# Another fail inspection!



## RJJ (Dec 12, 2009)

Just can't get it right!


----------



## jar546 (Dec 12, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Typical ignorance


----------



## Code Neophyte (Dec 12, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

But they did such a nice job routering the edges of that top rail!!   :cry:


----------



## brudgers (Dec 12, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

For a house, it's the code that's got it wrong.


----------



## JBI (Dec 12, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

One of my pet-peeves is graspable handrails.


----------



## jim baird (Dec 12, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

...and likely no room for a car to pull in and close door now.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I'm sure they have every intention of closing in those risers - probably just need a new router bit after chewing up all of that treated pine!   :lol:


----------



## peach (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

it's all "temporary" I assume..


----------



## brudgers (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> One of my pet-peeves is graspable handrails.


The IRC and IBC are full of pet peeves.

That's the problem.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> John Drobysh said:
> 
> 
> 
> > One of my pet-peeves is graspable handrails.


The IRC and IBC are full of pet peeves.

That's the problem.

Thanks to litigation and people with a lack of common sense.  Oh and don't forget the injured and dead people.

Time for a true story from my memory bank:  I was able to get information from a witness.

I worked part time for years as a paramedic on nights and weekends.  One memorable call was for a fall victim.  An older lady was dropped off in front of her house which had 5 risers leading up to the front porch.  The driver asked her if she needed some help getting in the house and she stated no.  He asked again and she said no, she would be fine.  They watched her walk up the steps and toward the top she lost her balance.  The handrails were not graspable and similar in width to the ones shown.  They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries.  When I got there she was having snoring respirations, unconcious and bleeding from the back of her head profusely.  We packaged her, I intubated her to ventilate her and delivered her to the hospital within 10 minutes.  She died a few hours later of a subdural hematoma.

I won't forget that.  I won't forget the look of guilt on the driver of the car who wanted to help but was not assertive enough.

These codes are here for a reason.  Take them seriously.

So if you think the residential codes are too hard to comply with then you are sadly mistaken.  Maybe you have not eaten a piece of humble pie in a while.


----------



## RJJ (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I agree the riser need to be closed. Not so much for a child getting stuck, but because they can be a tripping issue.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

A graspable handrail on someone else's house would not have made any difference.

On the other hand if everyone was required to where a crash helmet, she might still be alive.

The handrails like that shown are reasonable for dwellings.

We don't outlaw driving because people die, either.


----------



##  (Dec 13, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Ok JD, tell brudgers how much sense he's not making.  And JD, don't forget to check it for spelling. :lol:


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

tiger -

I may be a 'Master of the Obvious', but it would be a waste of even my less-than-precious time to point anything out to ol' brudgers.  :roll:

Too set in his ways, too stubborn in the face of reality to accept his position as untenable.   

Poor guy didn't even realize that by 'pet-peeve' I meant one thing I always look for, NOT one that I wish weren't there.  :?  Maybe some day he'll realize how different the world is today compared with the good old days of his youth... NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!  :lol:


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Why would this stairway have to be built with treated material, it's a garage, is't above grade? Graspable handrail and kickers, is there anything else to fail?


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> tiger - I may be a 'Master of the Obvious', but it would be a waste of even my less-than-precious time to point anything out to ol' brudgers.  :roll:
> 
> Too set in his ways, too stubborn in the face of reality to accept his position as untenable.


A position held on the basis of ethics, is never untenable.

To give it up because it is unpopular merely demonstrates a lack of character.

As far eliminating hazards from the home goes, a person is far less likely to die falling down stairs than from intentionally shooting themselves with a firearm.



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Poor guy didn't even realize that by 'pet-peeve' I meant one thing I always look for, NOT one that I wish weren't there.  :?  Maybe some day he'll realize how different the world is today compared with the good old days of his youth... NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!  :lol:


I apologize for failing to assume you did not know how to properly employ "pet peeve" in a sentence.

When solid reasonably safe construction such as depicted in the photograph does not meet the code, the problem is the code.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Why would this stairway have to be built with treated material, it's a garage, is't above grade? Graspable handrail and kickers, is there anything else to fail?


Doesn't meet the pet peeve requirement.


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



"I apologize for failing to assume you did not know how to properly employ "pet peeve" in a sentence."

pet peeve

NOUN:

Informal

Something about which one frequently complains; a particular personal vexation.

My _frequent complaint_, my _particular personal vexation_ is that after more than 6 years in the Code as a REQUIREMENT, there are still so many 'contractors' who insist on ignoring the adopted code...

Now, what were you saying about my linguistic knowledge?


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> A graspable handrail on someone else's house would not have made any difference.On the other hand if everyone was required to where a crash helmet, she might still be alive.
> 
> The handrails like that shown are reasonable for dwellings.
> 
> We don't outlaw driving because people die, either.


No, but they have to have their seat belt on, and the car needs all kinds of safety design and equipment.  A handrail is useless if you can't grab it, no matter how pretty it looks or how put out you would be to actually fail something that looks so good.

Good luck defending reasonable in court.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> No, but they have to have their seat belt on, and the car needs all kinds of safety design and equipment.  A handrail is useless if you can't grab it, no matter how pretty it looks or how put out you would be to actually fail something that looks so good.


In the anecdote upon which defense of the code has been based, the sweet little old lady was carrying groceries.

If you don't use the handrail, it's profile doesn't make any difference.

On the other hand, if she had been properly harnessed and on belay then she might have been saved.



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Good luck defending reasonable in court.


My comment was that the code requirements are absurdly excessive.

That's not the sort of thing one needs to defend in court.

If you want to eliminate falls on stairs, eliminate stairs.


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Brudgers wrote: _"In the anecdote upon which defense of the code has been based, the sweet little old lady was carrying groceries._

_If you don't use the handrail, it's profile doesn't make any difference."_

From the OP: "They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries."

Next!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Risers may be compliant if the total rise is less than 30 inches.

Agree handrails are non-compliant

R311.5.3.3 Profile.

....... Open risers are permitted, provided that the opening between treads does not permit the passage of a 4-inch diameter (102 mm) sphere.

Exceptions:

2.	The opening between adjacent treads is not limited on stairs with a total rise of 30 inches (762 mm) or less.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers, your ignorance amazes me.  There is a hell of a lot more that you don't know or hear about than what you do.  I am one person and I can tell you that this is not the only fatalitiy from falling down a set of steps that I had as a call.  I am only one person and can think of many.  This one sticks out because of the eyewitness account.

I would love to plan review your work.  You are apparently smarter than the codes and sound quite full of yourself.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> brudgers, your ignorance amazes me.  There is a hell of a lot more that you don't know or hear about than what you do.  I am one person and I can tell you that this is not the only fatalitiy from falling down a set of steps that I had as a call.  I am only one person and can think of many.  This one sticks out because of the eyewitness account.I would love to plan review your work.  You are apparently smarter than the codes and sound quite full of yourself.


There's nothing ignorant about it at all.

I know people die from falls.

I just recognize handrail requirements for dwellings for the knee jerk reation they are.

I'm not suggesting that handrails be eliminated from the code.

Only pointing out that the handrail in the picture is plenty safe for a dwelling.

I'm not criticizing you for enforcing the code, either.

I'm merely saying that the code is bad...and bad because over regulates in areas where it doesn't make a statistically measurable difference.

Just because the code is a certain way, doesn't mean it ought to be that way.

Granny didn't die because the handrails weren't graspable.

She's dead because she hit her head in the wrong way while trying to carry groceries up steps in the dark.

You could just as easily blame it on improper lighting levels, or anyone of a host of other factors.

Correlation is not causation, even though the I-codes are constructed as if it were.


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Which part of "They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries." don't you understand?


----------



## fatboy (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers.......WOW.....since you can't understand graspable handrails, I am glad that you are not a building official, and I'm glad you are in Alabama. Although, I'm thinking that doing a plan review on something of your design could be fun........

"Plenty safe for a dwelling"? Maybe for you, but obviously not for Granny, or perhaps Gramps, or the 4 year old, or someone with a disability.........


----------



## mueller (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Enough with the hand rails already!!!!!!

We all know what is required.

What’s next fart fan terminations?????

Anything but  attic stairs and SFD sprinklers is fine by me.


----------



## vegas paul (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

mueller - Could a set of structural strap nets made those stairs compliant?  :lol:


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Which part of "They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries." don't you understand?


The part where it goes from an internet story about a tragic isolated incident to a code requirement leading to the rejection of a reasonably safe and well constructed garage stair.

I personally knew someone who slipped while taking a shower in the bathtub, hit his head, and died.

Apparently it's amazing that I am able to go on without demanding that grab bars be installed in every residential bathroom from now until the end of time.

Two years ago, two of my son's friends were riding with their father in a golf cart.  He got distracted and drove into the pond on their property.  All three drowned.

Somehow I don't think advocating for a Coast Guard requirement for personal flotation devices in golf carts is an appropriate response.

If you want to prevent people from falling down stairs, ban stairs.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> brudgers.......WOW.....since you can't understand graspable handrails, I am glad that you are not a building official, and I'm glad you are in Alabama. Although, I'm thinking that doing a plan review on something of your design could be fun........"Plenty safe for a dwelling"? Maybe for you, but obviously not for Granny, or perhaps Gramps, or the 4 year old, or someone with a disability.........


What you fail to grasp is that there is a difference between believing that the code is bad and disregarding it.


----------



## pyrguy (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> John Drobysh said:
> 
> 
> 
> > I happened to be there back in the old SBCCI days when the gentleman that got this code change through showed up at every code hearing on his own dime to lobby. He had tacks of documentation to prove his point. It took him years of going to all three code bodies to get this done. There were no theatrics or sob stories just hard plain facts backed up by data from insurance companies and OSHA and various other agencies.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

OSHA data wouldn't be relevant to a dwelling, which is what my posts are about.

You can look up mortality statisics at CDC.

Here is a link for 2006.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

You can see age based fall data on page 35.

Of the 21,000 fall deaths, about 80% were people over the age of 65.

To the extent that stairs are a contributing factor, it's stairs themselves which are the problem.


----------



##  (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Well folks, we have been duped.  At first I thought Jeff was right and brudgers is just an idiot.  Having observed brudgers's replies on this and other threads I have come to realize that he is twisting our collective noses.  Brudgers espouses mean spirited, nonsensical diatribe not worthy of a reply.

Brudgers purports to be an Alabama Architect but is more likely a failed draftsman using a computer located in a prison library.  He gives us ignorance and deserves ignorance in return.  Ignore brudgers.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is just that an opinion until they can get the code changed therefore we continue to enforce the provisions of the code as written and adopted.

As far as brudgers is concerned, he is a registered architect in two states, both Florida and Alabama.  I don't agree with his position; I have let him know that and he has explained his side.  I can actually share in some of his opinions but obviously not all.  I know where he is coming from and understand his thought process.  I just don't agree with him

Many of us will never agree with each other and will have to agree to disagree just as Tigerloose and I disagree on the F-1 for a commercial kitchen.

I already made some harsh comments and don't want this to start going downhill.


----------



## RJJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I am suppose to re inspect these stairs today, so I will post a new photo and see how they did.

4 pages of debate! Wow! Sure glad it wasn't a stairway to the attic! :lol:


----------



## RJJ (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Jeff: Sometimes we need to step back and agree to disagree! No matter what some good points have been raised.


----------



## JBI (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

tiger - Where's the fun in that?  :roll:

I have a stray cat that lives in the woods behind my house, I ignore him but he doesn't go away.  :?

I tried like he<< to ignore the illegal activities of a despot, and it took eight (looooooong) years for him to go away.  :shock:

I have tried to ignore my wife and she won't go away. She just wants to feed that d@m^ cat!   

No, I vote for engaging brudgers in heated debate!  

An easy target, I'll grant you, but isn't that what 'target practice' is all about? If we can keep our cool while discussing these issues with the 'brudgers' of the world, imagine how well we will handle the typical PITA Homeowner when they whine about code requirements they don't think should apply to them.  :lol:


----------



## jar546 (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Yeah, no debate, no fun, no learning.

I never heard of open risers being a trip hazard.  Always thought it was to protect kids from falling through, hence the 4" rule which means you can have a thin strip running across the open riser.  That would be a trip hazard too but code compliant.


----------



## JBI (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Actually I had heard it was kids sticking their heads through the open risers from the back to 'scare' each other and subsequently getting their head/neck stepped on...


----------



##  (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

JD,

Arguing with brudgers is like playing chess with a monkey.  You get him into checkmate and he swallows the King.

It is the mean comments I've seen from him that have no place here.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				tigerloose said:
			
		

> JD,Arguing with brudgers is like playing chess with a monkey.  You get him into checkmate and he swallows the King.
> 
> It is the mean comments I've seen from him that have no place here.


To make it up to you, I've added $50 to your account.

http://www.sanrio.com/


----------



## jim baird (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Now I think I get it.

brudgers is this forum's resident curmudgeon, gadfly, iconoclast, and/or contrarian, maybe Devil's advocate.

The old forum had a good one of those named George Roberts who liked to rub posters' fur in funny ways, but he did make us think at the same time.

Such participation keeps us from "gargling in a rat-race choir", to quote B.Dylan.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is just that an opinion until they can get the code changed therefore we continue to enforce the provisions of the code as written and adopted.As far as brudgers is concerned, he is a registered architect in two states, both Florida and Alabama.  I don't agree with his position; I have let him know that and he has explained his side.  I can actually share in some of his opinions but obviously not all.  I know where he is coming from and understand his thought process.  I just don't agree with him
> 
> Many of us will never agree with each other and will have to agree to disagree just as Tigerloose and I disagree on the F-1 for a commercial kitchen.
> 
> I already made some harsh comments and don't want this to start going downhill.


From my standpoint, the issue with the photograph is that it's bad design.

The lack of code compliant handrails is not the hazard.

The change of level is.

The best way to reduce the risk of falling is to eliminate the change in level...though even that won't reduce the risk to zero.

Old people can fall and die anywhere.

And that's by and large who falls and dies.

Complying with the code as written comes with the territory, and I'm able to distinguish my personal likes and dislikes from the needs and goals of my clients.

You can add two handrails, three guards, and closed risers to the stair; build them out of titanium; and cover it with a full NFPA 13 system.

It won't significantly reduce the risk.

And in my opinion, code provisions that don't significantly reduce risk are bad code provisions.


----------



## jim baird (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

"...And that's by and large who falls and dies..."

It is statistical fact that past a certain age (can't provide that, no statistician I) the greatest health risk to Americans is falling and consequent injury.

That's one reason my wife, as a health educator, teaches tai chi, qi gong, and other balance exercises to seniors.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				jim baird said:
			
		

> "...And that's by and large who falls and dies..."It is statistical fact that past a certain age (can't provide that, no statistician I) the greatest health risk to Americans is falling and consequent injury.
> 
> That's one reason my wife, as a health educator, teaches tai chi, qi gong, and other balance exercises to seniors.


For older Americans, it's a significant non-medical cause of mortality.

But it's not even close to being a leading cause of death.

You can see CDC mortality statistics at my earlier link.


----------



## JBI (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Now we're making progress... DARN! It was starting to be fun...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



> code provisions that don't significantly reduce risk are bad code provisions


Brudgers; I see your point that if there are no stairs there would not be slips and falls on stairs, but to say a properly designed handrail when used will not reduce the number of falls on stairs is irrational. There has been a number of times where a handrail kept me from slipping down an icy set of steps in this climate.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I've been going up and down the steps to my rear deck, which are just like these, for 15 years, often carrying groceries, trash, or cats, and never realized they were such a death-trap.  At least the ones in the picture didn't have wet leaves or algae on them.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> > code provisions that don't significantly reduce risk are bad code provisions


Brudgers; I see your point that if there are no stairs there would not be slips and falls on stairs, but to say a properly designed handrail when used will not reduce the number of falls on stairs is irrational. There has been a number of times where a handrail kept me from slipping down an icy set of steps in this climate.

Again, my point is regarding what constitutes a "properly designed handrail."

Having a handrail is the critical factor...and I've never advocated not having them.

Indeed requring some sort of handrail on both sides would probably increase safety more than having one graspable handrail on either side.

BTW, the hazard is the icy steps not the particular shape of the railing.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!



> BTW, the hazard is the icy steps not the particular shape of the railing.


Agree but the ability to wrap my hand around (grasp) the handrail is what aided me in catching myself thus preventing the fall down the hazardous icy steps.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

"BUBBLE WRAP" never leave home with out it! or at least go down a flight of stairs without it :lol: !


----------



## brudgers (Dec 15, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Perhaps if the rail wasn't there, you would avoid the icy steps altogether and reduce the hazard.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 16, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I have seen this type application before in a SFR split entry stairway where the short wall betwen stairs has a deco trimmed 1x8 at the top of the wall without handrails, real common not to see a handrail from the upper floor down to the front door platform. In most cases the shortwall is about 42" tall exceeding handrail required height of 34"-38". All trimmed out with the moving van coming down the street!


----------



## RJJ (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Boy we can really go off on a set of steps! Sure glad they aren't connecting to the attic! :lol:


----------



## JBI (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

RJJ - Keep that up and I'm going to start a thread on attic stairs...     :shock:       :lol:


----------



## RJJ (Dec 17, 2009)

Re: Another fail inspection!

:lol: It is a minimum code!


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

If this was a historic building with historic conditions, I would be the kind of ____________ to drop in the U.S. Department of Interior regulations regarding work on Historic Buildings - into the mix.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 16, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

"RJJ - Keep that up and I'm going to start a thread on attic stairs... "

Sorry John, you're too late.........someone beat you to the punch.

Attic "stairs", Round Two!  :mrgreen:


----------



## Mule (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Maybe we need to start breeding people with bigger hands! :roll:


----------



## Mango (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I like you brudgers! the problem nowdays is common sense is not all that common.


----------



## north star (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

*...and adopted "minimum code standards" are not met!*


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

I've been figuring out what bothers me about the IRC handrail requirements.

Instead of just writing the damn thing to allow the 2x railings that make compliance easy, the Ick goes out of it's way to disallow them.

Yet it allows many varieties of unsafe configurations at the end of a flight.

It will allow a really expensive and grossly unsafe conditions because of aesthetics, and disallow a reasonably safe cheap condition based on pet peeves.


----------



## north star (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

*As a proactive recommendation, you might consider getting actively involved in the various*

*Code Committees and the code adoption process.*

*How can ' brudgers ' make the codes better?  :?:*


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> I've been figuring out what bothers me about the IRC handrail requirements.Instead of just writing the darn thing to allow the 2x railings that make compliance easy, the Ick goes out of it's way to disallow them.
> 
> Yet it allows many varieties of unsafe configurations at the end of a flight.
> 
> It will allow a really expensive and grossly unsafe conditions because of aesthetics, and disallow a reasonably safe cheap condition based on pet peeves.


Since ICC does not "write" the code but merely publishes what it's members write, propose, re-write, re-propose, vote, etc., maybe you are blaming the wrong entity.  Maybe you should propose some code changes and fix it.


----------



## peach (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

A graspable hand rail may have made a difference for the lady who died.. maybe not..

It's in the Code, and we need to enforce it.. even if they chose to change it later.. (and some do).

The Code doesn't address other slip and fall hazards (like my street, right now)..  no requirement in the code to get rid of ice between cars (like a neighbor who got hauled away yesterday probably slipped on)..   OR even for a riser (one)..   These landing, riser, landing things are nuts..   all that to avoid putting in a stinking handrail!

Oh well.. maybe, it's just me.


----------



## north star (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

***  ...the sounds of crickets chirping ***

*long silence from Alabama...*

*** ...the continued sounds of crickets chirping ***

*No peach, it is not just you!*


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

There's no fixing the Ick.

That's why the NFPA left.

The process is bad.

The Carbon monoxide detector lobby gets detectors mandated.

The turnout and Volute lobby gets turnouts and volutes excepted.

The ICF lobby, gets twenty pages of requirements inserted.

The Ick's process isn't intended to develop public good policy.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Another fail inspection!

Brudgers,

I agree with many of your posts. I have to ask though...what is "lck"? I see you mention it alot.


----------

