Re: Need for pool

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob Worthy" wrote:
>
> It is only one of three options the homeowner has. Pool alarms are not
> mandated as the homeowners only option. You don't sell the equipment for the
> other options, so that is why you probably don't mention them...

That is correct.  I also don't sell scuba diving equipment so I lieft it out
of the discussion.  The OP asked about pool alarms.  He didn't ask about

> If you want US Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz phone number,
> you can talk to her about the other options since she is the one
> that sponsored the bill in Florida when she was a Florida senator...

I didn't ask for her phone number and I really don't care who sponsored the
bill.  Had I been interested in knowing that I;d have looked it up online just
like you did.

> Any alarm contractor that installs pool alarms is
> completely out of their mind...

That's your opinion which is certainly worth all I paid for it.

> Why would one take the liability of a child's
> death for what, 50-100-200 bucks?...

Installing pool alarms doesn't make you liable for anything.  Screwing up
might make you liable, in which case I suggest you consider another line ofr
work, such as janitorial services.

> Those alarms are disabled and/or removed
> the minute someone moves in but you are still the contractor of record...

Yep, I believe they frequently are removed or disabled.  Nevertheless, selling
them or installing them doesn't make you liable.  If you're scared of
lawsuits, perhaps you should brush up on your installation skills and/or your
legal knowledge.

> Until there is an annual inspection and certification requirement, such as
> on a fire alarm system, no one should touch them...

If there was such a requirement many homeowners would simply disable the units
each time you left until the day before your next visit.

> The devices should be deemed a piece of life safety equipment
> and treated as such...

On that much we agree.  I believe they should also be part of a system -- not
the simple, stand-alone devices we see today.  However, UL in its infinite
wisdom seems to think otherwise.

> It is a moot issue since we all know the requirement will
> never happen on a residential application...

You know no such thing.  All it takes is the death of a senator's child at a
home with a disabled device.

> If you want to make a comparison on the issue, simply ask what
> a pool company's required liability insurance coverage is and
> then compare that to yours...

I don't install any more so the comparison doesn't exist.  However, when I was
installing we carried a $2 million liability package.  I have no idea how much
pool contractors carry though I suppose it's more.

> .... Then do a reality check on your conscience.

Since when did you develop a conscience?  Regardless, the is nothing ethically
or morally wrong with providing a device which has the capability of warning
homeowners that their child has opened the door leadinjg to the pool.  On the
contrary, refusing to do so because you fear for your own financial well-being
smacks of greed wrapping itself in the cloth of morality.

> At least it does with me when I know that these devices,
> in most cases, are something that are being disabled
> immediately after they get the pool inspection.

I know that there are people who disable them.  However, every person who
actually uses the things provides a measure of protection that would not
otherwise exist.  It is far more likely that child will drown because someone
like you refuses to provide protection than because someone else offers a
state approved and UL-listed form of protection.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>