Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
Oh please spare us the childish rhetoric. I'd like to think people have some realistic idea that the world we live in is full of risks and that they accept, or mitigate, them as they think is proper. It would appear (perhaps I'm judging you too harshly) that you, and many others, would like to see us all live the way that makes you feel good about the risks "I" take. The problem is that I really don't care to live in a cage with bars made from your fears. You seem to think that $$s aren't a concern in the real world. Well for you perhaps not but for most of us $$s are important. You seem to want to dictate that "we" all spend the $$s neceesary to mitigate the risk of death due to fire. Frankly if I were that worried I'd find better places to spend those $$s, places that reduce my risk of death (or serious injury) by a far greater amount. I checked here for risk of death in a home fire. They didn't spell that particular risk out but let's use the overall risk of 1:1,235 (death due to exposure to smoke, fire or flames in all places) as that risk all unto itself and further assume that it would be (mostly) eliminated with sprinklers. But if I were that concerned about other peoples safety first I'd ban motorcycles (to be topical). Costs people nothing, saves them $$ even. Seems peoples odds due to death in a bike accident are 1:804. But not everyone rides a bike, most drive a car. I'd bet you do. The odds of dying in a car crash are 1:85 (behind only death by heart disease, cancer and stroke). Did you spend the extra $$ to get the safest car possible ? Should everybody ? Even better, I know that the $3000 will get you into a top flight advanced driving school wherein the lessons you learn will certainly reduce your risk of getting into any car accident. So are you ready to spend your $3000 on that ? I'll call Michelle, who was my DI at Bob Bondurant, and see if she has an opening.
Please tell me why spending $3000 on sprinklers is a better deal than $3000 at Bob's school. Which, in a perfect world, should be mandated ? In 2008 some 2,755 people died in home fires. In that same year 26,689 people died in car crashes. (only 5,290 bikers) Where should our limited $$ go ?
Now if you want to spend your $$s on sprinklers go ahead. Or not. It's your call*. Like deciding to drive a bike or go mountain climbing or skiiing or eating too much and not exercising.
*At least it will be if I have any say about it. |
You seem to be one of those people who doesn't want government in your life but would be the first to whine if they reduced medicaid.....
All your stuff makes good sound bites but ignores reality.
Do you realize how many products you buy have safety and quality costs built in? Why should you have to have seat belts and airbags? Why crash safety tests? Why UL listed smoke detectors? Why have circuit breakers? Why require handrails on your tall front stair? Why require bathroom fans for ventilation? Why require your house be insulated? Why require GFCI outlets in bathrooms and kitchens? We can play this game all day.
$3000? Numbers are quoted as ~$1/sq ft today and would likely go down if used by more homes.
Also, the driver training is not a good comparison of risk mitigation as that assumption would be that your driving alone is the sole variable into crashes. It's not.
This thread started about a house on an island that cuaght fire and burned.
If you want to argue with me that sprinklers are a bad idea then I say you're dense.