Should standards that become a part of a law be free to the public?

[transmitterdan]

I’m getting tired of being referred to as a would be thief. Do it again and I’ll report it.

I pay a lot of $ for ABYC compliant stuff and the labor trained to ABYC standards. So don’t tell me about getting anything for nothing.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I pay a lot of $ for ABYC compliant stuff and the labor trained to ABYC standards. So don’t tell me about getting anything for nothing.

There's no compliant "stuff" you buy from which ABYC derives revenue, and guess what, the labour (or their employers) pay for their own training and certification, as well as for ongoing access to the standards.

We're simply pointing out the illogic of your position re free standards, without government funding. There's no free lunch, etc.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I’m getting tired of being referred to as a would be thief. Do it again and I’ll report it.

I pay a lot of $ for ABYC compliant stuff and the labor trained to ABYC standards. So don’t tell me about getting anything for nothing.

Nobody stated or implied anything about a “thief”.

(That was a classic strawman argument.)

How does what you claim to have done entitle you to free access to standards?

ABYC does not receive any direct revenue from any ABYC compliant product sold, or any ABYC compliant work performed.

That was a completely flawed logic argument.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The revenue can come from the members, advertisers and sponsoring companies. That means that the people who benefit from the standard end up paying for it. Is it OK to make all taxpayers subsidize boat and yacht manufacturers? Many would say that's a tone deaf attitude in the era of EI (economic inequality).

Almost everyone benefits from NIST work. I am not aware of any industry standards specific to high net worth consumers that NIST promulgate. Therein lies an argument for government subsidization of standards that benefit everyone (NFPA, NEC, etc.).

Unless I am mistaken, most NFPA and NEC standards are fee-based. They are not government agencies.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Unless I am mistaken, most NFPA and NEC standards are fee-based. They are not government agencies.

Yes, the reason for keeping government out of standards development is so that it can continue to be done quickly and cost efficiently and completely bipartisan.

As soon as any organization gains access to government coffers / taxpayer dollars it becomes subject to political party manipulation, and blows up in size and cost.

Anyone who has any idea of what they are talking about, would know that the current system is vastly superior to the one they are asking for, all so the cost of their desires can be shared amongst others who have no desire for it whatsoever.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Nobody stated or implied anything about a “thief”.

(That was a classic strawman argument.)

How does what you claim to have done entitle you to free access to standards?

ABYC does not receive any direct revenue from any ABYC compliant product sold, or any ABYC compliant work performed.

That was a completely flawed logic argument.

Add-on——

And the stuff you are buying that is ABYC compliant is a lot safer and better than what you would have gotten had ABYC not developed the standards it was built or installed to, so you already got your money’s worth.

If you want the same standards the manufacturer and professionals service person purchased to be compliant, and you want to bypass them to DIY, why shouldn’t you have to buy the standards just like they did?

[Steve DAntonio]

As an update to this discussion, I'm currently attending the third day of ABYC's "Standards Week", wherein Standards are reviewed, updated and often vigorously debated.

A comment was made in an earlier post regarding government participation, or the lack thereof; in each of the three, day-long Project Tech Committee meetings I've attended (Electrical, Hull Piping and Firefighting Equipment), a representative of the Coast Guard has been present.

Clarification re. the Canadian adoption of the ABYC Standards; their use by Canadians is voluntary, and exist as an alternative to the current Transport Canada standard. The Transport Canada representative, with whom I spoke, confirms this, as well as the fact that the ABYC Standards are not available free of charge to Canadians, professionals, boat owners and others.

Interestingly, the issue preventing complete adoption is the fact that they are not available in French, they do not use metric units, and Canadian standards assume the weight of individuals/passengers to be 75 kg.