Quote from: Bicknellski on July 01, 2013, 05:31:16 AM

Quote from: firefop on July 01, 2013, 03:14:15 AM

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on July 01, 2013, 02:18:34 AM

I respect your posts and replies, firefop. They have merit.

I understand the enforcing aspect, but they have the rules written down nonetheless to cover their asses.

That's exactly it... no transit company would consider letting us install the device without UL because of the potential civil liability if one exploded and took out a bus full of passengers. Ultimately I blame the litigation system in the USA for this mentality.

I really don't have an issue with the rules (especially since they're opt-in rather than mandated)...

But then I agree that I wouldn't expect a bfl unit to burst into flames either. So maybe I actually agree with you that they should have gotten certification.

I think the real point is they said that all these safety inspections were being done many many months ago and still none to be seen. That is reprehensible behavior given that impacts some buyers decisions. Also the implication say one of the units does kill or injury someone goes beyond BFL and to BTC itself. Can BTC afford that sort of risk? This goes for all fabricators not just BFL.

Not just that. Inaba attacked Avalon and bASIC for not having certification while claiming that BFL was going to have it.