Despite the many advances in sensor technologies, many homes still lack basic safety features such as fire and smoke detectors. Why are safety sensor technologies so important, is there an argument to make sensors in homes compulsory by law, and what challenges would such an installation face?

Why are safety sensors so important in homes?

Historically, the everyday home has faced numerous risks, whether accidental fire from an oven, smoke from burning furniture, or poisonous gasses from incomplete fuel combustion. While some dangers pose a risk only to the home’s occupants, others can be disastrous for the surrounding homes.

The Great Fire of London of 1666 is an excellent example of how one small fire can spread to burn an entire city. The close proximity of buildings in London at the time, combined with their use of thatched roofs, allowed for a fire in a bakery to rapidly spread out of control. Despite the massive amount of devastation caused, surprisingly only resulted in a few deaths. Nevertheless, the British government wanted to ensure that such a fire could never happen again. It thus introduced the first building regulations, which banned thatched roofs in London and dictated a minimum distance between buildings.

Even though there are numerous regulations put in place to minimise fire risks, a fire can still spread very quickly in a home, and it is for this reason that fire sensors are so important. Specifically, a smoke detector is the most essential sensor a home can install, as smoke is more dangerous. This is because smoke creates an environment that cannot be breathed in, and the reduced visibility makes it hard to navigate. For perspective, around 70% of fire-related deaths are caused by smoke inhalation, while only 30% are from actual burns from a fire.

Thus, installing sensors can give the occupants of a building precious seconds to take action, whether to turn on sprinklers, protect assets, or find safe routes of escape.

The argument for making sensors in homes compulsory

Currently, UK law doesn’t require private homes to have smoke alarms fitted (this may be different for new builds) unless that property is rented out. Furthermore, situations that do require sensors are often limited to specific types in different environments. For example, there are no requirements to install carbon monoxide sensors unless that room has a fuel burner (i.e., gas boiler, fireplace etc.). Considering the ability of sensors to save lives, one would think that making sensors compulsory would be common sense.

In fact, an argument could be made to install every room in a house with a multi-sensor device capable of simultaneously detecting fire, smoke, CO2, and volatile gasses. While the counterargument to installing CO and volatile gas sensors in every room would be that such locations are not subject to these compounds, it would make far more sense to have a sensor and not need it than need it and not have it.

Carbon monoxide is a particularly troublesome gas as it is odourless, tasteless, and clear, meaning that it cannot be seen and, once inhaled, will cause drowsiness. For these reasons, CO can kill groups of people without them even knowing what’s going on (as was the tragic case when a group of teenagers died in a hut due to CO poisoning). The chances of encountering it are rare, but encountering the gas can be fatal.

Another argument to make multisensory devices a legal requirement comes from the ability for accidents to occur in closed rooms with no sensors. Current recommendations for smoke alarms are that they are placed on each floor in the corridor connecting to all rooms, and yet it would make more logical sense to install smoke alarms in every single room. For example, a bedroom with its doors closed could house a raging fire that would be virtually impossible to put out, and a smoke alarm would likely trigger after the fire spreads to the corridor. This is also problematic if a fire starts in a room with someone sleeping, as the resulting smoke could prevent them from waking up.

Considering how far sensors and connective technologies have come, it’s amazing that homes are still extremely dumb with limited sensor capabilities.

What challenges would a geared-out home face?

Having sensors all over the home would be highly beneficial in protecting against fires and explosive gasses, but some challenges are still faced. One of the biggest challenges by far is that a sensor system with IoT capabilities opens up a home to potential cybersecurity threats.

It is not uncommon for IoT devices to be riddled with vulnerabilities, and unless IoT devices can be updated automatically, then a home full of sensors could be an easy target for a hacker. It only takes a single device to contain a vulnerability for a hacker to gain access to the internal network and, from there, control other devices while also snooping on network traffic.

This ability for hackers to access internal sensors then becomes problematic with privacy. Depending on what the sensors can detect, a hacker may be able to use the devices to obtain private data, including images from cameras, the location of occupants, and even the contents of a room. From there, hackers can use data obtained to blackmail the occupants, or worse, use psychological attacks such as random sensors triggering and devices turning on and off.

Of course, these cybersecurity concerns can be fought against if such sensors are made dumb with only detection capabilities that trigger alarms. Even with the potential risks of smart sensors, the need for sensors in the modern home to detect dangerous situations cannot go understated. Introducing strict laws requiring all homes to have sensors regardless of whether they are rented would be a positive move.