On Jan 11, 8:09*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,



*Evan wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:51*pm, mleuck wrote:

The issue to me isn't if they work well but that federal, state or
local governments shouldn't be mandating them. if the builder or
customer wants them that's another story

LOL... *And why not ?

If something can save lives why not require it... *Especially
out there in the "heartland of America" where volunteer fire
protection rules the day...

Smoke detectors = required
Carbon monoxide detectors = required

automatic fire sprinklers = requirement coming soon

Not just the public safety folks, but normal people are
starting to see the pattern of people dying in small home
fires as opposed to large multi-unit dwellings which have
had the requirement to be sprinkler protected for a while
now...

How many people were electrocuted in the bathroom
at home before GFCI's became a requirement ?

~~ Evan

Thanks for your previous posts with good info about how these sprinkler
systems work. But I'm completely opposed to laws designed to protect me
from myself. I have smoke detectors because I think they're a good idea,
but I don't have CO detectors, and I sure as hell don't want anyone
telling me I need a sprinkler system.

As for GFCIs, absolute bull****. The number of electrocutions in the
home, in the U.S. is vanishingly small. I researched this a few years
ago for an a.h.r. discussion, and IIRC, about ten times as many people
die by falling down while walking on level ground. A law requiring
installation of tens of millions of devices in order to keep ~20 people
per year alive is absolutely, positively insane.

Smitty
Requiring sprinklers is just a way to shift the cost of keeping your
fire to yourself from your fellow citizens to you. The state is not
trying to protect you from yourself. They are trying to protect you
from your neighbors and your neighbors from you. Manual fire
protection is far more expensive than automatic fire protection. That
is a fact.
--
Tom Horne