See Ya In COURT !!!

[FM William Burns]

No problem but as stated......."lets keep it civil" There is no need for anyone to begin calling anyone names regardless of one's stance on an issue. Personally, I don't have any issues with (clever) banter and opinions but when posters begin a trend by using insults due to one's position on a matter that becomes dis-tasteful. If Admin has issues with this moderator's position on that specific request, I'll hear from them but until then (any affected) carry on in a civil manner.........please.

 

[incognito]

Forensics,

Where in my previous posts in this thread do you detect "anger issues"? I understand that you are upset that lawmakers in state after state are responding to public outcry in regard to overreaching government sprinkler mandates but please do not project your inability to cope with this situation onto myself. It is clear that scare tactics employed early on by the fire boys have lost out to the facts presented by NAHB and responsible code officials. Ultimately you were destined for failure. Half-truths and the prostituting of families who have suffered personal tragedies so that NFPA and sprinkler companies can reap billions in profits is distasteful at best.

 

[conarb]

You know how I would agree to a reasonable compromise on this contentious issue is to make sprinklers mandatory on any home built with Roof or floor trusses, I Joists, plastic foams of any type or in any place, PVC of any kind, ½" sheetrock, unprotected wood siding, and/or OSB in any sheathing. This would give builders/owners the choice of building well to avoid sprinklers, or building cheaply and installing fire sprinklers. It's the above items that are killing and maiming firefighters.

This worked in Elmhurst Illinois, given the option of fire sprinklers or solid wood construction all builders opted for solid wood rather than sprinklers. This would also help cut down on the the quantity of disposable cheap homes being built today.

Another thing, since cooking fires are the main source, it's okay with me to mandate fire extinguishing systems in hoods and restore all firewalls.

 

[Min&Max]

Conarb,

Crazy talk. None of the above items are killing and maiming firefighters or anyone else. Fire Chief Shane Ray from Tennessee and Fire Team USA is very forthright about the cause of firefighters injuries and deaths. They have a propensity for UNNECESSARILY running into unoccupied buildings which are on fire.

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

How about we get back to the opinion originally expressed. I can go along with some of what Conarb suggested, even though I normally don't.

If I was designing a 3 bedroom ranch with egress windows, single story home I am not sure that I could make a case for sprinkler protection.

Then again if I was desgining a multi story residental with egress windows above 8 feet, where parts of the building had limited access, I could clearly make a case for residential sprinklers.

The first case would typically allow for an effective escape, the second case is a problem. In Wisconsin they used to call those escape window/balconies - jump platforms. Of course that would not work for old people, young people or people with disabilties.

This is the main problem with a general requirement for sprinklers in all residential occupancies.

Getting back to the original issue --- ARE there situations where the designer should look at the actual situation rather than just the minimum requirements. The legal system calls that the "reasonable person" decision. What would a reasonable person consider to be right. If you build something that meets the minimum but clearly does not work is that reasonable.

So without name calling, or claiming scare tactics, etc. WHAT IS REASONABLE?

 

[permitguy]

Crazy talk. None of the above items are killing and maiming firefighters or anyone else.

Ummmm . . . yes, they are.

Fire Chief Shane Ray from Tennessee and Fire Team USA is very forthright about the cause of firefighters injuries and deaths. They have a propensity for UNNECESSARILY running into unoccupied buildings which are on fire.

Being "forthright" doesn't make you "right". In the overall scope of injuries and deaths, relative few are directly related to firefighting activities inside of unoccupied buildings.

 

[Frank]

You know how I would agree to a reasonable compromise on this contentious issue is to make sprinklers mandatory on any home built with Roof or floor trusses, I Joists, plastic foams of any type or in any place, PVC of any kind, ½" sheetrock, unprotected wood siding, and/or OSB in any sheathing. This would give builders/owners the choice of building well to avoid sprinklers, or building cheaply and installing fire sprinklers. It's the above items that are killing and maiming firefighters.

House construction failures are not the largest cause of tramatic fire fighter deaths--vehicles are.

Falling trees kill about 2 firefighters a year vs about 1 per year for failing lightweight wood construction 2000-2009 averages

One of 2009's falling tree fatalities is directly connected to the war on drugs when he was participating in a marijuana eradication project.

From NFPA

Firefighter fatalities (2009)

•There were 82 firefighter deaths in 2009.

•Stress, exertion, and other medical-related issues, which usually result in heart attacks or other sudden cardiac events, continue to account for the largest number of fatalities. Of the 44 exertion- ore medical related fatalities in 2009, 35 were classified as sudden cardiac deaths and five were due to strokes.

•Fireground operations accounted for 27 deaths.

•Residential structure fires accounted for the largest share of fireground deaths (nine deaths).

•14 firefighters died in 11 vehicle crashes (including five firefighters killed in three aircraft crashes), while four other firefighters were struck and killed by vehicles and two fell from moving apparatus.

•There were six deaths at five intentionally-set fires in 2009.

for a more detailed report see

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/osfff.pdf

 

[permitguy]

The context of the OP seemed more geared toward loss of license. I'm not sure how or if the "reasonable person" standard would apply in that situation.

The "reasonable person" standard is only a piece of the puzzle in the scope of establishing a negligent tort. Even if a court (or a jury) decided that a reasonable person would have acted differently, a plaintiff must still prove that a duty was owed, that duty was breached, and the breach of duty caused harm. In the context of the OP, this would be an extremely tough sell.

The reasonable person standard is no more cut and dry than the sprinkler debate as a whole. If 90% of the building officials (read public safety experts) in the country are fighting against residential sprinklers (hypothetical), is it not reasonable for an engineer to argue that they aren't necessary in his design? Where is the line at which you switch from reasonable to unreasonable?

Also, let's consider the "quality" of a typical residential house plan in this country. It's not as if we typically have full M/E/Ps, let alone detailed sprinkler drawings, on the plans themselves. If anything, there will be some vague note about all systems being installed in accordance with the code adopted by the AHJ. Suggesting that engineers should actually design a sprinkler system when they know it isn't required and won't be installed seems extremely irrational to me.

 

[FM William Burns]

You know how I would agree to a reasonable compromise on this contentious issue

We may see a future plan of exactly this if not already too late. AFPE and some others assisted me with this exact type of "reasonable" strategy as we felt this would happen. Wheather we believe in sprinklers or not is really not the issue, at least for me personally. It is a matter of providing the best protection possible within reasonable means.

As Conarb suggests; when these types of products and design schemes are used in the family dwelling, they do increase the failure risk to families and responders and I believe we can agree on that aspect. My mission is to protect families and responders and conserve property lastly. In this mission I realize that perscriptive measures historically taken away have increased the risk to my mission. As mentioned historically, I don't care if sprinklers or perscriptive measures are added when these products or design scheme alternatives are used as long as something is done.

Please let us not forget how the abilities of families to safely egress from higher thresholds have been affected also by the historic "special interest" involvment. The sprinkler people have our groups compromise and have noted the "possible" re-thinking of their stretegy and personally I had to laugh when asked for it and after what I went through in Baltimore but I continue on with a belief that something needs to be done when these products and schemes are adopted by developers more widley.

There you guys broke me down and I had to say something.........carry on....

 

[Jobsaver]

I'm just say'in, civility starts with the requirement that a professional debating a life safety issue refrain from accusing someone personally of causing a death. Those that have been accused in that manner can appreciate the gravity of the accusation, and are not likely to take the accusation lightly, or, at all, from someone not reacting emotionally from the personal loss of a loved one.

My comment toward Mr. Ballanco's dialogue in the OP is valid. The other words I can think of to describe such a self-centered egotistical creep don't do him justice.

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

permitguy,

I agree with your statements. We are simply in a situation where both sides of the issue are pressing hard with significant passion. As a professional I can make the case either way. I bring up the reasonable person standard as a discussion point. To which side do you err. I guess it depends on your state .

 

[permitguy]

I'm an advocate for the installation of these systems, and do not believe passive protection is an adequate compromise.

Having said that, I acknowledge that we are years (decades?) away from these systems being accepted to the extent that other systems are. Unlike some, I'm comfortable with that reality. I believe my role in this is to educate people on the reality of these systems, eliminate falsehoods about them, and eventually I believe we will get them accepted. I believe this will start with suburbs of large metropolitan areas that have the infrastructure in place for installation, water supply, etc. Eventually, the truth of installation costs will emerge, contractors will become more comfortable, and acceptance will spread. If this doesn't happen, it won't be for my lack of trying.

I believe people see fringe statements on both sides for what they are - attempts to jerk the momentum to their side of the argument with a knock-out punch. The problem for them is that this isn't a boxing match; it's a triathalon, we're severley out of shape, and we just started training.

 

[High Desert]

The problem is that our legislature was bought off by the SC HBA (to the tune of $400,000.00)

That's a lot less than the sprinkler industry paid to get it into the IRC. Must be hard times in SC.

 

[conarb]

Permitguy:

You are starting to sound like my reasonable old friend the Permitguy of old when he was a building inspector.

The way to get sprinklers accepted is to go away from water sprinklers entirely, work towards the development of low-wetting foam systems that can be easily cleaned up after a release, in this day and age, particularly in Texas and California, putting water on a fire is 19th century technology resulting in horrendously expensive mold remediation, but going away from water sprinklers means cutting ties to the lucrative coalition of sprinkler manufacturers.

 

[FM William Burns]

work towards the development of low-wetting foam systems that can be easily cleaned up after a release,

Now that's just too wierd.....it appears someone may have hacked my personal computer. That is an exceptional concept and one presently in development. It is not hard at all.