CO is not heavier than air.

https://healthybuildingscience.com/2...onoxide-facts/

 

Please feel free to describe an electrocution hazard from a home electrical system that is not mitigated by a properly-installed GFCI on the circuit in question, or that is mitigated by another recent protective technology. The other two you identified (circuit breakers and AFCI) prevent fires, not electrocutions. I agree that making them part of the code for new homes and remodels was absolutely the right thing to do. They are very inexpensive, and have resulted in hundreds fewer deaths every year. And again, I am alive myself because of one (still received a pretty nasty shock though).

Let me be clear: I have absolutely no issue with you or anyone else choosing to install one of these in your home. If it makes you feel better to hopefully eliminate this one in ~66.7 million risk*, knock yourself out. What I do have a problem with is the government mandating several hundred dollars worth of additional equipment be installed (and I'm guessing, tested/replaced at regular intervals) in every new or renovated home, when even if said equipment were ubiquitous (ie installed in all 59 million US homes with attached garages) and worked perfectly all the time, would save 2 lives per year. It's a bit like mandating shark bite insurance.

*based on an assumption that the average home with a garage is occupied by the US-average household size of 2.6. I suspect the average household size among those that live in houses with attached garages is higher, and therefore the risk even lower.

 

No, I can remember to turn my cars off. However, I live in a townhouse where my house is connected to other houses. Would I like the idea of my neighbors some of whom I know to be quite stupid having this feature? Sure.

As was said before, CO isn't heavier than air.



Then lobby your local government not to adopt this sort of ordinance.

2 lives are 2 lives. "Only two people died" if one of those was your spouse, or your kid, or you would you not be glad that failsafe was there?

 

This is a reducto ad absurdium argument. It implies that we should compel everyone to do every possible thing that will reduce risk, no matter how infinitesimal an increment. And again, to consistently save those 2 lives, we have to install close to 59 million of these systems--30 million is the point at which you're more likely than not to get both in any given year, but the average over time will be around 1. 2.6 million installed saves you approximately one life per decade. I am not in favor of mandating billions of dollars in spending to possibly/maybe save 1 life/year, or "just" hundreds of millions to save 1 person per decade. Some people are going to die. We can't prevent all possible causes unless we have unlimited resources, so we should go after things that are the biggest bang for the buck. GFCI is a great example. They're inexpensive and already save hundreds of lives per year, even though we still are far from universal installation. Smoke detectors are another. Are you in favor of mandating alarm systems, bars on windows an doors to prevent home invasions? That would probably save significantly more lives/year than these devices. Is all of your furniture and electronics firmly attached to your walls? Because furniture or TVs falling over kills a child every two weeks.

And why so vehement that these be mandated installation in garages specifically? Even if you were dead-set on using these devices to reduce risk of CO poisoning, a far better option would be to install them in furnace and mechanical rooms, as 71 people die every year from CO poisoning caused by their heating system. This is 43% of all unintentional CO deaths, from all causes. If we're spending our limited resources, why target the 2.3 when you can instead target the 71? That's why this is a feel-good law. It ignores the most effective uses of resources in favor of ones that tell the world "hey look at me I'm doing something!"

To directly answer your question, I have zero concern. This cannot happen at all with two of our three cars. One is not keyless, and being a diesel emits a minuscule quantity of CO anyhow; the other shuts off automatically within 2 minutes of the key being out of the vehicle, thereby making it impossible for CO concentration to rise to dangerous levels. I suspect that mode of operation is going to be more and more common as time goes on, so any future vehicles we are likely to buy will likewise be immune. The third is so ridiculously obnoxious when you open the door while the engine is running, that combined with the noise of the engine in a confined space and all the lights being on, makes it nearly impossible to leave running, even though you technically still could. In the extremely unlikely event that situation nonetheless occurs, I have nine CO/smoke detectors, tested regularly--because there are way more likely sources of CO inside my house than in my garage. I suspect we'll be ok.

 

Then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

This is why the science of cost/benefit analysis was created. There are risks everywhere. Who is to say that it's better to put a fence around a pool, or require that all furnishings have rounded and rubbery corners, or prohibit stairways? You do an analysis, looking at the deaths attributed to the characteristic versus the cost of improvement or retrofitting. But, some will say, it's cynical to put an actual dollar value on a human life. But what if you don't? Then it's necessary to prevent ANY loss of life, ever? Ban cars, ban bicycles, ban stairways, ban dogs, ban high heels? Without cost/benefit, pragmatism disappears.

 

Fair enough. I agree with you close to 90% of the time. I just can't figure out why you're so fixated on this one extreme edge case, when there are so many other things that kill so many more people--like CO sources in the home (roughly 80x more), or fires (1200x more), or dressers crushing children (6x more), the list goes on nearly forever--that we could go after first and save way more lives.

 

I'm not at all fixated on this. Its just that we had this discussion here before and I saw this in a house and snapped a picture to share it for that reason. I think you're over-emphasizing how big a deal I think this is.

I just don't think this particular solution is a big deal, and I thought it was simple and inexpensive. By the way, checking on the code this is only code in connected housing like townhouses and condos, not in single family homes in this jurisdiction. Safer is always better, and I thought this was an example of a solution to a problem that wasn't overly burdensome or costly.