Change in building codes to adapt to cars being left running in garages
09-05-19, 07:01 PM
#46
Lexus Fanatic
09-06-19, 05:42 AM
#47
Adding cost and complexity to every house
loss of 6 foot length of wallspace in your garage, its probably not a good idea to cover up the detector or fan with a shelf
how is someone going to test it over the years, is there a test button that will activate the fan through the detector? People cant even maintain smoke detectors routinely. This is even more complicated since now a detector needs to turn on a fan and hopefully the vent actually works after sitting dormant for years. Hopefully the wiring is still intact or a GFCI isnt tripping the power to it.
Another way for pests or the weather to get inside the house.
feel good claptrap for extremely rare cause of death. More people win the powerball, killed by lightning, attacked by a shark than them dying to a keyless car. This is the folly of the feel good "even if it saves one life" argument. It has no perspective or context while the energy could've been effectively put elsewhere. Instead of forcing everyone to spend $250 per house, why not put $250 per house towards pool safety awareness and swimming lessons. Going to save far more lives.
09-06-19, 05:56 AM
#49
Lexus Champion
not to mention once the garage door is open, breaking into the house itself is much easier. so if the system malfunctions, the garage door just opens wide, welcoming the entire world into your house--I'd be disconnecting that system the day after my closing.
09-06-19, 06:14 AM
#50
Super Moderator
And really, taking a step back makes this look even sillier. Unless you retrofit every garage in the country, you're not going to come anywhere near eliminating those 2.3 deaths. And even if you could, it makes no economic sense to add $300 to the cost of every residential garage in the country--there are around 59 millon of them, so you're talking $17.6 billion--to possibly save those two people, or $7.4 billion per person/year. Why not mandate bedrails? They cost 90% less, and would theoretically save 450 people per year, as that's how many die falling out of bed every year.
Statistically speaking, assuming these always work perfectly (and don't fail over time as others have mentioned), you have to get them installed in 2.6 million homes to prevent one death per decade.
Last edited by geko29; 09-06-19 at 06:21 AM.
09-06-19, 06:31 AM
#51
how is someone going to test it over the years, is there a test button that will activate the fan through the detector? People cant even maintain smoke detectors routinely. This is even more complicated since now a detector needs to turn on a fan and hopefully the vent actually works after sitting dormant for years. Hopefully the wiring is still intact or a GFCI isnt tripping the power to it.
Another way for pests or the weather to get inside the house.
Another way for pests or the weather to get inside the house.
feel good claptrap for extremely rare cause of death. More people win the powerball, killed by lightning, attacked by a shark than them dying to a keyless car. This is the folly of the feel good "even if it saves one life" argument. It has no perspective or context while the energy could've been effectively put elsewhere. Instead of forcing everyone to spend $250 per house, why not put $250 per house towards pool safety awareness and swimming lessons. Going to save far more lives.
Again, I agree that your point makes sense. It shines a light on the "bigger picture". I still think that this is a positive step in the right direction, because (as evidenced in this thread alone) this single issue will, at the very least, force others to re-evaluate other, more serious issues with higher probabilities of risk. I like to think of this building code amendment as a stepping stone towards the development of better safeguards for higher risk cases, like a cheaper alternative to replacing an old furnace with one that has the auto-shut off feature.
09-06-19, 06:31 AM
#52
Lexus Champion
But the alternative is death, right? I mean, the whole point of this system is to prevent some small percentage of the 2.3 deaths per year caused by people accidentally leaving their keyless ignition cars running in their garage. So wouldn't you want the most efficient solution, even if it raised the possibility that you'd have your stuff stolen?
But having a mechanism that automatically opens your garage door by accident....then aren't you putting yourself and your family at risk by an intruder through the open garage door? Wasn't the point to reduce risk?
And again, everyone keeps talking about "if it saves one life". I'd rather the laws focus on saving "one life" in addressing risks that cause more deaths statistically. Again, this is low hanging fruit that allow the govt to point to "Look, we are saving lives here" without tackling more significant risks.
09-06-19, 06:47 AM
#53
Super Moderator
This assumes a binary choice, which is false. Is the garage door opening system the "most efficient system"? The garage opening option was proposed by someone in lieu of the fan. As between death, fan or auto garage opening, I'd choose fan.
But having a mechanism that automatically opens your garage door by accident....then aren't you putting yourself and your family at risk by an intruder through the open garage door? Wasn't the point to reduce risk?
But having a mechanism that automatically opens your garage door by accident....then aren't you putting yourself and your family at risk by an intruder through the open garage door? Wasn't the point to reduce risk?
And again, everyone keeps talking about "if it saves one life". I'd rather the laws focus on saving "one life" in addressing risks that cause more deaths statistically. Again, this is low hanging fruit that allow the govt to point to "Look, we are saving lives here" without tackling more significant risks.
09-06-19, 06:50 AM
#54
wouldnt have to open the garage door all the way, CO is heavier than air so it will accumulate on the floor, just even cracking the door 6 inches would vent it. Hence why the vent fan in the picture is closer to the floor. Also as an FYI why these combo smoke/CO detectors being sold are a joke, smoke rises, CO doesnt, so you can only detect one at a time.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 09-06-19 at 06:55 AM.
09-06-19, 06:51 AM
#55
No.. the alternative is a vent.
According to the OP:
"To be clear existing homes won't have to have these installed, they will be grandfathered this is just for new homes or garages being constructed." It's an option for those homes already existing, so you aren't required to have it (or spend the cost associated with it) unless you're building a new home. Assuming this becomes standard building code across the US, the cost is not nearly as high. This also assumes that this is the only solution going forward. I have no doubt that if this does become mandated across the US, someone would do the same cost-benefit analysis and develop a cheaper solution.
And really, taking a step back makes this look even sillier. Unless you retrofit every garage in the country, you're not going to come anywhere near eliminating those 2.3 deaths. And even if you could, it makes no economic sense to add $300 to the cost of every residential garage in the country--there are around 59 millon of them, so you're talking $17.6 billion--to possibly save those two people, or $7.4 billion per person/year. Why not mandate bedrails? They cost 90% less, and would theoretically save 450 people per year, as that's how many die falling out of bed every year.
Statistically speaking, assuming these always work perfectly (and don't fail over time as others have mentioned), you have to get them installed in 2.6 million homes to prevent one death per decade.
Statistically speaking, assuming these always work perfectly (and don't fail over time as others have mentioned), you have to get them installed in 2.6 million homes to prevent one death per decade.
"To be clear existing homes won't have to have these installed, they will be grandfathered this is just for new homes or garages being constructed." It's an option for those homes already existing, so you aren't required to have it (or spend the cost associated with it) unless you're building a new home. Assuming this becomes standard building code across the US, the cost is not nearly as high. This also assumes that this is the only solution going forward. I have no doubt that if this does become mandated across the US, someone would do the same cost-benefit analysis and develop a cheaper solution.
09-06-19, 06:57 AM
#56
I won't argue the fact that it's low hanging fruit. It is. But its still a solution to a problem.
The plus side to this is that people will see this as low hanging fruit and call it out to the people who can actually influence some change. It makes the county this code is mandated in feel safer, and it provides a stepping stone for others to shine light on more important issues.
The plus side to this is that people will see this as low hanging fruit and call it out to the people who can actually influence some change. It makes the county this code is mandated in feel safer, and it provides a stepping stone for others to shine light on more important issues.
09-06-19, 07:14 AM
#57
"feel" safer doesnt mean actually safer in an significance because statistically speaking youre FAR more likely to get seriously injured falling down the stairs, burned on the stove, falling off the ladder, drowning in the pool. This is like saying you have $10k in your bank account, then you add $1 and say youre richer. Richer not in any significance
09-06-19, 07:15 AM
#58
Super Moderator
According to the OP:
"To be clear existing homes won't have to have these installed, they will be grandfathered this is just for new homes or garages being constructed." It's an option for those homes already existing, so you aren't required to have it (or spend the cost associated with it) unless you're building a new home. Assuming this becomes standard building code across the US, the cost is not nearly as high. This also assumes that this is the only solution going forward. I have no doubt that if this does become mandated across the US, someone would do the same cost-benefit analysis and develop a cheaper solution.
"To be clear existing homes won't have to have these installed, they will be grandfathered this is just for new homes or garages being constructed." It's an option for those homes already existing, so you aren't required to have it (or spend the cost associated with it) unless you're building a new home. Assuming this becomes standard building code across the US, the cost is not nearly as high. This also assumes that this is the only solution going forward. I have no doubt that if this does become mandated across the US, someone would do the same cost-benefit analysis and develop a cheaper solution.
09-06-19, 08:50 AM
#60
Lexus Champion
wouldnt have to open the garage door all the way, CO is heavier than air so it will accumulate on the floor, just even cracking the door 6 inches would vent it. Hence why the vent fan in the picture is closer to the floor. Also as an FYI why these combo smoke/CO detectors being sold are a joke, smoke rises, CO doesnt, so you can only detect one at a time.
Which makes me realize--there's many different brands of garage door openers out there. We are talking about minimal costs of these systems; does anyone really think that adding a sensor that is compatible with every single brand and type of garage door opener on the market today (not to mention adopting for future garage door opener innovations) still keeps the costs reasonable?