CA garage door reversal testing failure notice

[Garry Sorrells]

Stumbled across a notice that CA requires from those servicing garage doors must follow.
It makes you think that a HI will, at some time in the future, be required to post the same notice. With other states following CA example.
(((Edited for posting))))
(http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=19001-20000&file=19890-19891)
CA Code
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 19890-19891 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=19001-20000&file=19890-19891 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=19001-20000&file=19890-19891)

(e) On and after January 1, 1993, any person hired to service or
repair any residential automatic garage door opener shall, upon
completion of the service or repair, if any, determine whether it
reverses upon contact with a rigid two-inch high obstacle placed on
the surface beneath the garage door. If the residential automatic
garage door opener does not pass the test, the person shall complete
and conspicuously affix to the residential automatic garage door
opener, a red certificate as follows:

WARNING!

This garage door opener, when tested on this date, did not reverse
upon contact with a two-inch high rigid obstacle placed on the
surface beneath the garage door, and may not be in compliance with
the safety standards relating to automatic reversing devices as set
forth in Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 19890) of Part 3 of
Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code.

Address (location of ______________________
automatic garage ______________________
door opener): ______________________
Manufacturer (if known): ______________________
Date of manufacture ______________________
(if known): ______________________
Serial No. (if any): ______________________
Model No. (if any): ______________________
(signed) __________________ (date) _______________
(print name) _____________________________________
(firm name and address) __________________________

[Rick Cantrell]

Sounds like a good idea to post that on a defective opener.
Thanks

[Garry Sorrells]

It made me think a little about liability and general safety.
An HI or any trade finds an opener not reversing and fails to inform the owner for any reason is there any liability attached? Initially yo think not then you start to ponder on it.
The reversal not working correctly may be considered an immediate safety hazard.
Since you do not know when the next child/pet is coming along to test it.
Some food for thought....

[Rick Cantrell]

I don't think it's necessarily to cut the plug off the supply cord but I think it wise to inform the owner.

[Garry Sorrells]

I wounder how many make a point to contact the owner rather than leave it to them receiving a copy of an inspection report. A trade person probably would since they would be having contact before they left the property.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

GARRY

i just bought my new ping I20 irons and man did i hit them better and farther then my old 1993 ping zing irons--i think technology had to do a lot with the advancement. don't you think CA can update that 1993 notice. how we all test garage door safety reverse is obvious from another post on this subject. i don't use the wood--sorry--i use my arms and a roll of paper towels--think this is more like a childs head then a 2 x 4--just my take--

cvf

[Bruce King]

I wonder how many have done the test with a "2x4" instead of the 2 inch thick item that notice requires......

The other problem I see is that it says to post the notice on the opener itself. Who is going to see it up there except mechanically minded people like us?

[Garry Sorrells]

Charlie,
Each to their own choice.


Bruce,
It states "...a rigid two-inch high obstacle...".
Which is notto any other testing standard. I figured made up their own since they thought a 2x4 was actually 2 inches thick. So much for CA legislature intelligence. I am sure it was a knee jerk reaction. I guess their heart was in the right place. Just wish the bozos took the time to actually understand what they were dealing with. But why should it be any different than recent history in congress. Pass a bill so you can find out what is in it.

I was wondering when someone would pick up on "...conspicuously affix to the residential automatic garage door opener, ..." . I guess they figures that the operator was the the problem so that is where you put the notice. Though in their defense in CA they were seeing single doors and not sectional where the operator was on the side of the door and not on the ceiling. The better location would be to posit by the switch or on the door it self. West coast were noted for a majority of single swing doors and the east coast was noted for a majority of sectional doors. Which is a story for another day.