• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Karma

A bit of shifting the ground. A 13D system is unlikely to protect a structure when the nearest hydrant is 1/2 mile away (and perhaps the nearest water main as well).

Throw in a continuous supply of propane, and there are a lot of questionable assumptions necessary to conclude that the sort of sprinklers advocates are seeking would have made a difference.

And of course the example doesn't support the biggest argument people make in favor of 13D, that it meaningfully increases life safety for the occupants.
 
He made a choice, and it may or may not have cost him his house. Not enough information to determine if 13D would have saved it.

Hardly a case of "I told ya so!"

I draw a similarity to helmet laws. I wear one every time I ride...BY CHOICE. It might save my life some day, or I may die with it on. Do I think it should be the law for everyone to wear a helmet (have sprinklers) NO.

A one size fits all approach to fire prevention/suppression is not the answer.

Should helmet laws specify only full face with a shield and include armored leather jackets, pants, gloves and protective boots? I wear them, shouldn't everyone? = wrong approach.

Freedom to choose is a wonderful thing. I support a much wider range of regulation.

When you build or substantially remodel in a floodplain you have to raise the construction above the Base Flood Elevation, why? to prevent repeat losses that affect insurance policy holders.

I propose the following;

You build in a flood plain and get flooded = no insurance coverage

You ride a motorcycle without protective gear and get hurt = No/limited coverage.

You build without sprinklers and your house burns down = No/limited insurance coverage.

You can choose your path. But don't expect the same results as someone who chose otherwise.

But what do I know, I'm just a dumb carpenter.

mj
 
mjesse said:
I draw a similarity to helmet laws. I wear one every time I ride...BY CHOICE. It might save my life some day, or I may die with it on. Do I think it should be the law for everyone to wear a helmet (have sprinklers) NO.
Click to expand...
The equation for choices people make when building structures is different from other forms of personal risk-taking in that the choices made by one affect all other people that use the building.
 
Jobsaver said:
The equation for choices people make when building structures is different from other forms of personal risk-taking in that the choices made by one affect all other people that use the building.
Click to expand...
It's not a perfect comparison, but the point remains. To say that the subject of the story in the OP would not be in this situation "if only" he would have installed RFS, is ridiculous.

If I could wave a magic wand and fit every house with a 13D system, some of those houses would still burn down. If every motorcycle rider or passenger wore a proper helmet, some would still die in wrecks.

Certainly, we would be reducing the likelihood and/or severity of loss I'm not arguing that. Maybe I should have gone the "house vs. auto" route. Over the past 60 years cars have gotten heavier and more costly due to mandates for ABS, air-bags, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc., (not to mention emission regs.,compare to IECC). A hell of a lot of people in this country still drive old cars w/out these systems because they can't afford or don't want all that "stuff". I drive a 1982 AMC Jeep CJ-7 that is "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED" to quote Ralph Nader. I drive it not because it's "dangerous" or, outdated, or slow, but because I like it.

If I am looking to build a house, and my option is presented as "You can build without RFS, but your insurance premiums will increase by X%" or, "If you build without RFS, your insurance carrier won't cover fire loss over $X"

This gives me a CHOICE. If I can install RFS for $5000, it might be worth it. If RFS installation is going to be $20,000 (read ConArb's case) I'll roll the dice.

One size does not fit all. Mandates are not the way to go.

Just one man's opinion.

P.S. Starting in 2012, when RFS is mandated in the community I work, I will enforce with full commitment. Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I won't comply ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RJJ said:
if it is the same guy, I wonder what he thinks now about RFS's!
Click to expand...
He probabley has the attitude that I don't care - insurance will pay and I did not have any physical harm to myself or my family.

He fails to realize how his actions have more effect on other people than himself.

Common answer when talking to people about fire hazards or safety hazards - I have insurance.
 
Builder Bob said:
He probabley has the attitude that I don't care - insurance will pay and I did not have any physical harm to myself or my family. He fails to realize how his actions have more effect on other people than himself.

Common answer when talking to people about fire hazards or safety hazards - I have insurance.
Click to expand...
Then shouldn't it be up to the insurance company to make it painful enough to install sprinklers?
 
"Then shouldn't it be up to the insurance company to make it painful enough to install sprinklers?"

As does vehicle insurance, to pay for when you have a DUI, or speeding tickets, or riding your scooter w/o a helmet, or driving my MGB, which brudgers has made a comment that perhaps is as dangerous as mjesse's's Jeep that Nader was focusing on.
 
The insurance company should be able to make it a clear incentive to install sprinklers rather than a penalty to not install them if they are as effective as claimed. After all we are now paying a rate which reflects no residential sprinklers. That might help offset the install. Right now it's looking like Conarb's job got off cheap. I'm not sure why the sprinkler lobby feels this needs to be a legal mandate, work on it from the wallet end. Lead me with a carrot and I just might follow, push me and you'll likely get kicked.
 
The insurance industry has been addressing the sprinkler issue for decades. They do not provide significant reduction in premiums if you install RFS's because their losses from fire do not justify it. For example I could have reduced my yearly premium by $100.00 if I would have installed a system that would have cost $10,000.00+. Obviously they do not give a dam- one way or the other if I had RFS's.
 
DRP...I like this!..."Lead me with a carrot and I just might follow, push me and you'll likely get kicked."

"As does vehicle insurance, to pay for when you have a DUI, or speeding tickets, or riding your scooter w/o a helmet, or driving my MGB, which brudgers has made a comment that perhaps is as dangerous as mjesse's's Jeep that Nader was focusing on." ...........................................................................................................

Drove my 1951M38 Korean War Willys Jeep in today...no seatbelts, top, doors, blinkers, wipers, one taillight, sitting on the gas tank, windshield down...wouldn't trade it for the world! We all take chances!
 
fatboy said:
"Then shouldn't it be up to the insurance company to make it painful enough to install sprinklers?"As does vehicle insurance, to pay for when you have a DUI, or speeding tickets, or riding your scooter w/o a helmet, or driving my MGB, which brudgers has made a comment that perhaps is as dangerous as mjesse's's Jeep that Nader was focusing on.
Click to expand...
"Unsafe at any speed" was what Nader said about the Corvaire.
 
brudgers said:
"Unsafe at any speed" was what Nader said about the Corvaire.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the sister of my friend in grade school had one.

I don't live too close to edge anymore but, the past two days I drove my '88 Suzuki Samurai softtop in to work.

Wheeeeeeeeee!
 
mtlogcabin said:
Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?
Click to expand...
1.) How many apparatus are involved in accidents while while responding to calls?

2.) How many firefighters are killed, hurt, and/or injured per year while fighting the "bread and butter" of the fire service (residential fires - How many people are killed in sprinkelred commercial properties vs. the unsprinklered commercial properties (especially motels - sprinklered vs. non-sprinkelred).

Each person that is injured or killed is a family member - father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, etc.

Sprinkler systems will not stop the fire department from responding, but it can eliminate the number of units required to respond based upon the needed fire flow for a building..... Currently un-sprinklered buildings in our fire district get 3 engines, 1 ladder, battt chief, air/service truck for first due........ Sprinkler buildings get one engine emergent (lights and siren), the other equipment rolls non-emergent to reduce the likelihood of an accident while responding.

Sprinkler = 1 emergent response, Non-sprinklered equals 6 emergent response vehicles. ( about 600% greater chance of having a vehicle accident with the public or between fire apparatus..... do a you tube search for fire department accidents.
 
Sprinkler systems will not stop the fire department from responding, but it can eliminate the number of units required to respond based upon the needed fire flow for a building
Click to expand...
Here we go..........this is an operational response that others may not fathom since they don't and can't understand the actual operations necessary for a fully involved fire. Specifically the use of PPV and S&R and or ventilation operations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top