Rod Speed wrote:
Cash wrote
John Rumm wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064

As one who over the years has been involved in repairing several fire
damaged dwellings (two with fatalities) [1], I think that sprinklers
in dwellings are a bloody good idea, and is one of those where the
value of fitting them could well far outweigh the costs in lives
saved and reduced injuries.

The real problem with the cost is that only a tiny subset
of houses ever have a fire that sprinklers would help with.

But even with that "minority" it's worth the cost if it saves just one life!

Just treat it as an insurance policy, and how often do you expect to claim
off your house insurance? But as you are a sensible person, you still bear
the cost of that - even though over many years, that policy is likely to
cost far more than a sprinkler installation.

We don’t mandate full fire hose hydrants in all houses either,
for the same reason.

Many householders would be to panicky during a fire to even think of using a
hydrant (even *if* they knew how to use the hose properly).

As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe these
simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to
larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

The problem is that home buyers will have to pay that cost.

Or heaven forbid, the builder could reduce his profit marging by the
relatively small cost of such installation during the building process -
(because at that stage, when everything is accessible for first and second
fixing, it is a relatively small unit cost per dwelling within the larger
scheme of things).

Now if they could legislate for householders to have some training
in how a dwelling fire develops when doors are left open at night,
along with the very high temperatures created, and how to escape
from a burning building, that would be a bonus - but then the
shoutsof a "nanny state" would be very loud!

Because, again, its just not cost effective.

There we go again, cost before the actual value of something in preventing
loss of life!

We don’t even do it with car drivers and they have a lot more life
threatening accidents than we see with life threatening fires in
houses.

A very poor analogy to use, particularly as most of those "life threatening
accidents" are caused by the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!

Now, as most car drivers have had formal training and passed a test before
they are let-loose on the roads by themselves, in theory at least, they are
far better prepared than the average householder for any emergency - and
even if they never have an accident, they are still required to have a valid
insurance policy..


Cash