Frankly I am shocked that it took this long to bring this into law!

I am almost equally shocked that there are people so cheap that they would not have smoke detectors, and put their lives, and the lives of others at risk . . . actually I am not so shocked at this come to think of it.

Ours goes off regularly ... has saved me dozens of times a year from inhaling too much barbeque smoke.

As Ron White says - My wifes cooking has gotten a lot better since she learned the smoke alarm wasn’t a timer. I had to tell her, “Honey, the food’s done before that particular buzzer goes off!”

This law reminds one of the effort that PG is putting into "NO WEINE" rosts in the back yard. How will they enforce ir?
Cheers

how will a smoke detector prevent a older house from burning down?

If they are concerned about safety then they should be looking at all the old buildings on Third and George, other downtown areas. A lot of these buildings are fire traps, but they continue to operate because they have been **Grandfathered**

Once again go after Joe Sixpack and ignore the real problem areas. What else is new.

At this point in time I dont beleive there is any law on the book that would allow them to enter your home, however Im sure they are working on it.

How will they enforce it? An insurance company will require a smoke alarm for insurance and decline payment for damages if discovered there was no smoke alarm or it was not working, dead batteries.

how will a smoke detector prevent a older house from burning down? Well how about warning you of a fire!

This new law should give the insurance companies another excuse not to pay claims. They will say if your house burns down and you didn't have detectors as per the law then they won't pay

Seamutt.I think you are right about the insurance company being the enforcer, and who knows they may very well be the people behind the legislation.,

Oh wow I cycled up to Home Depot to buy a smoke alarm yesterday. Geez thats strange. Hmmm how do you explain some things in life eh.

5 Years ago, when I bought the house I live in, new smoke detectors up and down (powered by batteries, and linked to each other wirelessly), were first day purchases, alongside the extension cords I needed to plug stuff in, and light bulbs where they were burnt out.

I value the life of myself and my family at way more than the $50 they cost.

Now they are in our bedrooms with regulation? You can regulate a new build, but you can not regulate an existing home no matter how good your intentions may be. Its private property.

I heard the other day they want to regulate that all homes be equipped with things that aid old people regardless of who is buying the home... to me that is going to far and adding costs to a system that already is pricing people out of homes.

Where does it end?

the smoke detector just warns you that the house is on fire it doesnt prevent fire at all...big waste of money and time

Don it just might save you or your families life.

Smoke detectors have saved lives. How is that a waste of money and time?

i just think more time should be put into fire prevention rather then telling people to buy new batteries for there smoke detectors.

"you can not regulate an existing home no matter how good your intentions may be. Its private property."

Just try killing someone in your home or storing crystal meth or stolen goods or playing your 300 watt speakers full blast and you'll find out that the law isn't as you think it is.

Smoke detectors have two benefits. The primary one is that they alert the occupants sooner to a fire and give them a better chance to get out. The secondary one is that the earlier a fire is detected, the better are the chances of putting it out.

This just in:

"Central Saanich firefighters place such a priority on smoke alarms, they provide them free to residents, and even volunteer to help local seniors install the devices and change the batteries."

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Smoke+alarms+required/2728089/story.html

One more of those interesting useless stats in that article.

"Provincial statistics show 71 people have died in the last six years during fires in buildings built before 1979. Only 22 people died in newer buildings during the same time."

If the figure of 800,000 is right for the number of "housing units" (not buildings) that have been built befoe 1979, then they are about 50% of the current BC "housing units" stock.

Linking smoke alarms to those deaths without identifying how many of the older building actually have smoke alarms throws in what could be a substantial error.

So is suggesting that the presence of smoke alarms is the key factor without stating the number of fires there were in the older units versus the newer units. I suspect that the rate of fires in older units could be as high as twice the rate of fires in newer units.

On top of that, older unis are more likely to be non compliant in several areas which improve the possbility of escaping a fire.

I look at that stat with a considerable amount of skepticism.

Here is what the US Fire administration says about smoke alarms.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/sprinklers/facts.shtm

"Smoke alarms save lives by providing a warning system but can do nothing to extinguish a growing fire or protect those physically unable to escape on their own, such as the elderly or small children. Too often, battery-operated smoke alarms fail to function because the batteries are dead or have been removed. AS THE PERCENT OF HOMES IN AMERICA THAT WERE "PROTECTED" WITH SMOKE ALARMS INCREASED FROM ZERO TO MORE THAN 70 PERCENT, THE NUMBER OF FIRE DEATHS IN HOMES DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE."

For anyone who is really serious about protecting both their family and their property, they should be installing residential sprinkler systems.

Gus the government will mandate that next. And they will also want all houses to come with certified bathroom hand railings too. Those that don't have one will be mandated to install one at their own cost.

I can buy the insurance argument, but I still think government has no place mandating updates to existing homes... even though I already have a smoke alarm.

I work in a federal building and we have no smoke alarms. If a fire starts in one office it is the responsibility of the person in charge to notify the other offices in the building.

I have notified my employer that I will not participate in this practice and will immediately exit the building when a fire is discovered.

I have given them notice verbally and in writing that I will not be used as a fire alarm.

Two years later we still have no fire alarm.

The local municipality and fire department cannot order that alarms be placed in federal buildings.

I do not know which Federal Building you work in.

There should be fire alarms, as opposed to smoke detectors or rate of heat rise detectors, unless the building is very small.

In the case of the building on 3rd and Victoria, for instance, they would likely have the following arsenal to assist in mitigating a fire.

1- sprinklers
2 - if there are sprinklers, the heads will go off if there is a fire in the area of a head. As soon as that head activates, a flow detector will activate the alarm systems in the building.
3 - annunciator - near the entrsance of the building, visible form the outside, a panel that identifies to arriving firefighters where the zone where the sprinkler was activated. On top of that, the alarm is connected to a monitoring station that will automatically summon the fire department.
4 - smoke detectors in the mechanical system. As soon as smoke is detected in the mechanical system, which might be before the sprinklers are activated by a flame, the alarm will again sound and the mechanical system will shut down so that the fire is not fanned with new oxygen. Also, any fire spearation shutters will be closed and door in fire separations which are held open by magnetic holders are shut.

If you have none of those devices, perhaps not all, and the building is a large one (I believe over 6,000sf) or multiple stories then you should have at least a fire alarm and a manual pull station next to the exits to activate it.

Not only can the local municipality or the fire department not order federal buildings to comply, but they also cannot do that with provincial buildings.

However, both provincial and federal building follow their respective building codes. So, if your building does not comply with the Canadian Building Code you have cause for action.

The idea of a person being in charge of a zone is best practices to amkes sure people are not going back to fetch personal belongings or shut down their facebook activities..