Change in building codes to adapt to cars being left running in garages
09-05-19, 10:03 AM
#31
then use the code to ban stairs and swimming pools, so much more unsafe than a keyless car. If you want to be as safe "as possible", stay in bed 24/7 and stare at the ceiling. Lightning kills more people a year than a keyless car CO poisoning, where are the lightning rods on the house?
09-05-19, 10:17 AM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
then use the code to ban stairs and swimming pools, so much more unsafe than a keyless car. If you want to be as safe "as possible", stay in bed 24/7 and stare at the ceiling. Lightning kills more people a year than a keyless car CO poisoning, where are the lightning rods on the house?
And houses are absolutely grounded and protected to help safeguard the occupants in the event of a lighting strike.
You sound like if you can't remove 100% of the risk then why bother? That viewpoint doesnt make any sense.
09-05-19, 10:47 AM
#33
Lexus Champion
37 deaths since 2005 for a 2019 article from people accidentally leaving a keyless car running in the garage. That's under 3 people a year in the entire US. You're more likely to be killed by CO from your water heater and HVAC than your car which is a random failure and not an intentional one like leaving a car running is. Makes a lot of sense if the heaters are also in the same location as this detector. Which begs the question if the govt truly cared about saving people why wasnt a vent system installed required already for water heaters and HVAC heaters which have been around a lot longer than keyless cars. I can leave a key in a keyed car and it will never make an alert. For people with attached garages, they typically do not lock them so you can enter the house from the garage without your keys
Most of the deaths occurred in FL (not helping stereotypes here). So if you're digging around in Virginia that's not where the money is. Because of car emissions getting much cleaner over the decades its much harder to kill yourself with car CO than it was in the past.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/ca...de/1419233001/
28 deaths 45 injuries from keyless since 2006 for 2018 article
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/13/b...?module=inline
439 deaths 72000 injuries from all CO a year
https://smallbiztrends.com/2018/11/c...tatistics.html
so a water heater/HVAC is over 100x more likely to kill and what 5000x more likely to injure you but how come no vent claptrap is coded for those which have been around FAR longer than keyless cars? Interesting. Facts matter instead of this "if it saves one life mentality" It is impossible to be 100% safe.
Most of the deaths occurred in FL (not helping stereotypes here). So if you're digging around in Virginia that's not where the money is. Because of car emissions getting much cleaner over the decades its much harder to kill yourself with car CO than it was in the past.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/ca...de/1419233001/
28 deaths 45 injuries from keyless since 2006 for 2018 article
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/13/b...?module=inline
439 deaths 72000 injuries from all CO a year
https://smallbiztrends.com/2018/11/c...tatistics.html
so a water heater/HVAC is over 100x more likely to kill and what 5000x more likely to injure you but how come no vent claptrap is coded for those which have been around FAR longer than keyless cars? Interesting. Facts matter instead of this "if it saves one life mentality" It is impossible to be 100% safe.
09-05-19, 10:55 AM
#34
Lexus Champion
You're taking it to an extreme. I wouldn't be in favor of code changes that limit the usability of the feature as I've said before, but I don't see how an inexpensive failsafe feature like this is an issue.
And houses are absolutely grounded and protected to help safeguard the occupants in the event of a lighting strike.
You sound like if you can't remove 100% of the risk then why bother? That viewpoint doesnt make any sense.
And houses are absolutely grounded and protected to help safeguard the occupants in the event of a lighting strike.
You sound like if you can't remove 100% of the risk then why bother? That viewpoint doesnt make any sense.
These regulations seem reasonable, but it's only because of sensationalized news stories about forgetful people leaving their car running in the garage.
Look at the analogy of distracted driving. There are regulations regarding hand-held cell phones. Seems perfectly reasonable. But where were the bans on handheld fold-out paper maps for decades? Or bans on putting on makeup while driving? Or--as I saw a few weeks ago--bans on eating a slice of pizza (including holding the paper plate) while driving?
I can think of certain things that kill way way way more people than keyless ignition. But, sure, let's tackle the non-controversial stuff that is generally caused by user-error and is not really very common at all.
09-05-19, 11:29 AM
#35
drives cars
The real point is: "Where does it end, protecting people from themselves?"
These regulations seem reasonable, but it's only because of sensationalized news stories about forgetful people leaving their car running in the garage.
Look at the analogy of distracted driving. There are regulations regarding hand-held cell phones. Seems perfectly reasonable. But where were the bans on handheld fold-out paper maps for decades? Or bans on putting on makeup while driving? Or--as I saw a few weeks ago--bans on eating a slice of pizza (including holding the paper plate) while driving?
I can think of certain things that kill way way way more people than keyless ignition. But, sure, let's tackle the non-controversial stuff that is generally caused by user-error and is not really very common at all.
These regulations seem reasonable, but it's only because of sensationalized news stories about forgetful people leaving their car running in the garage.
Look at the analogy of distracted driving. There are regulations regarding hand-held cell phones. Seems perfectly reasonable. But where were the bans on handheld fold-out paper maps for decades? Or bans on putting on makeup while driving? Or--as I saw a few weeks ago--bans on eating a slice of pizza (including holding the paper plate) while driving?
I can think of certain things that kill way way way more people than keyless ignition. But, sure, let's tackle the non-controversial stuff that is generally caused by user-error and is not really very common at all.
Remember, what we did in the past is usually wrong, and we need, going forward, to learn from it. A precedent is not the only way to handle something. Should we allow eating pizza while driving? Probably not, as data has shown distracted driving to be a huge factor in accident rates. Hence, cell phone use while driving is illegal in many states. I think the issue is linking the eating of pizza - or any food for that matter - to an accident risk. The eating of food at the time of the accident could result in a citation if it is believed to cause an accident, however, even if there are no laws targeting eating.
Enforcing new building codes on brand-new buildings is probably a lot easier than specifically banning eating while driving.
Other than a slight creep in cost, I can't think of many downsides.
09-05-19, 12:09 PM
#36
the typical house is NOT rated for a lighting strike. They have grounds that go into the earth but that does not mean its rated for a lightning strike.
hell of a lot more than 3 people a year in the past, especially when cars polluted a LOT more and you could easily commit suicide with it. Not anymore as youd have to sit in the garage for hours on end. I can just as easily leave a keyed vehicle running in my garage as the door in my attached garage is not locked thus not requiring the key which is still in the car. I can open the garage door, park, close garage door, leave the keyed car running and walk into the house. Guess what the keyed vehicle would not beep/horn at me if I left it running.
These CO vents do not even pass a basic cost benefit and probability analysis especially when considering many much more dangerous hazards around the house that have even less safeguards. This would be far more valid if the water heater and furnace was in the same location as this detector because like I said is 100-5000x more dangerous
These CO vents do not even pass a basic cost benefit and probability analysis especially when considering many much more dangerous hazards around the house that have even less safeguards. This would be far more valid if the water heater and furnace was in the same location as this detector because like I said is 100-5000x more dangerous
09-05-19, 01:49 PM
#37
Lexus Champion
The argument of "why haven't we banned X before now if it's so important?" is a classic...
Remember, what we did in the past is usually wrong, and we need, going forward, to learn from it. A precedent is not the only way to handle something. Should we allow eating pizza while driving? Probably not, as data has shown distracted driving to be a huge factor in accident rates. Hence, cell phone use while driving is illegal in many states. I think the issue is linking the eating of pizza - or any food for that matter - to an accident risk. The eating of food at the time of the accident could result in a citation if it is believed to cause an accident, however, even if there are no laws targeting eating.
Enforcing new building codes on brand-new buildings is probably a lot easier than specifically banning eating while driving. Other than a slight creep in cost, I can't think of many downsides.
Remember, what we did in the past is usually wrong, and we need, going forward, to learn from it. A precedent is not the only way to handle something. Should we allow eating pizza while driving? Probably not, as data has shown distracted driving to be a huge factor in accident rates. Hence, cell phone use while driving is illegal in many states. I think the issue is linking the eating of pizza - or any food for that matter - to an accident risk. The eating of food at the time of the accident could result in a citation if it is believed to cause an accident, however, even if there are no laws targeting eating.
Enforcing new building codes on brand-new buildings is probably a lot easier than specifically banning eating while driving.
Other than a slight creep in cost, I can't think of many downsides.My point is that, rather than tackle difficult or controversial issues that may injure or kill more people, municipalities pick a path of least resistance with a fringe issue that is 100% user error, so they can say "See, we are protecting people."
09-05-19, 01:55 PM
#38
Lexus Champion
the typical house is NOT rated for a lighting strike. They have grounds that go into the earth but that does not mean its rated for a lightning strike.
hell of a lot more than 3 people a year in the past, especially when cars polluted a LOT more and you could easily commit suicide with it. Not anymore as youd have to sit in the garage for hours on end. I can just as easily leave a keyed vehicle running in my garage as the door in my attached garage is not locked thus not requiring the key which is still in the car. I can open the garage door, park, close garage door, leave the keyed car running and walk into the house. Guess what the keyed vehicle would not beep/horn at me if I left it running.
These CO vents do not even pass a basic cost benefit and probability analysis especially when considering many much more dangerous hazards around the house that have even less safeguards. This would be far more valid if the water heater and furnace was in the same location as this detector because like I said is 100-5000x more dangerous
hell of a lot more than 3 people a year in the past, especially when cars polluted a LOT more and you could easily commit suicide with it. Not anymore as youd have to sit in the garage for hours on end. I can just as easily leave a keyed vehicle running in my garage as the door in my attached garage is not locked thus not requiring the key which is still in the car. I can open the garage door, park, close garage door, leave the keyed car running and walk into the house. Guess what the keyed vehicle would not beep/horn at me if I left it running.
These CO vents do not even pass a basic cost benefit and probability analysis especially when considering many much more dangerous hazards around the house that have even less safeguards. This would be far more valid if the water heater and furnace was in the same location as this detector because like I said is 100-5000x more dangerous
If this municipality was really concerned about residents being harmed by CO fumes, why not require venting in the basement or other mechanical room where the water heater or furnace sit? Sure, the ducting has a longer run to the outside, but really, how much does THAT cost? The run can't be much further than the piping for my radon system. The CO detector and the fan aren't any different; and the CO detector probably is already required in that area anyway.
09-05-19, 01:56 PM
#39
Lexus Fanatic
hell of a lot more than 3 people a year in the past, especially when cars polluted a LOT more and you could easily commit suicide with it.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-05-19 at 02:51 PM.
09-05-19, 02:01 PM
#40
Lexus Champion
I wouldn't mind one in my garage. Wonder if I could do it myself.
I'm not too terribly worried about accidentally leaving a car on, but I suppose it could happen. My hot water heater and my furnace (both are natural gas) are located in the garage so I think it could be a good idea. I'll have to investigate it a bit more.
I'm not too terribly worried about accidentally leaving a car on, but I suppose it could happen. My hot water heater and my furnace (both are natural gas) are located in the garage so I think it could be a good idea. I'll have to investigate it a bit more.
09-05-19, 03:03 PM
#42
Lexus Champion
09-05-19, 03:09 PM
#43
drives cars
).Though I do see the point of water heaters/furnaces being more of a threat... But here's something I just thought about.
The garage is not necessarily attached to the home, and thus, CO being emitted from the vehicle might not reach the CO detector inside the home before it has filled up the garage itself. Due to it being physically isolated from the interior of the home, I think it makes sense to have a special measure in place to deal with the CO emitted from vehicles left running in error.
09-05-19, 04:06 PM
#44
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
These CO vents do not even pass a basic cost benefit
I see zero downside to this.
