This is a travesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
gadfly56 said:
It is arguable that forcing consumers to have AFCI's installed by manufacturers using standards writing organizations as a vehicle to mandate their use without proof of efficacy is a form of theft by deception.
Click to expand...

Now all that is needed is a cross-post to a class action lawyer forum....

-Jon
 
winnie said:
Now all that is needed is a cross-post to a class action lawyer forum....

-Jon
Click to expand...

yup- but you'd also need to fight these guys playing off those who blindly believe the official words of UL, as they are just as dangerous as the perpetrators and a force to be reckoned with. To get to the truth you literally have to overcome hordes of mislead professionals, ready to ferociously fight back, lest they see their convictions collapse into shambles:

http://www.arnolditkin.com/personal-injury-blog/2016/may/afcis-could-save-your-life/

https://www.houstoninjurylawyer.com/electrical-hazards-due-to-missing-afcis-and-gfcis/

But the trade saw it since the beginning (see second post):

http://www.mikeholt.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/001644.html
 
Last edited:
gadfly56 said:
Let me know, I'll buy the popcorn...
Click to expand...

mbrooke said:
yup- but you'd also need to fight these guys playing off those who blindly believe the official words of UL, as they are just as dangerous as the perpetrators and a force to be reckoned with. To get to the truth you literally have to overcome hordes of mislead professionals, ready to ferociously fight back, lest they see their convictions collapse into shambles:

http://www.arnolditkin.com/personal-injury-blog/2016/may/afcis-could-save-your-life/

https://www.houstoninjurylawyer.com/electrical-hazards-due-to-missing-afcis-and-gfcis/

But the trade saw it since the beginning (see second post):

http://www.mikeholt.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/001644.html
Click to expand...
Problem might be that law firms see more potential $$$ for themselves in representing those that have been injured then they see in any class action suit against the AFCI makers.

Spending some more $$$ in the name of a safety device (even if it doesn't do what they claim it will do) just isn't as much of a loss to the consumer as injuries and deaths are. Sure the class action suit can be a big thing for them if they get what they want - but it will be a lot harder fought case then those injury and death cases and those will be looked at as easy money to an attorney. Is a lot easier to put the blame on an installer when he did not follow the rules. The class action suit is not about following the rules but more about challenging the making of the rules.
 
kwired said:
Problem might be that law firms see more potential $$$ for themselves in representing those that have been injured then they see in any class action suit against the AFCI makers.
Click to expand...


To which the CMPs will gladly appreciate.


Spending some more $$$ in the name of a safety device (even if it doesn't do what they claim it will do) just isn't as much of a loss to the consumer as injuries and deaths are. Sure the class action suit can be a big thing for them if they get what they want - but it will be a lot harder fought case then those injury and death cases and those will be looked at as easy money to an attorney. Is a lot easier to put the blame on an installer when he did not follow the rules. The class action suit is not about following the rules but more about challenging the making of the rules.
Click to expand...

Yup- which is what we need. We need someone to challenge and audit the claims that these devices improve safety. At least evidence that a GFCI can do the same would partially suffice. But sadly challenging the mislead is the hardest battle a human being can to fight. This I know well.
 
Last edited:
mbrooke said:
We need someone to challenge and audit the claims that these devices improve safety. But sadly challenging the mislead is the hardest battle a human being can to fight. This I know well.
Click to expand...

As passionate as you are about this, who better than yourself ?

JAP>
 
jap said:
As passionate as you are about this, who better than yourself ?

JAP>
Click to expand...

I don't think I have ever received a bigger compliment :):)

But sadly, I have few dogs in this fight and lack an accredited lab. At this point I can only hope that people will catch on to the truth and questions I pose.
 
kwired said:
Problem might be that law firms see more potential $$$ for themselves in representing those that have been injured then they see in any class action suit against the AFCI makers.
Click to expand...

Who do you think a jury will be more sympathetic towards:

An attorney representing a client sitting there all bandaged up claiming we have the technology that could have prevented this but the greedy landlord refused to install it (even though he didn't have to).

OR

An attorney representing a bunch of engineer types in suits and ties talking about stuff nobody understands except the engineers.

-Hal
 
Seeing as how the "Trial of the Century" turned out, I'd pick #2.

JAP>
 
hbiss said:
Who do you think a jury will be more sympathetic towards:

An attorney representing a client sitting there all bandaged up claiming we have the technology that could have prevented this but the greedy landlord refused to install it (even though he didn't have to). ...
Click to expand...

This is the reason we will never be rid of AFCIs.

I was disappointed the NEC backed off the requirement for AFCIs on all circuits including heating equipment. With it we stood a chance of the right lawyer's house getting frozen pipes because of a nuisance trip on his furnace.
 
ActionDave said:
This is the reason we will never be rid of AFCIs.

I was disappointed the NEC backed off the requirement for AFCIs on all circuits including heating equipment. With it we stood a chance of the right lawyer's house getting frozen pipes because of a nuisance trip on his furnace.
Click to expand...

The CMPs know of the limitations, but refuse to admit them either through action or discussion. To do so would say they were wrong the whole time.

But I hope people here can see it as a tactic. ' "arrest the thief", says the thief ' Where the law exists to get rid of AFCIs, the law is being used to do the opposite because the other side knows who speaks first gets believed first.
 
There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you admit it. I think they would get a lot of respect if they did from all the people who believe the NEC was bought.

-Hal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jap said:
As passionate as you are about this, who better than yourself ?

JAP>
Click to expand...

Any fire fighter or fire investigator who could say in 10 seconds that fully sprinkled buildings that can put out a myriad of fire types will always be better than AFCI breakers that can only prevent a few types of fires that are electrical in origin.

If you want an amendment to the NEC that has a chance of passing, propose that AFCI breakers not be required to be installed in any building type, including dwellings, that has sprinklers. I'd be willing to bet the parts cost of a sprinkler system for a smaller house is less than the dozen+ AFCI needed in most places now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top