4 ms·

"designing a building isn't the kind of thing where you just forget an important step" Nor is having a building built much like getting into a car and "forgett

"designing a building isn't the kind of thing where you just forget an important step" Nor is having a building built much like getting into a car and "forgetting" to put on a seatbelt. If anything, I think your point makes the example less relevant. "ín part because it's feasible to inspect every single building for compliance" Absent corruption of the inspection process. Turkey had building codes and many wrecked buildings after the last major earthquake that had "passed" inspection due to money changing hands under the table.

brazzy 17y ago
No, it is your example that is made less relevant.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  The only example here is yours - I didn't bring up seatbelts.
  - brazzy 17y ago
    You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying that building codes would not be followed as well. This point is invalidated by my observation because with seat-belt laws, the entity passing the law cannot realistically inspect compliance in every case while with building codes, it can. Additionally, while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised rates of seat-belt use from from 11% in 1981 to 68% in 1997
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      "You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying that building codes would not be followed as well." I pointed out that seatbelts were a bad example for your argument. All you've done is emphasize that seatbelts are a bad example that don't fit what you're trying to say about building codes. As as per the Turkey example, one would hope you're willing to acknowledge that even with the ability to inspect every structure, such factors as corruption, poor inspectors, bad inspection practices, plain human error, etc. mean that the we cannot assume universal compliance. As important as building codes are, there are factors entirely separate from the codes themselves that determine how well they're actually followed. "while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised rates of seat-belt use" I'm afraid you can't firmly demonstrate that relationship; 1981-1997 was also a period of extremely heavy propagandizing to get people to wear seatbelts.

brazzy 17y ago

No, it is your example that is made less relevant.

Semiapies 17y ago
The only example here is yours - I didn't bring up seatbelts.
- brazzy 17y ago
  You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying that building codes would not be followed as well. This point is invalidated by my observation because with seat-belt laws, the entity passing the law cannot realistically inspect compliance in every case while with building codes, it can. Additionally, while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised rates of seat-belt use from from 11% in 1981 to 68% in 1997
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying that building codes would not be followed as well." I pointed out that seatbelts were a bad example for your argument. All you've done is emphasize that seatbelts are a bad example that don't fit what you're trying to say about building codes. As as per the Turkey example, one would hope you're willing to acknowledge that even with the ability to inspect every structure, such factors as corruption, poor inspectors, bad inspection practices, plain human error, etc. mean that the we cannot assume universal compliance. As important as building codes are, there are factors entirely separate from the codes themselves that determine how well they're actually followed. "while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised rates of seat-belt use" I'm afraid you can't firmly demonstrate that relationship; 1981-1997 was also a period of extremely heavy propagandizing to get people to wear seatbelts.