By Barry Stone
Dear Barry,
Last week, the buyers of my home hired a home inspector, and he made what I consider to be an outrageous recommendation. Having lived in a large city, I've learned to be security conscious. Therefore, my front and rear doors are both equipped with double cylinder deadbolts, locks that require a key on the inside. Where I come from, this is standard hardware for discouraging burglars. But now the home inspector says the locks should be changed to ones that only need a key on the outside. I’ve argued with the inspector, but to no avail. Could you please set the record straight? What's wrong with double cylinder deadbolts? -- Ernie
Dear Ernie,
It would seem that your transaction is currently deadlocked over deadbolts. The key to resolving this impasse involves two conflicting issues - access security vs. fire safety.
When the occurrence of big city burglaries rose sharply during the 1970s, police departments were routinely recommending the use of double cylinder deadbolts. The apparent benefit was simple: A burglar could force entry by way of a window but was unable to carry anything out the door because a key was needed to release the lock.
The main shortcoming with this arrangement became evident when fire departments reported people being trapped in their homes during fires, unable to locate their keys under conditions of panic and fear. Needless loss of life prompted the authors of the Uniform Building Code to enact a prohibition against the use of double cylinder deadbolts on all residential exit doors. This is why home inspectors recommend replacement of this kind of lock.
My advice is to comply with the inspector's wise recommendation. Single cylinder deadbolts may not provide optimum burglary protection, but then, the loss of a TV set is preferable to loss of life.
. Questions of a Do It Yourself nature should be submitted to our "