|
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 Probably necessary in Wales! After all, it is the place where holiday cottages[1] used to get torched - don't know whether they still do. [1] Was it Not-the-nine-o'clock-news that parodied the NCB advert? "Come home to a living fire. Buy a cottage in Wales!" -- Cheers, Roger ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:52:56 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Not normally. Ones near the heat source, thus already near to the point of trigger, may also go off due to the shock through the water/pipe work when one does go off. The kitchen smoke detector goes off each time she does this. Kitchens shouldn't have "smoke" detectors they should have heat (ie fixed temp) or rate of rise detectors. Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a ladder? Quite, or tall box or bit of furniture. And how do you turn them off once its clear that the danger is over? Presumably there would be a valve feeding the sprinkler system but this would have to be locked to stop numpties turning it off(*) and the builders would no doubt place it in an "accessable" position like they do the main water stop cock. (*) Or not so numpties moving large objects about and not wanting to risk biffing one accidentally. Then of course they would forget to turn it back on... -- Cheers Dave. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 Cost of household insurance will go UP as there will be a huge rise in water damage to furniture/fixtures/fittings due to accidental an/or experimental triggering from kids. Great idea if you have 12' high ceilings but when you can fiddle with them with an out-stretched arm or standing on a chair , or bash them with a light-sabre etc... I can see them going the way of the smoke alarm battery-pullers. Simply becoming isolated it at the shut-off valve and painted over... -- http://www.GymRatZ.co.uk - Fitness+Gym Equipment. http://www.bodysolid-gym-equipment.co.uk http://www.trade-price-supplements.co.uk http://www.water-rower.co.uk |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Tim Streater wrote
Phil wrote John Rumm wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially viable. It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't already mandated. When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sprinkler Am I going to have all my possessions everywhere in the house soaked because SWMBO's doing soss in the oven? Nope, you arent even going to get the oven sprinkled either. (The kitchen smoke detector goes off each time she does this.) Sprinklers work on temperature, not smoke. Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a ladder? You'll only get a single sprinkler spewing water that way. And how do you turn them off once its clear that the danger is over? Turn the tap off that feeds them. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Actually the consequences of financial foolishness are worse than
that. The NHS has a budget of about £10k per qaly, so each 6.7 million spent saving one life with sprinklers eats up enough resources to save 670 lives. In that particular example, the money sources are to an extent different, but when it comes down to household budget and safety, there are plenty of things that could be done with that 6.7million that would save many more lives. I think you have overlooked that a "qaly" is a year, not a life so you need to multiply by average life expectancy of those saved. And NICE now use £20~30,000: http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/feat...stheqaly. jsp So it works out around the same as the DfT figures - not surprisingly as officials do try to maintain a degree of consistency on such things (despite the pressures on their political masters to jerk knees when the media are baying). -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Phil wrote
Rod Speed wrote Phil wrote John Rumm wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially viable. Nope, they don't. That doesn't happen with commercial buildings that do have sprinklers. It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't already mandated. No it does not. B****ks , you know nowt. Know a hell of a lot more about it than you do thanks. Have fun listing even a single example of any operation that provides enough of a reduction on your insurance premium to pay for the installation of sprinklers in your house. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
NT wrote
Rod Speed wrote Jethro_uk wrote Rod Speed wrote We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either. Neither did Birmingham, till 2005. We wont ever get them here. And even if we did, the house would survive them fine anyway. Some diyers are able to repair the expected damage from any of the usual risks. And that's clearly true of me since I build the entire house from scratch myself. For anyone able to, the expected cost of repairs times the probability of the happening is vastly cheaper than insurance. Yep. In spades with someone who has built the entire house from scratch. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Dave Liquorice wrote
Jonathan wrote Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt! Unlikely. They are a small glass bubble holding the water back, this bubble is full of a liquid that expands when it gets hot shattering the bubble and thus letting the water out. From the films I've seen of commercial sprinkler systems the fire has to be quite large (in domestic terms) before they go off and when they do it will be new furnishing and decorating for at least that room. Possibly replastering and new floor as well if it's chipboard... http://www.staysafeuk.com/domestic-sprinklers.html "... activate within four minutes ..." "... about 150 liters/min ..." A domestic fire will have quite a hold within four minutes, Not necessarily, depends on where the fire happens. there will be a lot of smoke about. Not necessarily, depends on where the fire happens. A typical smoke alarm will have gone off a lot earlier to alert any occupants to "Get Out, Stay Out, Get the Brigade out". And it is cost effective to mandate those. Buildings and contents can be replaced you don't need to "save" them. Educating people to have a "fire plan" and to get the F out when the alarm sounds be that in the home or work place. 150l is a large bath full of water, every minute... I wonder where this water comes from? The mains. Most domestic supplies can't deliver that sort of flow, so how effective at extinguishing a fire large enough to trigger the sprinkler is a domestic sprinkler? Presumably someone has measured that. Corse it gets tricky with domestic fat fires which are in fact one of the most common fires in domestic situations. One also assumes that these sprinkler systems will have an external water flow driven bell and a link to a service centre that can call the Fire Brigade out. Most don't with domestic sprinkler systems. If you did have a fire that triggered the sprinklers just after you gone on your two weeks to Malaga, without such systems there wouldn't be much, possibly no, indication that theinside is being drenched.... Sure, but that's no worse than a burst pipe. Then of course how vulnerable will they be to being knocked? Not very at all. Sprinklers are normally installed high up not the relatively low 8' ceiling of a house. Sure, but the worst that happens is things get very wet. Strikes me of politicians/bureaucrats reacting to "some one died" with "we must do something". They arent even mandated in rental property. Personally linked smoke/heat alarms are enough, along with decent public education. Not even linked. That would have far greater benefit to society but far harder to measure so the bureaucrats won't like it as they can't justify their existence. Do any of the Fire Services still have the chip pan fire demo vehicles that they used to take around Fetes, Gala Days and County Shows? Yes, ours still do. And have fire brigade open days where they do that too. And do it at the bigger workplaces too. It's no use telling people how to safely deal with a chip pan fire it'll just go in one ear and out the other. Show 'em, in quite dramatic terms, what happens when you do it wrong. OK I guess the open chip pan is getting to be a thing of the past these days It isnt with domestic fires, its still the major source of domestic fires. but it will still highlight the dangers of fire. Most people these days do not have any real experience of fire, Most didn't even in the past. most homes no longer have open fires, Very few of those ever burnt the house down. people don't have bonfires to dispose of waste (garden or otherwise), We do. kids don't make camp fires. Ours do. When I was building the house, I was silly enough to let the kids burn the small tree that I had to dig up because it was where the house was going to go. I didn't realise how keen kids were about fires. Had a hell of a problem finding much scrap wood around after that. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 00:31, Cash wrote:
John Rumm wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 John, 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. 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 sums don't add up though. At £6m per life saved there are far better ways to keep people safer in their own homes. DIYers feature high among the casualty list for self inflicted injuries for instance. Fire alarms are very cheap and if the objective is to save lives then *they* should be the first priority. Or innovative alarms that use cell phone technology to call for help if a fire is detected. Teaching people to close doors downstairs at night would go a long way towards controlling the risk by slowing the spread of fire and smoke. Sprinklers in a domestic setting will just lead to a false sense of security unless they are regularly maintained. It isn't unreasonable to require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames. 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! [1] Some of the sights I've seen have been horrendous, and I have a great respect for those professionals that fight the things (and a great awareness instilled in myself and family). Anyone who has been on a serious fire safety course has a pretty good feel for how fire behaves in the large. Untrained people tend to get themselves into big trouble - especially if a flashover occurs. I was taught that water based extinguishers were mostly useful for breaking down locked doors. The fire brigade do a nice demo of how not to tackle a kitchen chip pan fire in mobile vans before they show how to do it right. These days because of health and safety they have to tell people to just close the door and ring 999 for expert help. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 10:11, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan wrote: Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt! Unlikely. They are a small glass bubble holding the water back, this bubble is full of a liquid that expands when it gets hot shattering the bubble and thus letting the water out. From the films I've seen of commercial sprinkler systems the fire has to be quite large (in domestic terms) before they go off and when they do it will be new furnishing and decorating for at least that room. Possibly replastering and new floor as well if it's chipboard... http://www.staysafeuk.com/domestic-sprinklers.html "... activate within four minutes ..." "... about 150 liters/min ..." A domestic fire will have quite a hold within four minutes, there will be a lot of smoke about. A typical smoke alarm will have gone off a lot earlier to alert any occupants to "Get Out, Stay Out, Get the Brigade out". Buildings and contents can be replaced you don't need to "save" them. Educating people to have a "fire plan" and to get the F out when the alarm sounds be that in the home or work place. 150l is a large bath full of water, every minute... I wonder where this water comes from? Most domestic supplies can't deliver that sort of flow, so how effective at extinguishing a fire large enough to trigger the sprinkler is a domestic sprinkler? The Fire Protection Association suggest a design flow rate of 60l/min for a domestic installation. It would be normal to supply a sprinkler system from stored water, in case the mains supply is, for some reason, not available when the sprinkler system is needed. One also assumes that these sprinkler systems will have an external water flow driven bell and a link to a service centre that can call the Fire Brigade out. If you did have a fire that triggered the sprinklers just after you gone on your two weeks to Malaga, without such systems there wouldn't be much, possibly no, indication that the inside is being drenched.... Sprinkler systems usually activate a local alarm and can send a signal to a remote location, if that is specified in the design. However, you can also have a limit set on the total volume of water released, either with flow measuring devices linked to valves or simply by having a storage tank that does not automatically refill. Then of course how vulnerable will they be to being knocked? Sprinklers are normally installed high up not the relatively low 8' ceiling of a house.... The frames around the glass bulb are generally very strong and you can also get flush fitting spray heads. Colin Bignell |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On May 31, 1:43*am, "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! SO lets say 1,000,000 dwellings fitted with sprinkler systems at a cost of £1,000 each. £1,000,000,000 to save one life? No, it's simply not cost effective compared to alternative uses for the money. MBQ |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 00:31, Cash wrote:
John Rumm wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 John, 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 Good idea? perhaps - and in some circumstances. As a mandate however I am not convinced. fitting them could well far outweigh the costs in lives saved and reduced injuries. As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe That is a much harder call. The moment you mandate something like this in the building regs you are in effect spending a huge amount of money, and need to decide if the the return on that spending justifies it. There are parallels here with part P, where the RIA claimed implementation costs around £0.5bn annually for an expected reduction of deaths of around 20%. Given would be 2 lives per year, it was a cost of £250M/life saved. (the reality being an increase in the number of deaths it seems) these simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them. The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing stock that does not have this equipment fitted though... 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! Insurers could offer discounts to clients able to produce a certificate of training though... [1] Some of the sights I've seen have been horrendous, and I have a great respect for those professionals that fight the things (and a great awareness instilled in myself and family). Quite agree. All the best Cash Who will now climb down from his high-horse after leaving many of his thoughts on the subject left unsaid. Always interesting to have your perspective. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 14:09, John Rumm wrote:
The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing stock that does not have this equipment fitted though... Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought that existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the other way around. If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I am not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house. What someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can afford. So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder maintains their profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost of the land. Builders will simply be prepared to pay less and since the new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to pay any more and the seller will sell for less since there is no alternative use that will give a greater return. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:28:33 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either. Neither did Birmingham, till 2005. Not true, we had a whirlwind rip down stuff near my parents house in ~1965 in brum so they had them well before the 2005 one. It wasn't on the internet so it never happened springs to mind. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"David WE Roberts" wrote in message ... So comparison with motoring, where you state above "most of those "life threatening accidents" are caused by the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!" does seem to be valid. Well you only have to see the idiots that speed down the wrong side of the bollards to overtake a couple of cars. Once the idiots decide speeding is OK they just ignore more and more of the rules until they get caught a few times or get killed. And what do you think would prevent the person in the example above disabling the sprinkler system, or just taking it out when he had the ceiling Artexed? More to the point how often will the sprinklers be tested and/or serviced so that they actually work if there is a fire. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:48:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:28:33 +1000, Rod Speed wrote: We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either. Neither did Birmingham, till 2005. Not true, we had a whirlwind rip down stuff near my parents house in ~1965 in brum so they had them well before the 2005 one. It wasn't on the internet so it never happened springs to mind. Well, I was born after that ;). To be fair, after the 2005 event, I saw a programme on tornadoes in the UK, and was astounded to learn the UK is the tornado capital of the world, with Yanks coming to study them. Turns out we have a lot of very small ones. In fact the real question (which is what the USAians were researching) is why we don't have more 2005-scale tornadoes. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Jonathan" wrote in message ... Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt! No they require heat, enough heat that the occupants are probably dead if they are in the same room as the fire. You need smoke alarms and escape routes to save lives, sprinklers save property. I wouldn't want to be in a building where the sprinklers had operated on automatic, far too dangerous. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On May 31, 10:41*am, "Robin" wrote:
Actually the consequences of financial foolishness are worse than that. The NHS has a budget of about £10k per qaly, so each 6.7 million spent saving one life with sprinklers eats up enough resources to save 670 lives. In that particular example, the money sources are to an extent different, but when it comes down to household budget and safety, there are plenty of things that could be done with that 6.7million that would save many more lives. I think you have overlooked that a "qaly" is a year, not a life so you need to multiply by average life expectancy of those saved. *And NICE point taken now use £20~30,000:http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/feat...tivenessandcos... So it works out around the same as the DfT figures - not surprisingly as officials do try to maintain a degree of consistency on such things (despite the pressures on their political masters to jerk knees when the media are baying). I find it hard to believe that metal cladding over almost all wiring is remotely cost effective. NT |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 14:29, Andrew May wrote:
On 31/05/2012 14:09, John Rumm wrote: The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing stock that does not have this equipment fitted though... Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought that existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the other way around. Most houses are priced by agents based on "comparables" i.e. they look at what similar local stuff has sold for recently. So in an area where they majority of the town is newbuilt, then that is what the comparison will be with. For most established towns however its more likely the comparable properties will be existing stock. If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I am not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house. What someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can afford. So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder maintains their profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost of the land. Builders will simply be prepared to pay less and since the new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to pay any more and the seller will sell for less since there is no alternative use that will give a greater return. As with any complex system these things are difficult to analyse and predict. The effects are probably unknowable long term without actually trying it. However the builders would probably suffer a bit short term until the system as a whole sorts it out. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 10:20, Andy Cap wrote:
On 31/05/12 09:59, Andrew May wrote: But the consequences of a water based sprinkler going off over a chip pan fire (the most common kitchen fire?) could be worse than not having one. We have all been trained to cover the fire rather than throw water over it. Don't worry. Chip pans in the home are going to banned under the planned 'Limitation of individual calorie intake to limit obesity' regulation. http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... I wonder if such a sprinkler would have savde the six children from the recent fire. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html Water on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , Cash
?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid writes 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. Snip My house is over 30 years old, although I still think of it as modern. I I had had a sprinkler system installed when built it would not have been used to date. How would I test it to see if it was still in working order? -- hugh |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Rod Speed wrote:
jgharston wrote Rod Speed wrote 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. Have you also designed it so that hurricanes never occur, We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either. Yes, I designed the roof so it wont blow off and since I built the house myself, doing almost all the work myself, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just do the roof again than even a single year's insurance. "Little pig, little pig, let me come in." "No, no, not by the hair on my chinny chin chin." "Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down." -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Andy Cap wrote:
On 31/05/12 01:43, Cash wrote: There we go again, cost before the actual value of something in preventing loss of life! Cash The more you wrap people up in cotton wool, the more cavalier they become. We do it to children now and the real world comes as a terrible shock. I don't wrap the gf's 8 year lad up in cotton wool. However I see the shock with the 17/18 year old apprentices I work with when they enter the real world. Most fires, I suspect are caused by carelessness or irresponsibility and it should not be everyone else's responsibility to take care of you, with the attendant additional costs - no doubt the fire prevention industry will deem an annual inspection is essential. Yes one life's too many, so take care of yourself, your family and your property. Indeed. -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/12 10:25, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:52:56 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a ladder? Quite, or tall box or bit of furniture. Or a vandal burglars? -- djc |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
dennis@home wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... I wonder if such a sprinkler would have savde the six children from the recent fire. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html Water on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers. Do you have proof of that? Or have you just found the parents guilty without reading or knowing any facts? -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:04:32 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:
"Little pig, little pig, let me come in." "No, no, not by the hair on my chinny chin chin." "Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down." Doesn't scan... "Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house IN." -- Cheers Dave. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Nightjar wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote Jonathan wrote Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt! Unlikely. They are a small glass bubble holding the water back, this bubble is full of a liquid that expands when it gets hot shattering the bubble and thus letting the water out. From the films I've seen of commercial sprinkler systems the fire has to be quite large (in domestic terms) before they go off and when they do it will be new furnishing and decorating for at least that room. Possibly replastering and new floor as well if it's chipboard... http://www.staysafeuk.com/domestic-sprinklers.html "... activate within four minutes ..." "... about 150 liters/min ..." A domestic fire will have quite a hold within four minutes, there will be a lot of smoke about. A typical smoke alarm will have gone off a lot earlier to alert any occupants to "Get Out, Stay Out, Get the Brigade out". Buildings and contents can be replaced you don't need to "save" them. Educating people to have a "fire plan" and to get the F out when the alarm sounds be that in the home or work place. 150l is a large bath full of water, every minute... I wonder where this water comes from? Most domestic supplies can't deliver that sort of flow, so how effective at extinguishing a fire large enough to trigger the sprinkler is a domestic sprinkler? The Fire Protection Association suggest a design flow rate of 60l/min for a domestic installation. It would be normal to supply a sprinkler system from stored water, in case the mains supply is, for some reason, not available when the sprinkler system is needed. Very few of ours are, they are just supplied with mains pressure water. One also assumes that these sprinkler systems will have an external water flow driven bell and a link to a service centre that can call the Fire Brigade out. If you did have a fire that triggered the sprinklers just after you gone on your two weeks to Malaga, without such systems there wouldn't be much, possibly no, indication that the inside is being drenched.... Sprinkler systems usually activate a local alarm and can send a signal to a remote location, if that is specified in the design. However, you can also have a limit set on the total volume of water released, either with flow measuring devices linked to valves or simply by having a storage tank that does not automatically refill. Then of course how vulnerable will they be to being knocked? Sprinklers are normally installed high up not the relatively low 8' ceiling of a house.... The frames around the glass bulb are generally very strong and you can also get flush fitting spray heads. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Andrew May wrote
John Rumm wrote The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing stock that does not have this equipment fitted though... Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought that existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the other way around. It doesn't really work either way. You can get quite significant variations in the ratio between new build and existing stock prices, essentially depending on how tight the housing market is. Can be very dramatic indeed in very unusual situations like the current US market where there is a great raft of unsellable occupied property that has seen hordes default on their mortgages and who have been kicked out because they have. That can even see places deliberately demolished at times, essentially because they can become crack houses etc. If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I am not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house. Corse it has to when it costs more than not having sprinklers. That money has to come from somewhere. What someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can afford. That's not really true either. When the cost of the house is higher, you will in fact see some not able to borrow to buy even the lowest priced house and the price of the lowest priced house will have to be higher because of the cost of the sprinklers. So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder maintains their profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost of the land. That's not right either. You will in fact just see some no longer able to borrow to buy the lowest priced houses. Builders will simply be prepared to pay less They don't get any say on the price of land. and since the new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to pay any more and the seller will sell for less since there is no alternative use that will give a greater return. Real markets don't work like that. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:51:47 +0100, Nightjar
wrote: They make sense wherever the response time is likely to be slow and, in America, have been proven to be very effective at stopping the upward spread of fire in tall buildings. Indeed so, and a slight bit of research shows the insurance companies in the US were convinced of their efficacy from an early stage. Amusingly, a customer of mine approached his insco when I offered to fit sprinklers - no, they said, it won't make any difference to your premiums. Total crap attitude. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
dennis@home wrote
David WE Roberts wrote So comparison with motoring, where you state above "most of those "life threatening accidents" are caused by the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!" does seem to be valid. Well you only have to see the idiots that speed down the wrong side of the bollards to overtake a couple of cars. Once the idiots decide speeding is OK they just ignore more and more of the rules until they get caught a few times or get killed. And what do you think would prevent the person in the example above disabling the sprinkler system, or just taking it out when he had the ceiling Artexed? More to the point how often will the sprinklers be tested and/or serviced so that they actually work if there is a fire. They arent a system that needs any testing to ensure that they will still work with those fed by mains pressure water. There isnt even any need to check that the water hasn't been turned off with a domestic situation where there is no separate stop cock for the sprinkler system and the normal house stop cock is used to turn the water off in the even that that one does get set off either by a serious fire or physical damage. They really are one of the most reliable systems around. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
dennis@home wrote
Jonathan wrote Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt! No they require heat, enough heat that the occupants are probably dead if they are in the same room as the fire. You need smoke alarms and escape routes to save lives, sprinklers save property. That's not correct. Sprinklers can prevent the entire place burning down, contain the fire to just the one room etc. I wouldn't want to be in a building where the sprinklers had operated on automatic, far too dangerous. Its more a damned nuisance than life threatening. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
hugh ] wrote
Cash ?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid 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! 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. My house is over 30 years old, although I still think of it as modern. Mine is over 40 years old and I do too. I I had had a sprinkler system installed when built it would not have been used to date. Mine too. How would I test it to see if it was still in working order? Not really necessary to test it if its supplied with mains pressure water. If it isnt, just check that the water supply is still there for it. No need to best the sprinkler heads. That isnt done with commercial sprinkler systems. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
ARWadsworth wrote
Rod Speed wrote jgharston wrote Rod Speed wrote 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. Have you also designed it so that hurricanes never occur, We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either. Yes, I designed the roof so it wont blow off and since I built the house myself, doing almost all the work myself, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just do the roof again than even a single year's insurance. "Little pig, little pig, let me come in." "No, no, not by the hair on my chinny chin chin." "Then I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down." Wont be blowing my house down. It’s a very unusual design, 4" square RHS ( rectangular hollow section] verticals that were there before the concrete slab was poured, so they go right down into the slab, with a 5x3" RHS horizontal bolted to the top of 4" square RHS verticals, with folded very heavy gauge galvanised I beams welded to the 5x3 horizontal RHS. Those I beams have wooden 3x3" to 7x3" battens bolted to them to give the slope on the metal decking. It'd survive a full hurricane or cyclone and we don’t get those here anyway. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
djc wrote Dave Liquorice wrote Tim Streater wrote When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a ladder? Quite, or tall box or bit of furniture. Or a vandal burglars? You dont see much of that with commercial sprinkler systems. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
dennis@home wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in message ... So comparison with motoring, where you state above "most of those "life threatening accidents" are caused by the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!" does seem to be valid. Well you only have to see the idiots that speed down the wrong side of the bollards to overtake a couple of cars. Your Astra and your wifes Corsa. Once the idiots decide speeding is OK they just ignore more and more of the rules until they get caught a few times or get killed. Your obsession with speed limits is showing again. -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Thu, 31 May 2012 10:11:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote: Then of course how vulnerable will they be to being knocked? Sprinklers are normally installed high up not the relatively low 8' ceiling of a house. Domestic ones are retracted into the ceiling and a flush cap over them. They drop down and sprinkle. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , Robin writes
That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Snip Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! -- hugh |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 23:00, hugh wrote:
In message , Robin writes That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Snip Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting. You will also find that we pay insanely high premiums to make already incredibly safe methods of mass transport like trains and air travel safer still whilst ignoring the piecemeal carnage on our roads. The thing is that plane and train crashes make big news stories whereas another dozen or so dying every day in car crashes isn't even news unless they do mass suicide in fog by driving nose to tail at 70+. About 100x more people die every year in car crashes than in trains or planes and even if you express it as deaths per billion passenger miles the car is still almost an order of magnitude more dangerous. Stats for the UK are available online at: http://www.igreens.org.uk/uk_rail_accident_deaths.htm -- Regards, Martin Brown |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Martin Brown wrote
hugh wrote Robin wrote That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting. You will also find that we pay insanely high premiums to make already incredibly safe methods of mass transport like trains and air travel safer still whilst ignoring the piecemeal carnage on our roads. That last isnt ignored at all. Every modern first world country has seen its road fatality rate return to what it once was in the 50s, with an immense increase in road traffic since that time. The thing is that plane and train crashes make big news stories whereas another dozen or so dying every day in car crashes isn't even news unless they do mass suicide in fog by driving nose to tail at 70+. They didn't ignore road carnage anyway. About 100x more people die every year in car crashes than in trains or planes and even if you express it as deaths per billion passenger miles the car is still almost an order of magnitude more dangerous. And that so even when the road fatality rate has returned to what was last seen in the 50s with an immense increase in road traffic, because of the massive investment in better roads and in the design of cars etc. Stats for the UK are available online at: http://www.igreens.org.uk/uk_rail_accident_deaths.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter