codeguy

Codes aren't conjured, and the IRC wasn't developed in a vacuum. Codes have, for the most part, been fought over as part of a process that is thousands of years old. Codes are supposed to be a standard, a consensus reached by a number of people as to what is the minimum acceptable to them as a group. Those who hold individual rights paramount don't like this concept, but how many of them have mortgages, homeowner's insurance, and expect their home to be an investment with a return at sale? Compliance with code is also part of what financial institutions use to determine value.

That said, the IBC, counterpart to the IRC for commercial buildings, generally makes sprinklers an option that allows trade offs. However, in the last two code cycles (2003 and 2006), the requirements for sprinklering of residential occupancies have changed, causing similar concerns to the 2009 IRC. Sprinklers are a safety improvement, but like ALL safety improvements, they can be a tough monetary sell.

Active safety systems, like sprinklers and smoke detection, are only as good as their maintenance. Passive safety systems, like fire separations, fireblocking, limiting the combustibility of finishes and furnishings, are good as long as they are in place.

I think what is being lost in these arguments is, if you properly design, construct and maintain a home per even a rudimentary code, you will have a safe home. But don't we as a group (city, county, state, nation) have a history of wanting to make buildings safer? The question here is simple - Is requiring sprinklers in homes worth the change? Voice your opinion not just in this blog, but with the authority having code adoption jurisdiction where you live.