4 ms·

There are many in CA that are ridiculous. Most are not related to safety, but likely due to lobbying from some industry. Fire sprinklers are required in single

There are many in CA that are ridiculous. Most are not related to safety, but likely due to lobbying from some industry. Fire sprinklers are required in single family homes. The very small incremental safety benefit is far outweighed by the initial cost, maintenance cost, and potential failures (more plumbing to leak). If you really wanted to improve fire safety, make it cheaper to replace 1950s-era houses with new construction! Solar panels are required for new homes, which ironically adds a small amount of fire risk (like all electrical devices). This is required in areas with cloudy conditions, or houses that are shaded by trees. The cost per watt is ridiculous compared to how cost-efficient utility scale solar has become. Not to mention the safety risk to solar workers on a second-story house. Just in plumbing code, there are several ridiculous restrictions. Some jurisdictions allow air admittance valves, others do not at all. ABS pipe is illegal for commercial buildings, but just fine for residential. IPC allows 1.5" vents for toilets, but UPC requires 2".

andbberger 4y ago
sprinklers are not an incremental safety benefit. they're probably the single most effective bit of fire safety mandated by codes. mandates to install them in single family homes is overkill though. sprinklers are so effective that single means of egress + sprinklers should be the new building standard
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > probably the single most effective bit of fire safety mandated by codes. Surely smoke alarms are more effective? (Obviously so on a per-dollar basis, but I’d wager on a per-unit basis as well. If you gave me a choice of a smoke alarm xor a sprinkler, I’ll take the smoke alarms every time.)
  - andbberger 4y ago
    silly contrived comparison you're always going to have both. knowing there's a fire doesn't do much for you if it flashes over before you can leave. sprinklers are ridiculously effective.
- mjmahone17 4y ago
  Right, sprinklers instead of multiple egress would make sense (or even allowing builds with either a ton of egress or sprinklers). But as it exists today, if the codes require both, it just adds cost for very little marginal safety benefit.
  - andbberger 4y ago
    sprinklers are not a marginal safety benefit.
    - SamReidHughes 4y ago
      Fire risk is already marginal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

andbberger 4y ago

sprinklers are not an incremental safety benefit. they're probably the single most effective bit of fire safety mandated by codes. mandates to install them in single family homes is overkill though. sprinklers are so effective that single means of egress + sprinklers should be the new building standard

sokoloff 4y ago
> probably the single most effective bit of fire safety mandated by codes. Surely smoke alarms are more effective? (Obviously so on a per-dollar basis, but I’d wager on a per-unit basis as well. If you gave me a choice of a smoke alarm xor a sprinkler, I’ll take the smoke alarms every time.)
- andbberger 4y ago
  silly contrived comparison you're always going to have both. knowing there's a fire doesn't do much for you if it flashes over before you can leave. sprinklers are ridiculously effective.
mjmahone17 4y ago
Right, sprinklers instead of multiple egress would make sense (or even allowing builds with either a ton of egress or sprinklers). But as it exists today, if the codes require both, it just adds cost for very little marginal safety benefit.
- andbberger 4y ago
  sprinklers are not a marginal safety benefit.
  - SamReidHughes 4y ago
    Fire risk is already marginal.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]