Who benefits from the requirement to have smoke detectors?

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
aime38
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 2
Registration: 16/03/15, 15:20

Who benefits from the requirement to have smoke detectors?




by aime38 » 16/03/15, 15:26

Hello everybody

I searched the forum but I do not find any discussions concerning the obligation to have DAAF in homes. I put here an interesting article on the underside of the obligation of smoke detectors http://bati2030.blogspot.fr/2015/03/det ... Qa2K-HsaoM

The fire safety lobbies have maneuvered well and the argument of fire as the second cause of death in children has hit the mark. Soon, we will be forced to equip ourselves with a fire extinguisher. For the benefit of a few, the state turns a blind eye.

Well done guys again.

Aimé (Isère)
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 16/03/15, 16:02

the smoke detector ... when nobody is in the house is useless.

Most are sold with batteries that nobody will replace properly in 4 or 5 years ... this thing will be the last concern, much like other alarm systems on 9V batteries.

And what's more, where are these gadgets made? In China no doubt.

So when there is a battery, the detector works and there is someone ... there it becomes interesting.

In a few years, insurers may well kiss their customers when compensating them, on the pretext that the detectors were not installed, or non-compliance with this or that blabla standard ...

No one is frank in this matter and there is really food and drink in this matter.

I would be much more favorable to the installation of extinguishers ... The problem is that they are expensive, are useless 99,99% of the time, and that they must be replaced periodically, with there also a follow-up that individuals do not generally insure ...

@+
0 x
Image
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 16/03/15, 16:19

Certainly !

But what does one spend on many perfectly useless trivia, produced in the same place and sold by the same merchants (or their cousins) ????

Come on, just by chance: a coffee maker using the capsules that George Clooney boasts ??? Who doesn't have one ??? And yet it is not compulsory! Just ruinous (in use)!

Or such a smartphone when we hardly use more than the basic function = phone ???

And it surprises who ???

Suppose this saves 5 families ???? In a happy country called "Econology", how much is the price of these 15 lives ??? More than the 15 to 20 euros spent by all those who do not get ripped off ??? Barely a few packets of capsules for the Geoges Clooney machine (I don't even know the price) that a lot of people buy "without knowing it of their own accord"?

Frankly, a false debate. And another example of the "never happy" syndrome ???

@remundo


No, the obligation in no way reduces the insurance obligations.

The detector is a device for protecting the occupants, not the house. It must allow people to save themselves while leaving the house to burn!

The insurer covers the house. With or without detector. Similarly!

No amalgamation !!!
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 16/03/15, 16:28

Did67 wrote:The detector is a device for protecting the occupants, not the house. It must allow people to save themselves while leaving the house to burn!

The insurer covers the house. With or without detector. Similarly!

No amalgamation !!!

For the moment yes, this is the official position.

But since it is "mandatory", insurers will rely more and more on this law to relinquish responsibility in the event of a claim.

Just like you are not insured with a vehicle without technical control, even if your car has little, if anything at all.

Clearly I think it is one more step towards the cunning of insurers.
0 x
Image
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 16/03/15, 16:28

Remundo wrote:
I would be much more favorable to the installation of extinguishers ... The problem is that they are expensive, are useless 99,99% of the time, and that they must be replaced periodically, with there also a follow-up that individuals do not generally insure ...

@+


1) I have one.

2) Indeed, which has passed the deadline (which does not mean that it no longer works; but it is, in fact, not 100% certain that it works!).

3) The fact that it is not mandatory does not prevent their acquisition if we think it is better.

4) I think both:

a) alarm, in the event of an unexpected fire, at night: wake up in time and save your little one (and cry in front of the burning house) ...

b) fire extinguisher to act, during the day, in particular on fires that one has started oneself, before they increase in size (fryer which catches fire, or "alcohol heater" which overflows, etc. .). If we are equipped, if we know where the device is located, and if it works, and if we know how to use it, we can save both the occupants and the house!

So I recommend the two, which do not have the same function at all.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 16/03/15, 16:37

Remundo wrote:
But since it is "mandatory", insurers will rely more and more on this law to relinquish responsibility in the event of a claim.

Just like you are not insured with a vehicle without technical control, even if your car has little, if anything at all.

Clearly I think it is one more step towards the cunning of insurers.


1) I am not saying that the risk does not exist.

2) For the moment, this is not the case, but we are already groaning!

3) I don't think that could be the case, because as said, the very principle is not to protect the house, but to save the occupants.

4) A car without technical control is deemed to no longer run on the roads. It is not, as it is often presented, a control of the "rolling", but of the safety.

The situation is, legally, a little different. If it does not roll, it cannot be the subject of an accident!

If it does not pass the MOT, it is deemed "dangerous". The role of an insurer is not to cover a deliberate risk of someone escaping control.

5) Finally, it is necessary to qualify:

Finally, the lack of technical control can also prove to be fraught with consequences in terms of insurance, in particular for signing a new contract. Indeed, if the CT certificate is not requested by the insurer, the gray card (where the sticker justifying the passage is located), it is. And without CT, no contract!

But the risk is greatest in the event of an accident. If the motorist causes damage to a third party, the latter will always be compensated with compulsory civil liability insurance, valid or not MOT.

On the other hand, all the damage suffered by the driver himself and his vehicle will not necessarily be covered, even if he has purchased All Risks insurance, because the lack of technical control leads to invalidity of the contract for the most part companies.

The owner is then forced to pay the damage and possible medical costs himself, which can quickly become ruinous! "And probably more expensive than the basic repairs which pushed me to skip the technical control!" Admits Loïc, who was hardly aware of the risks until then.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 16/03/15, 17:31

It is an elementary observation that when a regulation is put in place, it does not involve too strong a constraint with a view to its acceptance; then, in stages, these obligations harden, as has been observed for motor vehicle technical inspections.

Without pinning down this new regulation, it seems to me that it should be linked to a more general phenomenon of lazy day-to-day management aimed at overcoming all potential risks, psychic counterpart of the death drive that guides all of our functioning ; in other words, to escape into the details to better hide the global catastrophe we are looking for ... in all blindness.

I do not think that could be the case, because as said, the very principle is not to protect the house, but to save the occupants.

Certainly, but by warning at the very beginning of the start of the fire, this also makes it possible to alert the firefighters faster, so ...
You see the argument that insurance companies will be able to draw from it ... (at the same time, if it really prevents damage, why not?).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
elephant
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6646
Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
x 7




by elephant » 16/03/15, 18:08

Given my profession, I am asked the question regularly.

I specify that I do not sell any (at least the small autonomous detectors with batteries: their rate of false alarms compared to the profit would make me lose too much money. At least when a customer panicked by his detector which does not stop not call me believing that it is the theft alarm, I can charge for the possible displacement : Mrgreen: )

1) the last 4 months I have heard of 2 cases where these devices seriously made the alert earlier, minimizing the damage.

2) indeed, the purpose of these devices is to save lives, not (im) furniture! It is well known to fire specialists that most victims die of asphyxiation long before being roasted. Buildings make sure and rebuild, people don't come back!

3) even if there is lobbying, the legislator is "well obliged" to legislate so as not to involve its responsibility for inaction on a known and current risk.

4) in the opinion of an insurance professional, in Belgium at least, it seems unlikely that the absence of a detector will become a valid reason for refusing coverage. Fire claims are a well-known and profitable risk.

5) Eeeh yes, you need a lot of stuff like that to make the business work, but you have to recognize that certain requirements are justified and beneficial: the fire detector is one, the fluorescent vest in cars, the seat belt, etc. . the legislator has certainly saved many lives!

Other lives have or could be saved thanks to "compulsory devices": for example the differential circuit breaker or (still not imposed in private homes) the CO detector.
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 16/03/15, 18:32

elephant wrote:Other lives have or could be saved thanks to "compulsory devices": for example the differential circuit breaker or (still not imposed in private homes) the CO detector.
The question is where do we stop in bonds.

For example, a defibrillator in each home could also save lives ...

The precautionary principle and the eternal quest for "zero deaths" will have no end ... unlike the budget of those obliged by law to purchase the equipment concerned.

The automatic call for help in the event of an accident will become compulsory in new cars increasing the price by a few hundred euros ...
0 x
User avatar
Grelinette
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2007
Registration: 27/08/08, 15:42
Location: Provence
x 272




by Grelinette » 16/03/15, 18:37

In 2007 I remember that there was a similar debate with the obligation to install a protection system for swimming pools.
The debate was all the more lively as the lack of protection led to a dizzying fine!

On the merits, when we know of tragedies of people, especially children, who escape the supervision of their parents, fall into a swimming pool and drown, we cannot blame the legislator for providing an alert system .

On the form, at the time, the protection systems, in particular the alarms were not only very expensive (around 400 € for the first prices), but in addition most had major faults (untimely triggering with the wind) .

Regarding smoke detectors, given the ridiculous price (around 20 €) in terms of the service it can provide (avoid suffocation, save lives), I think there is nothing to complain about , even if some companies will do good business.
0 x
Project of the horse-drawn-hybrid - The project econology
"The search for progress does not exclude the love of tradition"

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 276 guests