Should standards that become a part of a law be free to the public?

[Dsanduril]

Off Topic
Claims to be a marine CO Detector, seems to run $80-90

https://www.fireboy-xintex.com/marin...tector-cmd5-m/

Whether or not it complies with A-24, well, I don't have that standard. Xintex does reference the standard in their advertising, and the picture in the manual does say "marine" on the front label...

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Off Topic
Claims to be a marine CO Detector, seems to run $80-90

https://www.fireboy-xintex.com/marin...tector-cmd5-m/

Whether or not it complies with A-24, well, I don't have that standard. Xintex does reference the standard in their advertising, and the picture in the manual does say "marine" on the front label...

Nope, doesn't meet the standard. From what I can tell, saying "marine" in the manual misses the mark - the unit has to be tested to comply with A-24, and be labeled "Marine CO Detector" or words to that effect. But, yes, this seems to be one of the very few that at least market to the marine segment and imply compliance. So my $100+ comment was a touch cynical.


oh... wait... the black version appears to be compliant. And their marketing page reiterates my point -- there is only one battery powered compliant unit on the market.


But back to the point -- how do I know if a unit is compliant if I can't even tell what the requirement is? Wisconsin already makes ABYC compliance the law -- how does a newbie know what is compliant? I don't count -- I have the full library of ABYC standards and reference them regularly.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by Wood

...... standards are expensive to buy and maintain.

One of the major problems with these private organization's standards becoming law is they tend to develop standards that are a good choice for that industry - $$$$ - not the consumer.

My emphasis. Clearly the *real problem* is that the standard's orgs are "private" [and for profit] rather than "public" [free to all].

Viz NOAA charts freely available in USA.

Topo and Marine charts in Oz "pay thru the nose" from 'regulated corporate agencies'.

ie. cost recovery from users, not shared across the entire national tax spectrum.

Works fine for corporates who can "expensivise" the cost, but not so for consumers for whom a several hundred dollar standard is a lot of money for not much (if any) gain.

And, considering most are these days delivered electronically as a PDF download, so no printing and posting costs, the fees these orgs charge for a 'copy' is, IMHO outrageous.

I'm one on the "free" side of the argument...but with the above qualification that *someone* has to pay.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Out of interest, could you give us the make/model or a link to the $100 approved detector?

Prolly Xintex Fireboy

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

My emphasis. Clearly the *real problem* is that the standard's orgs are "private" [and for profit] rather than "public" [free to all].

Viz NOAA charts freely available in USA.

Topo and Marine charts in Oz "pay thru the nose" from 'regulated corporate agencies'.

ie. cost recovery from users, not shared across the entire national tax spectrum.

Works fine for corporates who can "expensivise" the cost, but not so for consumers for whom a several hundred dollar standard is a lot of money for not much (if any) gain.

And, considering most are these days delivered electronically as a PDF download, so no printing and posting costs, the fees these orgs charge for a 'copy' is, IMHO outrageous.

I'm one on the "free" side of the argument...but with the above qualification that *someone* has to pay.

Clearly you know absolutely nothing about the cost of development vs cost of distribution.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

But back to the point -- how do I know if a unit is compliant if I can't even tell what the requirement is?

Um, because the manufacturer has a deep financial and legal interest in letting you know that their product is compliant...

How do you know your new car is compliant with all applicable safety standards? You gonna spend a couple of months with all the spec handbooks, then checking everything yourself?

Unless someone's an expert in everything with a lot of time on their hands... in the modern world, we have to rely on the expertise of specialists and their prescriptions for how to make most things efficient, reliable and safe.

But in the case of the CO detectors, it seems the ABYC has made that spec available to the public (link at bottom of page text). Btw "compliance" with A-24 has as much to do with how and where the CO detectors are installed.


Whether it's Google, or the CFR - you still need to actually do the searches

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

My emphasis. Clearly the *real problem* is that the standard's orgs are "private" [and for profit] rather than "public" [free to all].

None of the standards organizations I've had dealings with (ABYC, CE, UL, ULC, CSA) are "for profit".
They are all "Not for profit" organizations.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

.But back to the point -- how do I know if a unit is compliant if I can't even tell what the requirement is? Wisconsin already makes ABYC compliance the law -- how does a newbie know what is compliant? I don't count -- I have the full library of ABYC standards and reference them regularly.

That’s because ABYC-24 references UL-2034, yet another standard behind a paywall, and you don’t have a copy of all of those.

So you have one agency that requires (by law and indirectly) UL-2034 and another federal agency, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), that has found UL-2034 to be inadequate on more than one occasion (one example). UL has updated the standard each time, but the law takes a while to update. And the taxpayer has paid for the testing that led to the knowledge that the standard was inadequate but nevertheless the standard is still hidden from the taxpayer.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Wisconsin already makes ABYC compliance the law .

Could you please provide a citation for that as I can find nothing online.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Could you please provide a citation for that as I can find nothing online.

My mistake, not Wisconsin. It is Minnesota. https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/indus...ystem-on-boats

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Completely different scenarios.
.......

Different scenarios - yes!
Different principle - no!

The problem with living by a principle is that the principle applies across the board - one can't pick and chose the individual circumstances as to when to apply the principle or otherwise.

Of course if choses not to abide by principles, then one can decide the merits of each circumstance and apply such arguments that best suit oneself.

[Dsanduril]

And for easy reference:

Motorboats, regardless of fuel type, with an *enclosed accommodation compartment must be equipped with a functioning marine CO detector system installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Per the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) standard A-24 Carbon Monoxide Detection Systems, July 2015, detectors must be located to monitor the atmosphere in the main cabin and each sleeping area. Carbon monoxide detectors manufactured prior to 2012 should be replaced.

All gasoline-powered motorboats with any *enclosed occupancy compartment must display three CO poisoning warning stickers as directed by law.

These updates must be complete by May 1, 2018 for lawful operation.

Three carbon monoxide warning stickers and an informational brochure have been mailed to MN registered boats 19 feet and greater.

Minnesota is the first state to require CO detectors in motorboats. Together we can lead our nation in reducing CO poisoning accidents while boating.

*terms defined below

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/safety/b...V5MR7NZ221VqfM

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

........

If there is a law that a used car must be safety checked when changing registration, the safety check is not free.

One is not paying to know (and understand) the law, one is paying for the service to be undertaken as required by the law. Sort of like saying LEOs should be paid because they know the law rather than for enforcing it...

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um, because the manufacturer has a deep financial and legal interest in letting you know that their product is compliant...

How do you know your new car is compliant with all applicable safety standards? You gonna spend a couple of months with all the spec handbooks, then checking everything yourself?

Unless someone's an expert in everything with a lot of time on their hands... in the modern world, we have to rely on the expertise of specialists and their prescriptions for how to make most things efficient, reliable and safe.

But in the case of the CO detectors, it seems the ABYC has made that spec available to the public (link at bottom of page text). Btw "compliance" with A-24 has as much to do with how and where the CO detectors are installed.


Whether it's Google, or the CFR - you still need to actually do the searches

Lake,


With a car, it is safe to assume that it is compliant with road regulations -- they don't sell things that look strongly like cars, but aren't compliant.


With, for instance, the CO detector, it's a harder problem. There are dozens of reasonably priced units in Home Depot, that are not compliant. There are two units sold in boat stores that "look" to be compliant, but on the face of it aren't (to be honest, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are compliant -- but I can't tell). It smells a lot like fire extinguishers -- a Kidde unit sold in Home Depot is apparently not for marine use, but there is a Kidde unit sold in West for twice the price, obviously for marine use -- but the certification/regulatory/model numbers are identical. The challenge is, fire extinguishers bought in Home Depot are legal -- and CO detectors bought there are not. How is a consumer to know? Oh, and both CO detectors are UL2034 listed. Just one is suitable for marine use, and one isn't. Or, at least, one meets the Minnesota law, and one doesn't (I am not sure that the Home Depot one is any less suitable for marine use).

By the way, the fire extinguishers? Both meet USCG for pleasure boats. But the one sold by West doesn't meet USCG for inspected boats. If I hadn't looked it up, I wouldn't know that the one sold in West wasn't compliant (in order to comply, it has to have an optional special mounting bracket that West doesn't sell).


So, to your point, do I need the standard, and do I need to look it up, to be a safe boater? Until I know another way to know, I look it up.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Lake,
(in order to comply, it has to have an optional special mounting bracket that West doesn't sell).

I have to correct myself. It was some years back I went looking for the USCG bracket, and West didn't have it. I just looked it up, and all my local stores have at least one in stock. But it still isn't included in the "marine" fire extinguisher box.