Useless Law
On a number of levels.
Both houses passed a bill requiring single-family homes and two-unit dwellings to install carbon monoxide detectors on all floors, including basements.
The bill exempts dwellings with no fireplace, no attached garage and no fuel-burning appliances.
Newly built dwellings would have to have the detectors wired into them. Existing homes could use battery-powered detectors.
There would be no penalties for failing to install the detectors.
First off, there isn’t any enforcement mechanism. Second, while carbon monoxide detectors may be a good idea in some homes, do we really need a blanket mandate? No. Third, what are we trying to fix here? Has there been a rash of carbon monoxide deaths of which I am unaware?
We need a part time legislature.
I have been saying for YEARS that we need a part-time legislature.
Hmmm… maybe I should run for office, with that as one of my campaign planks?
Posted by Strings on January 29, 2010 at 0121 hrs
Is the government going to provide me with a voucher so I can afford to put all these CO detectors in my house? If they can give TV set-top boxes away like candy, they surely can afford something as LIFESAVING as CO detectors! Hell, throw in some smoke detectors while they’re at it. I want the really cool ones that talk. Friggin’ joke!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0209 hrs
Are you against all building codes, then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0632 hrs
The bill slaps a minimum $25 penalty for non-compliance, and goes as high as $500. Here’s the enforcement mechanism: a tenant rats out his landlord to the state.
grumps…you’re an idiot. This isn’t just for new construction, this is for existing homes. The bill requires one per floor, and at a cost of about $25 a pop, that’s $75 to me thanks to my government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0747 hrs
At some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves. Passing a blanket law like this are stupid. If someone wants to risk dying because of CO in their house and no detector, I don’t care. It’s their choice. I shouldn’t have to care, and I shouldn’t have to have *another* law because some people want the government to “take care of everyone” like it’s their mommy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0750 hrs
We need a part time legislature.
Thank you very much. I’ve supported this idea for some time, and I’m glad to hear that there is at least someone else out there who thinks about it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that it would be a guy from Texas….
Just think about how much money the state could save in salary and benefits, not to mention that we would eliminate the need of the legislature to always be doing something in order to justify their existance (i.e. naming state microbes, carbon monoxide alarm mandates etc.)
On the topic posted. Come on, really?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0815 hrs
We need a part time legislature.
No argument from me there. In fact we need all part time legislatures, both state and federal. If we had them we wouldn’t be getting bankrupted by a grinning ninny from Chicago who thinks we have 57 states!
As to the issue of CO detectors: I put one in my house a long time ago - all on my own. That’s how it should work. Americans deciding on their own to protect themselves from harm.
One consideration that was probably not taken into account is the number of fire department call-outs that will be happening once everyone has these devices installed. In my county the FDs are called out about once every two weeks for someone who’s CO detector is beeping. Almost every time there is no problem with anything except the malfunctioning CO detector. I guess our full time fire departments are having a problem since there really aren’t many fires to put out anymore, thanks to improvements in building codes and fire safety education. This should be called the ‘Full Employment for Fire Departments” law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0833 hrs
Are you against all building codes, then?
What a bullshit straw man argument!
Your assumption is that all building codes are created equal; that the order of magnitude of necessessity for safety is the same. Surely you’re not suggesting that paint chipping on the outside of a house requires the same degree of concern by the government as a standardized threshold for a load bearing i-beam in a basement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0834 hrs
This should be called the ‘Full Employment for Fire Departments” law.
It won’t be the first one. You’re correct. Housing built in the last 25 years or so, while not “fireproof,” is less likely to go up in flames.
So a lot of fire departments adopted rules and policies to keep firemen employed.
Ever take a look at the ‘fire code standards’ writers?
Posted by dad29 on January 29, 2010 at 0908 hrs
Unfortunately, the original news article is no longer available through the link. But it seems to me that this law is not intended to punish current homeowners or intrude more deeply into their lives, but to protect consumers. Since there is no enforcement mechanism, it appears that the only time compliance would come into play is when a residence is sold or rented out to tenants. Those are certainly different scenarios than being forced to buy smoke detectors for every floor of the home you’ve lived in or plan to live in for 25 years. As for the number of CO related incidents, I can’t speak for your area, but here in the Washington, DC Metro area (DC, MD, VA), it seems there is a news story on the television regarding CO poisoning at least once of month; it is a growing problem here.
To me, it’s no different than the requirement for smoke detectors. They’re highly recommended but only required when selling or renting a property. Is that such a bad thing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0944 hrs
To me, it’s no different than the requirement for smoke detectors. They’re highly recommended but only required when selling or renting a property. Is that such a bad thing?
Yes. If a buyer of a home wants smoke detectors added they have two options: 1) Say “no deal unless you add smoke detectors” or 2) buy the things themselves.
The government doesn’t need to be involved at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Ah, but in real estate sales, the “burden” is not on the buyer, it’s on the seller. The buyer has the option to disable it (or remove the battery) if they choose to.
I’m sensing your objection (my perception only here) is not about the law itself, but that the government has passed it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1006 hrs
laker. There should be no burden on the seller for this. If the buyer wants smoke detectors they can demand it. Last time I checked, you can demand all kinds of things when you’re buying a house, you just have to be willing to walk.
So from that perspective, yes, the government should not have passed this stupid law. My specific objection is that people need to be responsible for themselves. The government shouldn’t be telling people specifically how many freaking smoke or CO detectors you need in your house. It’s ridiculous, it’s stupid and it’s intrusive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1011 hrs
“My specific objection is that people need to be responsible for themselves. The government shouldn’t be telling people specifically how many freaking smoke or CO detectors you need in your house. It’s ridiculous, it’s stupid and it’s intrusive.”
OK. Let’s put aside the real estate sales transaction portion aside. Do you still object to detectors being placed in rental properties? (I would understand your personal objection if you’re a property owner of rental properties). The argument regarding people being responsible is a two way street; being responsible for themselves or doing the next responsible right thing (as a landlord/seller). Unfortunately, people are not perfect, and as a result, often fail…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1034 hrs
“We need a part time legislature.”
Amen!
Posted by Iron Brigade Warrior on January 29, 2010 at 1143 hrs
Government and politicians know what’s best for us and we should be thankful for this common sense law which hurts no one. This will save lives! I thought all of you conservatives we’re pro-life, well this is pro-life so what’s the problem?
If you’re rich enough to buy a pickup truck, snowmobile, fishing boat and big screen TV to watch football on, then pony up the few bucks to save your own life. It’s a shame that government has to force you people to do this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1159 hrs
Here is the problem as I see it. They need to be hardwired so that the tenant or the home owner cannot “forget” to replace the batteries. We are legislating stupid. I have one of these in my home and I installed smoke detectors on each floor. Key here is that I did. I cared enough about myself and my family to supply, install, and check them regularily. I cared. I also cared enough to repaint just to make sure I encapsulated any lead paint that may be bleeding through the 150 year old walls. The concept escapes me that you hold your life and the lives of your children in such low regard that you would not take basic steps to safeguard them…and that govt. needs to legislate that someone else pay for it.
Posted by fishaddict on January 29, 2010 at 1200 hrs
Dismissing the ridiculousness of the legislation for a moment…
Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but how can it possibly make sense to “hard-wire” a CO2 detector? If memory serves me, don’t the detectors have a limited life span (5-7 years) before needing to be replaced? If that is the case, wouldn’t detectors that plug-in (with battery back-up) be the best option?
When plug-in detectors need to be replaced (as I just did in my house - of my own choosing!) you pull it out and plug the new one in and test it… DONE! With a hard-wired detector it seems there would be a lot more work involved - not even mentioning that they are generally more expensive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1255 hrs
How many false alarms will Fire Departments be called out on because of this? You drive your mower into the garage and shut it off, the wind direction carries the fumes through the screen door into the house and off goes the alarm. The FD arrives pokes and inspects for 4 hours finds nothing, but fearing a lawsuit informs you and your entire family to stay in a hotel until they can properly confirm the reading.
A waste of recources I would rather have the FD training back at the station or responding to a real emergency.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1257 hrs
Laker.
In a landlord/tenant relationship:
A) If you’re looking to rent an apartment, and you see it doesn’t have detectors…guess what…you’re free to rent somewhere that does.
B) If it doesn’t have detectors, but you want them…guess what. You can also buy them and install them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1511 hrs
Let me clarify. By “install” I mean, “put a battery in one and stick it up on the wall”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1512 hrs
Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but how can it possibly make sense to “hard-wire” a CO2 detector? If memory serves me, don’t the detectors have a limited life span (5-7 years) before needing to be replaced? If that is the case, wouldn’t detectors that plug-in (with battery back-up) be the best option?
By hard-wired, they simply mean that they are 1) interconnected so that if one trips, they all trip - and 2) that they are primarily supplied power through the house’s 120V AC with a battery backup. They make multipurpose units now that function as smoke and CO2 detectors.
For the question in lifetime, yes, CO2 AND smoke detectors both have a limited lifespan, and need to be replaced. It’s as simple as changing a ceiling fan (or if you have the same brand, and unplugging a TV).
When I built 6 years ago, Code was to have interconnected hard-wired smoke detectors at specific locations. I added a heat detector in my kitchen above code. In the past two years I have replaced 3 of my smoke detectors with combo smoke/CO2 units. I have one in the master bedroom on the 2nd floor… why? because the CO2 portion will only signal other CO2 units, and not trip the smoke detector only units… a requirement of Code. So if there’s a build up of CO2 in my house, it will most likely be in the basement (furnace, water heater, and the fact that CO2 is heavier than ambient air), the unit in my bedroom will alarm as well.
I don’t see this being a huge deal, but it’s something that should be done through NEC code changes and building code adoption, and not state legislation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1541 hrs
I don’t care. It’s their choice. I shouldn’t have to care, and I shouldn’t have to have another law because some people want the government to “take care of everyone” like it’s their mommy.
Posted by Refrigerator Water Filter on February 03, 2010 at 0219 hrs
I have one in the master bedroom on the 2nd floor… why? because the CO2 portion will only signal other CO2 units, and not trip the smoke detector only units… a requirement of Code.
Posted by forex trading software on February 16, 2010 at 2302 hrs
The bill regulating carbon monoxide detectors has passed due to the recent number of local heating systems failing and resulting in tragedies. I read the other day in the morning news about an old couple who died due to carbon monoxide leaks.
Posted by Transition Services Agreement on February 22, 2010 at 1608 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134060
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 06:18 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:48 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).