 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Coach
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 5819 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Architect |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
wograr wrote: Coach wrote: It's not dollars, or at least not just dollars. It's about reasonable and customary.
Who gets do decide "reasonable"...."customary" usually equals "outdated" You decided for yourself in the next question. The entire code is one consensus piece, always has been. I don't know what outdated means in this discussion. Fire is still fire. If anything, homes are safer than ever due to safer appliances, electronic ignition, retardant fabrics, reduced toxicity in products of combustion...
I've seen homes at interestions penetrated by vehicles. Should we require barricades or reinforced walls?
The potential damage from fire, as in whole neighborhoods, towns, etc., is much greater than that of a car driving through you house. If there is an average of only 2500 fatalities per year due to fire (per Brudgers) then there is probably less than one from cars driving into houses.
Why aren't CO or radon detectors required? They're pretty cheap.
Radon tests at the time of purchase is required in MA. CO detectors are also required in MA...in all homes....not just new const. OK, but not in the IBC.
Maybe bathtubs that automatically drain when they hear a child's voice without an adult's?
Or we can all wrap ourselves in bubblewrap. Some would have the same response to requiring sprinklers.
By the way, hasn't it always been the contention of fire and insurance officials that the primary benefit of sprinklers is property preservation and not life safety?
This is true...but it certainly benefits the inhabitants as well as firemen. No one is questioning potential benefits, but as you feel tub safety is akin to living in bubblewrap, some feel sprinklers are, well, overkill.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7639 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 07:32 pm |
|
wograr wrote:
The potential damage from fire, as in whole neighborhoods, towns, etc., is much greater than that of a car driving through you house. If there is an average of only 2500 fatalities per year due to fire (per Brudgers) then there is probably less than one from cars driving into houses.
I didn't say "average."
2400 one and two family dwelling fatalities in 2006.
It's down about 50% over the last 30 years (roughly paralleling a decline in smoking).
I'm not aware of a recent case of a domestic fire burning a whole neighborhood, much less a whole town.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 407 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 08:14 pm |
|
brudgers wrote: wograr wrote:
The potential damage from fire, as in whole neighborhoods, towns, etc., is much greater than that of a car driving through you house. If there is an average of only 2500 fatalities per year due to fire (per Brudgers) then there is probably less than one from cars driving into houses.
I didn't say "average."
2400 one and two family dwelling fatalities in 2006.
It's down about 50% over the last 30 years (roughly paralleling a decline in smoking).
I'm not aware of a recent case of a domestic fire burning a whole neighborhood, much less a whole town.
I was just out in Chicago two weeks ago and drove by a block and a 1/2 of completely burnt-out single-family homes on W55th. I bet they wish they had sprinklers.
|
skyhook
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | BT In My Crosshairs |
| Posts: | 1003 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP | | Describes Me: | support where beam or wall not available |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 06:38 am |
|
Packaged in a life safety appeal, another union lobby generates billions of dollars of unnecessary cost to the public, for a system that obviously only needs mandated in appropriate environments.
I assume anyone who disagrees would favor universal seismic construction measures as well, regardless of region or probabilty of occurence. We are a gullable lot.
|
artichoke
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 11th, 2004 |
| Location: | Architect, USA |
| Posts: | 115 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 11:44 pm |
|
lug-nut wrote: artichoke wrote: lug-nut wrote: Coach wrote: It's not dollars, or at least not just dollars. It's about reasonable and customary.
I've seen homes at interestions penetrated by vehicles. Should we require barricades or reinforced walls?
I've seen trees cut houses in half. Should a condition of having trees within their height from a house be a steel-reinforced roof?
Why aren't CO or radon detectors required? They're pretty cheap.
Maybe bathtubs that automatically drain when they hear a child's voice without an adult's?
Who knows where the line should be drawn. Over the years, the code writers have attempted to be reasonable and I'm not sure we can ask for more.
In the case of residential sprinklers I'm sure they fully expect most jurisdictions to delete it. Nonetheless, they must have felt they had a duty to include it.
By the way, hasn't it always been the contention of fire and insurance officials that the primary benefit of sprinklers is property preservation and not life safety?
Sprinklers protect property, smoke detectors protect lives.
not true at all. tell the victims' families of that horrible club fire in warwick, ri that sprinklers wouldn't have saved their loved ones' lives.
Where did I say that sprinklers do not protect lives?
BTW, the original article is about homes, not commercial property.
lugnut, sorry must've misunderstood when you said "sprinklers protect property, smoke detectors protect lives ??? "
|
Current time is 11:41 pm | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|
|
