# Karma



## FM William Burns (Jul 5, 2011)

Yea...what are the odds?



> _*Mark Patterson*__, President of Maine Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Maine. (MHBRA). testifies: __"MHBRA is not in favor of making sprinklers mandatory due to the costs which are estimated to be between $4,000 – $8,000.__*"*_


http://www.pressherald.com/news/Sanford-fire-destroys-prominent-builders-house.html


----------



## brudgers (Jul 5, 2011)

A bit of shifting the ground. A 13D system is unlikely to protect a structure when the nearest hydrant is 1/2 mile away (and perhaps the nearest water main as well).

Throw in a continuous supply of propane, and there are a lot of questionable assumptions necessary to conclude that the sort of sprinklers advocates are seeking would have made a difference.

And of course the example doesn't support the biggest argument people make in favor of 13D, that it meaningfully increases life safety for the occupants.


----------



## mjesse (Jul 5, 2011)

He made a choice, and it may or may not have cost him his house. Not enough information to determine if 13D would have saved it.

Hardly a case of "I told ya so!"

I draw a similarity to helmet laws. I wear one every time I ride...BY CHOICE. It might save my life some day, or I may die with it on. Do I think it should be the law for everyone to wear a helmet (have sprinklers) NO.

A one size fits all approach to fire prevention/suppression is not the answer.

Should helmet laws specify only full face with a shield and include armored leather jackets, pants, gloves and protective boots? I wear them, shouldn't everyone? = wrong approach.

Freedom to choose is a wonderful thing. I support a much wider range of regulation.

When you build or substantially remodel in a floodplain you have to raise the construction above the Base Flood Elevation, why? to prevent repeat losses that affect insurance policy holders.

I propose the following;

You build in a flood plain and get flooded = no insurance coverage

You ride a motorcycle without protective gear and get hurt = No/limited coverage.

You build without sprinklers and your house burns down = No/limited insurance coverage.

You can choose your path. But don't expect the same results as someone who chose otherwise.

But what do I know, I'm just a dumb carpenter.

mj


----------



## TimNY (Jul 5, 2011)

Ah.. motorcycle helmets.. http://www.wcti12.com/news/28441711/detail.html

Karma.  It's a bitch.


----------



## RJJ (Jul 5, 2011)

if it is the same guy, I wonder what he thinks now about RFS's!


----------



## Jobsaver (Jul 5, 2011)

mjesse said:
			
		

> I draw a similarity to helmet laws. I wear one every time I ride...BY CHOICE. It might save my life some day, or I may die with it on. Do I think it should be the law for everyone to wear a helmet (have sprinklers) NO.


The equation for choices people make when building structures is different from other forms of personal risk-taking in that the choices made by one affect all other people that use the building.


----------



## mjesse (Jul 5, 2011)

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> The equation for choices people make when building structures is different from other forms of personal risk-taking in that the choices made by one affect all other people that use the building.


It's not a perfect comparison, but the point remains. To say that the subject of the story in the OP would not be in this situation "if only" he would have installed RFS, is ridiculous.

If I could wave a magic wand and fit every house with a 13D system, some of those houses would still burn down. If every motorcycle rider or passenger wore a proper helmet, some would still die in wrecks.

Certainly, we would be reducing the likelihood and/or severity of loss I'm not arguing that. Maybe I should have gone the "house vs. auto" route. Over the past 60 years cars have gotten heavier and more costly due to mandates for ABS, air-bags, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc., (not to mention emission regs.,compare to IECC). A hell of a lot of people in this country still drive old cars w/out these systems because they can't afford or don't want all that "stuff". I drive a 1982 AMC Jeep CJ-7 that is "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED" to quote Ralph Nader. I drive it not because it's "dangerous" or, outdated, or slow, but because *I like it*.

If I am looking to build a house, and my option is presented as "You can build without RFS, but your insurance premiums will increase by X%" or, "If you build without RFS, your insurance carrier won't cover fire loss over $X"

This gives me a CHOICE. If I can install RFS for $5000, it might be worth it. If RFS installation is going to be $20,000 (read ConArb's case) I'll roll the dice.

One size does not fit all. Mandates are not the way to go.

Just one man's opinion.

P.S. Starting in 2012, when RFS is mandated in the community I work, I will enforce with full commitment. Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I won't comply


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 5, 2011)

RJJ said:
			
		

> if it is the same guy, I wonder what he thinks now about RFS's!


He probabley has the attitude that I don't care - insurance will pay and I did not have any physical harm to myself or my family.

He fails to realize how his actions have more effect on other people than himself.

Common answer when talking to people about fire hazards or safety hazards - I have insurance.


----------



## RJJ (Jul 5, 2011)

Builder Bob: I have to agree!


----------



## brudgers (Jul 5, 2011)

TimNY said:
			
		

> Ah.. motorcycle helmets.. http://www.wcti12.com/news/28441711/detail.htmlKarma.  It's a bitch.


If the same cost benefit ratio which applies to sprinklers applied to motor cycle safety, to license your motorcycle you would have to buy a new Cayenne and a covered trailer, then put your bike in the trailer and drive the truck.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 5, 2011)

> He fails to realize how his actions have more effect on other people than himself.


Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?


----------



## Jobsaver (Jul 5, 2011)

mjesse said:
			
		

> It's not a perfect comparison, but the point remains. To say that the subject of the story in the OP would not be in this situation "if only" he would have installed RFS, is ridiculous.


I agree there is no way to know what the situation would be "if", and playing the "if" card does not validate an argument.


----------



## beach (Jul 5, 2011)

Wow, this thread is way too civil......is "having one's identity concealed" on vacation????:devil


----------



## DRP (Jul 5, 2011)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> He probabley has the attitude that I don't care - insurance will pay and I did not have any physical harm to myself or my family. He fails to realize how his actions have more effect on other people than himself.
> 
> Common answer when talking to people about fire hazards or safety hazards - I have insurance.


Then shouldn't it be up to the insurance company to make it painful enough to install sprinklers?


----------



## fatboy (Jul 5, 2011)

"Then shouldn't it be up to the insurance company to make it painful enough to install sprinklers?"

As does vehicle insurance, to pay for when you have a DUI, or speeding tickets, or riding your scooter w/o a helmet, or driving my MGB, which brudgers has made a comment that perhaps is as dangerous as mjesse's's Jeep that Nader was focusing on.


----------



## DRP (Jul 5, 2011)

The insurance company should be able to make it a clear incentive to install sprinklers rather than a penalty to not install them if they are as effective as claimed. After all we are now paying a rate which reflects no residential sprinklers. That might help offset the install. Right now it's looking like Conarb's job got off cheap. I'm not sure why the sprinkler lobby feels this needs to be a legal mandate, work on it from the wallet end. Lead me with a carrot and I just might follow, push me and you'll likely get kicked.


----------



## incognito (Jul 6, 2011)

The insurance industry has been addressing the sprinkler issue for decades. They do not provide significant reduction in premiums if you install RFS's because their losses from fire do not justify it. For example I could have reduced my yearly premium by $100.00 if I would have installed a system that would have cost $10,000.00+. Obviously they do not give a dam- one way or the other if I had RFS's.


----------



## steveray (Jul 6, 2011)

DRP...I like this!..."Lead me with a carrot and I just might follow, push me and you'll likely get kicked."

"As does vehicle insurance, to pay for when you have a DUI, or speeding tickets, or riding your scooter w/o a helmet, or driving my MGB, which brudgers has made a comment that perhaps is as dangerous as mjesse's's Jeep that Nader was focusing on."  ...........................................................................................................

    Drove my 1951M38 Korean War Willys Jeep in today...no seatbelts, top, doors, blinkers, wipers, one taillight, sitting on the gas tank, windshield down...wouldn't trade it for the world! We all take chances!


----------



## brudgers (Jul 6, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "Then shouldn't it be up to the insurance company to make it painful enough to install sprinklers?"As does vehicle insurance, to pay for when you have a DUI, or speeding tickets, or riding your scooter w/o a helmet, or driving my MGB, which brudgers has made a comment that perhaps is as dangerous as mjesse's's Jeep that Nader was focusing on.


"Unsafe at any speed" was what Nader said about the Corvaire.


----------



## mjesse (Jul 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> "Unsafe at any speed" was what Nader said about the Corvaire.


Correct, but after a ride in my first jeep (1978 CJ-5) you would beg for the safety of a Corvair! haha


----------



## Alias (Jul 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> "Unsafe at any speed" was what Nader said about the Corvaire.


Yes, and the sister of my friend in grade school had one.

I don't live too close to edge anymore but, the past two days I drove my '88 Suzuki Samurai softtop in to work.

Wheeeeeeeeee!


----------



## FM William Burns (Jul 6, 2011)

> The insurance company should be able to make it a clear incentive to install sprinklers


Now that is the most accurate statement made since this entire endless rant about RFS began.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 6, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?


1.) How many apparatus are involved in accidents while while responding to calls?

2.) How many firefighters are killed, hurt, and/or injured per year while fighting the "bread and butter" of the fire service (residential fires - How many people are killed in sprinkelred commercial properties vs. the unsprinklered commercial properties (especially motels - sprinklered vs. non-sprinkelred).

Each person that is injured or killed is a family member - father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, etc.

Sprinkler systems will not stop the fire department from responding, but it can eliminate the number of units required to respond based upon the needed fire flow for a building..... Currently un-sprinklered buildings in our fire district get 3 engines, 1 ladder, battt chief, air/service truck for first due........ Sprinkler buildings get one engine emergent (lights and siren), the other equipment rolls non-emergent to reduce the likelihood of an accident while responding.

Sprinkler = 1 emergent response, Non-sprinklered equals 6 emergent response vehicles. ( about 600% greater chance of having a vehicle accident with the public or between fire apparatus..... do a you tube search for fire department accidents.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jul 6, 2011)

> Sprinkler systems will not stop the fire department from responding, but it can eliminate the number of units required to respond based upon the needed fire flow for a building


Here we go..........this is an operational response that others may not fathom since they don't and can't understand the actual operations necessary for a fully involved fire. Specifically the use of PPV and S&R and or ventilation operations.


----------



## forensics (Jul 7, 2011)

_Originally Posted by mtlogcabin  _

_Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?_

What Builder Bob said !

Furthermore one of the primary differences is the reduced impact on the local government by the obvious cost and risk reduction of the fre service response activity.

RFS transpose the primary fire protection responsibility away from the public and foster personal responsibility for each homeowner for his own family and property.

Obviously reduced response cost benefits the community as a whole by the reduction in response expense

In a far away land (actually right across the Port Royal sound from Builder Bob) is an island beach community that has been requiring sprinklers for many years now if a house exceeds 35 feet in height.

1) This is justified because of the limited ability to fight high challenge fires on the beach especially where the local FD has not invested in the necessary equipment to mount an areial attack at those elevations.

2) The local island water service is challenged in the available fire fighting water supply and the property owners enjoy that reduction in their infastructure expense


----------



## forensics (Jul 7, 2011)

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Now that is the most accurate statement made since this entire endless rant about RFS began.


1- Why should the insurance industry acknowledge the reduction in risk (spelled claims) when they can sit back and enjoy the reduced exposure (spelled cost).

2- The eventual incorporation of RFS is inevitable and they are waiting patiently as they enjoy the benefits of the reduced risk.

3- Offering a fair discount that is based on the lesser risk does not help the bottom line on their balancesheets but every building code life safety requirement is based in that logic.

What discount do they give for smoke detectors, arc fault, impact glass or hurricane and siesmic provisions. The general idea is compliance with the codes reduces the risk and that is reflected in the ISO rating of the insured community.

In these cases a community is penalized for noncompliance rather than incentivized for upgrades like RFS

As my wise father used to tell my brother and me about marrying all the really fun girls     "Why would you buy a cow when the milk is so cheap"


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 7, 2011)

Builder Bob

Thanks for the info. My community on average has 2 or 3 structural fires a year the rest of the fire calls are small and usually put out quickly by the one truck that responds. The FD has no idea when a call comes in if the address has a sprinklered building or not we are not that advanced so they roll one truck. Like FM stated it is an operational response We only have 9 firefighters per shift.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 7, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> _Originally Posted by mtlogcabin  __Can you elaborate on how RFS may have reduced the effect on other people?_
> 
> What Builder Bob said !
> 
> ...


The infrastructure arguments are based on specious reasoning.

Even in areas with 13D sprinklers fire fighters will still require the same sort of infrastructure to fight structural fires - inadequate infrastructure + 13D = inadequate infrastructure.

What 13D does successfully is provide a less cost effective alternative to adequate fire department funding while providing cover for the cowardice of public officials in regards to raising  adequate funds in the face of anti-tax stupidity.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 7, 2011)

> the cowardice of public officials in regards to raising adequate funds in the face of anti-tax stupidity.


Public officials who don't raise taxes are cowards? Tell us what you really think about taxes?


----------



## High Desert (Jul 7, 2011)

TimNY said:
			
		

> Ah.. motorcycle helmets.. http://www.wcti12.com/news/28441711/detail.htmlKarma.  It's a bitch.


I protested aging once........and guess what happened, Karma.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 7, 2011)

I think that the problems of fire protection, taxes, etc. will always be a topic of discussion that people will alwys have a difference of opinion.


----------



## High Desert (Jul 7, 2011)

Yup. Taxes, religion and fire protection. Not a good subject to bring up at a cocktail party.


----------



## brudgers (Jul 7, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Public officials who don't raise taxes are cowards? Tell us what you really think about taxes?


Politicians who lack the courage to do so when it is needed (e.g. when fire protection infrastructure is inadequate) are cowards.

The specious reasoning put forth in this thread regarding residential sprinklers provides cover for such cowardice.


----------



## Frankyh (Jul 7, 2011)

Great site! If you have a good look at that!


----------



## Rio (Jul 7, 2011)

There's an interesting article in this month's JLC (Journal of Light Construction) regarding RFS's.  The gist of it is that Pennsylvania has just repealed the requirement to have them and, according to the article, the result is _"California stands alone as the one state to have adopted a version of the IRC with an effective sprinkler provision still in place" _ It goes on to qualify that statement somewhat but the part about California doesn't surprise me as this state has never met a requirement or regulation it didn't like and wanted to expand on.

As to the 'anti-tax stupidity' argument, in this country we don't have too little revenue coming in, we have too much spending going out..................


----------

