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

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

"Trump could mandate free access to federally funded research papers."

Federally funded research may not be very analogous to privately funded research and standards formulation.

I think it is on topic. Many (most?) standards bodies have government employees at the table debating what should go into a standard. So if the government paid some portion of the standard development would it not bolster the case for public availability of any such standard. Maybe it’s a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't know it, nor do I have a dog in the fight.

Please knock off the incessant badgering and insults.

I do have something useful to contribute.

If you disagree with my opinions, either post respectful rebuttal, or ignore them.

[blubaju]

hey, you should be a happy thankful American, all your charts are free, whatever government printed with taxpayers money is free. But "standards", industrial or whatsever have to be paid everywhere to my knowledge. But usually the purchaser can trust the company the product is "made to standards". Yes, you are right, laws must be published AND free, many times laws request products to be "made to standards". If you do not want to buy them, do not build. As former producer I agree with your point, those "Standards" cost me a lot of money just to purchase 20 pages of By-laws and 30 lines of technical information, well not every one is that bad, but that is life. Happy New Year!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think it is on topic. Many (most?) standards bodies have government employees at the table debating what should go into a standard. So if the government paid some portion of the standard development would it not bolster the case for public availability of any such standard. Maybe it’s a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent.

I have been trying to restrict my comments to just the standards applicable to recreational boating, given that this is CF and in particular the category this thread is under. (and even more specifically ABYC, since that's what I'm most familiar with).

It seems that many of you are referring to standards more broadly, and certainly to bigger SDOs in bigger fields, so I think there's differences in view that arise from that.

Anyway... it seems that there currently aren't government officials sitting on the board of ABYC. I don't know if the ABYC receives regular and direct government funding, though government might be one of the supporters of specific studies (eg a joint project or study involving the USCG and ABYC).

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have been trying to restrict my comments to just the standards applicable to recreational boating, given that this is CF and in particular the category this thread is under. (and even more specifically ABYC, since that's what I'm most familiar with).

It seems that many of you are referring to standards more broadly, and certainly to bigger SDOs in bigger fields, so I think there's differences in view that arise from that.

Anyway... it seems that there currently aren't government officials sitting on the board of ABYC. I don't know if the ABYC receives regular and direct government funding, though government might be one of the supporters of specific studies (eg a joint project or study involving the USCG and ABYC).

Precisely, it has been my experience that ABYC is well run and does excellent work. I have been a member at the business level and applied these standards for many years, and have attended their training sessions and written their certification exams.

Based on these experiences, I believe they are truly working toward their mission to improve boater safety.

[Salty Fox]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

There are plenty of local jurisdictions in the U.S. that require following various building codes even if you're a homeowner doing work on your own home. I'm guessing most would be struck down if it impacted anyone enough to make it worthwhile to take it to court, but in general it doesn't. If anything in the U.S. we have a tyranny of a large number of local laws that are unconstitutional but not worth spending a million bucks and several years of your time to take to the Supreme Court so they stand.

Building codes are not tyrannical or even unfair. They are designed to protect the homeowner from using materials and/or construction methods that are proven to cause damage to the property and the people in them. And even then, they only apply to new construction.

However, there is an insurance angle here. Insurance lobbyists have quite a lot of influence in the development of new materials and methods, and their adoption into code. There are two reasons for this: (1) they don't want to pay out for some dummy who doesn't have the training to understand the implications of their stupid ideas; and (2) a fire at your house can spread to your neighbor's house, so it's not just the dummy who risks life and property. And we can all agree that stupid people require more supervision and oversight than everyone else.

Finally, the adoption of code into law is about protecting larger communities. Why should I have to bail out the idiots who build on a seaside cliff and then lose their house to the inevitable mudslide, or the morons who keep building in wildfire zones, or the dummies who keep building on beaches and tidewaters and then get flooded? Those aren't national emergencies--it's Darwinism in action. Not only do I not want my taxes to support their stupidity, I don't even want my home insurance premiums to cover them. Those "tyrannical" codes protect my right not to protect the dumbest people in America.

[Dahveed]

I'm coming late into this discussion, but I think standards and laws should be freely available to the public and those who are expected to adhere to these standards and rules. It's ridiculous to hold people accountable for adhering to a set of rules, but then charging them money to even know what the rules are.

While standards do cost money to create, generally they save more money than they cost by simplifying life for all that participate.

[Steve DAntonio]

Originally Posted by thinwater

In fact, this is the case with selected ASTM, ISO, ABYC, NFPA... standards etc. For example, the deadman switch on the boat must meet an ABYC standard. Tethers must meet an ISO standard. The most of the rule is typically hidden in standards that are included by reference. And who, do you think, is most involved in writing standards? Not the government and not users like us. Manufacturers.

I have been a member of ABYC, either through my own company or as an employee of another, for over 25 years. I also sit on three project technical committees (PTCs), Hull Piping, Engine and Power Train and Electrical, PTC's essentially write the standards. So, perhaps I can address some of the comments made here. I'll preface them by making it clear I am not an ABYC apologist, there is much the organization could improve upon, and I am a regular critic. While it's imperfect, it beats the alternative, which is no standard setting body, or a mandatory, government mandated standard setting body.

Committees members (are supposed to) include a preordained mix of boat builders, surveyors, consultants like me, equipment manufacturers and marine industry organization members. If a proposed change involves an increase in production cost, almost regardless of its value or safety benefit, you can imagine who lobbies against it. That is why each PTC is supposed to be balanced. Unfortunately that doesn't always work, small operators like myself are partially reimbursed for expenses to attend PTC meetings (the next one is in New Orleans in January, I will be there), and in theory support the changes we proposed to Standards on line over the past year (any ABYC member can propose changes to standards) however, we aren't compensated for our time, while those from big manufacturers are on the clock, so they are simply sent by their employers to attend, and lobby for their positions.

So, to some extent, you are correct, manufacturers drive the bus, here's one example, after installation batteries are allowed to move up to one inch. I have no knowledge of how that standard was written, but I can't imagine anyone other than a battery box manufacturer or boat builder lobbing for that allowance.

I have lobbied ABYC for years to make the Standards more accessible to boat owners. That lobbing and the efforts of others resulted in the lowered individual boat owner membership fee and a free 30 day trial online access period. ABYC beats the marine industry over the head for membership and compliance, and while it has improved they have been a tough nut to crack. I have suggested they instead aim for compliance via boat owners, advertise and educate in boat owner magazines and websites, and then rely on them to drive compliance when buying boats or having them worked on. Thus far that has fallen on deaf ears, but I'll keep trying.

To return to the original post challenge, I don't favor codifying ABYC Standards into law, the bureaucracy would, I believe, impose a burden on the industry that will simply drive up the cost of boat ownership, and thus ABYC Standards remain in the private, for fee, realm, much like ANSI, ASTM, SAE, NMEA, IEEE, ISO, NEC, NFPA. That's only fair.

If a standard is codified into law, as in the case of the A1 LP Gas Standard example, then it must be made available to anyone who wants to access it, and unless I'm mistaken, evidenced by the link, it is. Right?

I fully appreciate the frustration boat owners share on a regular basis (I responded to a similar question on another forum just hours ago) on not being able to access the Standards, when they are routinely told by people like me that boats should be built, and repaired, to meet these Standards. I routinely encourage boat owners to contact ABYC and encourage them to improve access to Standards for boat owners. If enough people do this, I suspect they will listen and agree on a solution.

ABYC shared this with me when I asked for a comment on the subject...

The American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) in a non-profit, member organization that develops voluntary safety standards for the design, construction, maintenance, and repair of recreational boats. ABYC has been a key player in many safety improvements since its inception in 1954. From early accidents involving the lack of ignition protection, to modern issues such as Carbon Monoxide poisoning or electric shock drowning, ABYC leads the way in research and provides reasonable, attainable solutions.

www.abycinc.org/recreationalboaters is a great resource for …
• Finding out what are the Standards and how they apply on boats
• Boat system & safety checklists
• Finding a ABYC certified technician for repair and/or marine surveyor who is verified ABYC member.
• DIY projects & basic boating videos

On the homepage, by selecting the tab “Join ABYC”, boaters can access membership information – either join with a free 5-day trial membership or a recreational boater membership $180/annual dues. This level of membership is perfectly geared toward the boating consumer. Our main website (www.abycinc.org) is home to the member login, the Standards platform, ABYC education information, and other levels of ABYC membership for marine businesses and boating manufacturers.

Membership benefits include:
• 24-hour online access to the Standards, including technical help via phone and email
• Quarterly copies and online access to the Reference Point magazine
• Discounts on all classes and certifications
• Discounts on a vast library of industry publications and reports
• Use of ABYC's ever-growing photo / video library

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dahveed

I'm coming late into this discussion, but I think standards and laws should be freely available to the public and those who are expected to adhere to these standards and rules. It's ridiculous to hold people accountable for adhering to a set of rules, but then charging them money to even know what the rules are.

While standards do cost money to create, generally they save more money than they cost by simplifying life for all that participate.

Well, some may not understand the need for an organization to generate multiple revenue streams to remain sustainable.

The thought that the org should not charge for the standards would mean that to maintain revenue levels they would have to try to increase revenue elsewhere.

Where should this come from:

A) Taxpayer support?
B) Increase business membership fees? (What if pricing elasticity is such that an increase would cause some to not renew, resulting in a further revenue decrease?)
C) Spend time effort and money attempting to develop other revenue streams that may be unsuccessful resulting in even less net revenue?

Why do people believe they are entitled to something for nothing?

Of course everyone likes to be on the beneficial side of this, but why would the organization producing the standards want to be on the disadvantaged side of this?

Additionally, mY suspicion is that if this were to come to fruition, the organization would be bombarded with nuisance requests for support by individuals with no real skin in the game with nothing better to do than to argue the validity of the standards, jeopardizing the viability of the organization.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Steve DAntonio

I have been a member of ABYC, either through my own company or as an employee of another, for over 25 years

Welcome to the forum Steve.

I have enjoyed your in depth articles in professional Boat Builder and other magazines for many years.

Well worth reading.

Some of the articles can be found here:
https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/a...-boat-builder/

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think it is on topic. Many (most?) standards bodies have government employees at the table debating what should go into a standard. So if the government paid some portion of the standard development would it not bolster the case for public availability of any such standard. Maybe it’s a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent.

I've been involved with CSA, ABYC, UL and ULC. I've never seen a government employee at these meetings.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Well, some may not understand the need for an organization to generate multiple revenue streams to remain sustainable.

The thought that the org should not charge for the standards would mean that to maintain revenue levels they would have to try to increase revenue elsewhere.

Where should this come from:

A) Taxpayer support?
B) Increase business membership fees? (What if pricing elasticity is such that an increase would cause some to not renew, resulting in a further revenue decrease?)
C) Spend time effort and money attempting to develop other revenue streams that may be unsuccessful resulting in even less net revenue?

Why do people believe they are entitled to something for nothing?

Of course everyone likes to be on the beneficial side of this, but why would the organization producing the standards want to be on the disadvantaged side of this?

Additionally, mY suspicion is that if this were to come to fruition, the organization would be bombarded with nuisance requests for support by individuals with no real skin in the game with nothing better to do than to argue the validity of the standards, jeopardizing the viability of the organization.

How about mandated ABYC membership of all boaters ? The costs would be well spread out so would be minimal and the non-boater is not forced to support an endeavour in which they have no interest.

[hallejj]

Not sure I know what this discussion is about but here are some facts about laws and regulations in the US: (I was a lawyer for 40 years)

1 . All laws and regulations that are effective, i.e. legally binding on the public, are published. If they are not, they are not effective. Federal laws are published in the United States Code; regulations in the United States Code of Regulations (CFR). Both are available online and in hard copy at various libraries and on numerous websites, many of which are free. States, Cities and other governmental bodies with the power to enact laws and regulations also publish them in some form that is publicly available.

2. To be enforceable, a law or regulation must not only be publicly available but it must also be worded in a way that permits a member of the public to understand what behavior is required or prohibited. Some courts have held that regulations can be subject to copyright in the sense that the body issuing them can charge for copies. That said, the regulation is not binding on anyone unless it is available to him or her. I can only add that, in more than 40 years, I have never been unable to find and read a regulation and I have never had to pay for the privilege.

[sailingharry]

Wow. You opened a can of worms, Thinwater! 193 posts in under a week!


It is also a pet peeve of mine. Recently, Maryland tried to legally mandate that boats install ABYC compliant CO detectors. I actually have that ABYC standard, so I looked it up. It requires a UL compliant detector -- and not only is that standard "invisible," but it takes a great deal of looking to understand that the stamp on a Home Depot detector is not compliant. To this day, I don't know why not. I do know that detectors that are ABYC compliant do not necessary clearly state such, are 10 times the price of a Home Depot detector, and are made by a very small handful of manufacturers. I am about 1,000% sure that the average USCG or LEO wouldn't be able to determine the difference.



Fortunately, MD did not pass the law. And so I continue to happily use my Home Depot detector, mounted in a well protected location in my cabin. I do wish I knew exactly what ABYC doesn't like about that.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

How about mandated ABYC membership of all boaters ? The costs would be well spread out so would be minimal and the non-boater is not forced to support an endeavour in which they have no interest.

That’s an excellent idea!