Spinklers in every house?

This is a debate that has been going on for a while. Large buildings are sprinklered, but homes rarely are. Essentially, the cost is just too high for the perceived benefit. Here's the article that got me thinking about this a bit more:

Builders Fight proposed Home Sprinkler Requirement

Personally, I don't think there can be an absolute rule on all houses having sprinklers - after all, they are expensive. I also don't see them saving that many more lives, because the people that die now are often in old buildings and houses that don't even have a smoke alarm, never mind sprinklers. And why should a small 1200 sq.ft. house have a system when it would add a significant percentage to the cost of the home, for little benefit. A house that small is relatively cheap to rebuild should it burn down. On the other hand, the cost add sprinklers during construction of a 5000 sq.ft. mansion would be pretty insignificant, and has the potential to dramatically reduce damage by a fire. In fact I'm surprised the insurance industry isn't all over this - they have the most to gain by homes being sprinklered. I know that one of the questions insurers ask is whether your building is sprinklered or not - so surely it has an impact on premiums. And don't forget - how often is a single-family home fire ever actually contained to just that house? Rarely! With how closely spaced suburban houses are (and they aren't getting any further apart) it almost always causes damage to the neighbouring homes, either through the intense heat of the fire, or by the fire actually travelling to the next house.

To me it would make sense that any building that has more than 2 or 3 dwellings should be sprinklered. This would, for example, allow homeowners to have a rentable flat in their house without needing a sprinkler system. On the other hand, any building with more than a few dwellings, where more lives and homes could be seriously affected by a fire, should unquestionalby be sprinklered. Personally, when looking at purchasing a condo in a building, whether it is sprinklered or not weighs heavily in my decision, as spinklered, multi-tenant buildings are much safer than those that are not. The same goes for townhomes or rowhomes. Maybe two or three rowhomes adjacent to each other doesn't justify the cost...but any row of attached homes longer than that should either be sprinklered or have a full 4-hour rated firewall between each unit. Row housing was built like that in cities all over (think Montreal), and that limits the fire (and water) damage to a single unit, while still creating a dense, livable neighbourhood.

So in summary, I guess if it's your own house, and you're out in the country with no one around, why should anyone care whether your home is spinklered or not. But if you're in a city, and you have no control over your neighbour, and of course don't know what they do or how safety concious they are (or whether they are even home to announce that there is a fire), wouldn't you sleep a lot easier knowing that should a fire break out, it will be quickly extinguished by sprinklers?