> max risk of hazardous (people injured) Still, relying on a single sensor when failure could cause multiple injury is grossly negligent. I don't know what fai

> max risk of hazardous (people injured) Still, relying on a single sensor when failure could cause multiple injury is grossly negligent. I don't know what failure rates are mandated for this risk level but a single sensor probably doesn't meet that. When you coumpound that with the fact that they sold a "premium" redundant version of that system with proper alarms in case of disagreement between sensors, then it's not hard to conclude that they put their commercial interests first, and people's safety second.