Cash wrote
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!

Fraid not. There are much more cost effective ways of ensuring no loss of
life.

We don’t even mandate back to fire station alarms
in every house for a reason, and that would be much
cheaper than sprinklers in every house.

Just treat it as an insurance policy,

No thanks, because there are much cheaper insurance policys.

and how often do you expect to claim off your house insurance?

I choose not to insure my house. Essentially because
I designed it so that no fire will ever burn it down
and I know it cant be washed away in a flood etc.

But as you are a sensible person, you still bear the cost of that

I don’t actually.

- even though over many years, that policy is likely to cost far more than
a sprinkler installation.

In fact that’s bogus because people like you would have both.

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).

Just as true of the places where they are mandated.

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 -

Still not cost effective.

Neither is back to fire station alarms in every house done that way either.

(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!

That’s how you decide what to mandate in all houses.

We don’t mandate no combustible materials in any
house for a reason, even tho that would save some lives.

We don’t ban all use of cars, even tho doing that would
certainly save some lives.

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,

Nope. And it isnt an analogy either.

particularly as most of those "life threatening accidents" are caused by
the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!

Just as true of life threatening house fires.

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

Not for what to do after a life threatening accident they arent.

- and even if they never have an accident, they are still required to have
a valid insurance policy..

Which doesn’t do a damned thing about stopping someone from dying.