subject to bring up at a cocktail party.

 

[brudgers]

Public officials who don't raise taxes are cowards? Tell us what you really think about taxes?

Politicians who lack the courage to do so when it is needed (e.g. when fire protection infrastructure is inadequate) are cowards.

The specious reasoning put forth in this thread regarding residential sprinklers provides cover for such cowardice.

 

[Frankyh]

Great site! If you have a good look at that!

 

[Rio]

There's an interesting article in this month's JLC (Journal of Light Construction) regarding RFS's. The gist of it is that Pennsylvania has just repealed the requirement to have them and, according to the article, the result is "California stands alone as the one state to have adopted a version of the IRC with an effective sprinkler provision still in place" It goes on to qualify that statement somewhat but the part about California doesn't surprise me as this state has never met a requirement or regulation it didn't like and wanted to expand on.

As to the 'anti-tax stupidity' argument, in this country we don't have too little revenue coming in, we have too much spending going out..................