Network Sites: Inside Self-Storage Modern Car Care
Profesional Door Dealer
Search  
Weekly E-mail Newsletter 

Proposed safety legislation causes controversy

By Lauren Vasquez
03/31/2008
Continued from page 3

The disagreement over UL’s approval of a trolley-based door that does not use an external secondary reversal system – and the industry’s measured response to clarifying 325 to prove UL’s decision was indeed a sound one – has led Chamberlain to team up once again with consumer groups. The result: The Garage Door Opener Standard and the controversial language that outlines non-contact technology specifically as the standard for safety when it comes to residential garage doors.

Whether or not it passes, the opposing sides do agree on one thing – UL325 needs clarification.

If the proposed safety bill does not pass, Karasek says Chamberlain will persist in getting the UL standard refined by any means necessary — including using legislation if DASMA and UL continue to drag their feet on the issue. “We do not believe the industry, through DASMA, is capable of making a recommendation to UL for clarifying the rules,” explains Karasek. “They’re all so worried about Congress [getting involved in regulating the industry], but no one is talking about safety — except Chamberlain.”

Giarratana assures that safety is also the top priority at Marantec, and challenges legislation that prescriptively calls one technology “the standard.” If it passes, “We will continually oppose it and any naming of technology [in bill language],” Giarratana says. “At a recent DASMA meeting, it was agreed that UL needs to tighten up UL325 — and we support that at Marantec. We also support whatever technology that meets those standards, as long as the benchmarks and highest safety standards that we support for the consumer, homeowners and children are met or exceeded.”

Karasek maintains that Chamberlain simply does not believe force-sensing or contact technology alone is safe enough to keep children from being killed. “We compare it to the automotive industry. When they introduced airbags, it was a great improvement in safety – but they did not take away seatbelts to save money. The only reason to take away IRs is to save a few bucks.”

 

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4


Share this article: Email, Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Yahoo!MyWeb, Windows Live Favorites, Furl
RSS Add this article feed to: RSS, My Yahoo, Newsgator, Bloglines

Read Comments [4]

Post a Comment

Email Email this article Comment Add a comment
Print Printer version Reprints Order reprints
RSS RSS Feed Bookmark Bookmark article





   

Subscribe to Professional Door Dealer Magazine
First Name Last Name
Email

Sponsored LinksProfessional Door Dealer