Re: Swiming pool alarm

["Dennis" <djr-google.djrlar@xxxxxxxx>]

Frank,

Apology accepted, and I agree with your point regarding by-passing
safety devices for the reasons you stated. I will note however, that
the timer solution you mentioned also violates the code and would not
be permitted during inspection, thus would have to be done after the
inspection, and thus   also violates the letter of the code. The
safety issue isn't access to the pool area, via the open sliding glass
door walls, but rather someone falling into the pool unintentionally,
be it a child or adult. The solution needs to be a system that
monitors this occurrence. I also find it ironic that the code includes
the provision that any door that is self closing, and has the handle
at least 54 inches high, does not have to be alarmed. This was clearly
done to allow the doors to the screened cage area to be exempt from
the alarm requirement. DA!! Convenient for the pool maintenance
company's, but hardly safe for most children, or even adults that
could, without permission, enter the pool area. As I said, before, the
wrong solution for a very real problem. I bet it wouldn't be hard to
find a number of alternative solutions that would work far better, but
that would not pass the current code inspection.  These comments were
definitely not aimed at you, but at the rediculous codes currently in
place.

Dennis Raher



Frank Olson wrote:
> Dennis wrote:
> > Frank, Why did I know that you would react without even asking any
> > thing. Well, first I don't have any children. Second, I have visited
> > over 30 homes, both models and owned homes, and without a single
> > exception either the oener has disconnected the alarm, or the builder
> > has indicated that the alarm can be disconnected to allow the pool
> > doors to be left open. Yes I am all in favor of protecting children
> > against pool accidents, but this approach is rediculous. Most homes in
> > FL are designed to have the pool area as a focal point with large
> > sliding doors opening onto the pool area. These alarms do not allow
> > you to even leave these doors open when you want to. You have to
> > leave all doors closed at all times!  That's what I consider
> > rediculous.  This code is a case of excellent intent, but rediculous
> > implimentation.  If most people are disabling them, because they are
> > not useable, as appears to be the case, then the code accomplishs
> > nothing, and should be replaced with a better solution.  I don't
> > expect someone with your reactionary bent to be able to understand
> > this line of reasoning.
>
>
> Dennis:
>
> I apologize for over-reacting.  I see this every day, though.  People
> bypassing life-safety devices because they "false" or are a "nuisance"
> or they're too cheap to properly have them serviced.  Put the alarm
> contacts on a timer if you have to "bypass" them.  Heck, even one of
> those cheap mechanical ones will do.  When the timer counts down after
> an hour the doors will re-arm.  If you want to add some time, turn the
> knob again.  If you permanently bypass the doors, you may live to regret
> it and that's all I'm worried about.