4 ms·

Hmm, sounds a bit like taxi licenses and hotel regulations

by xkcd-sucks 10y ago

praptak 10y ago
The stakes are higher. "Building codes are written in blood."
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  Not all of them are. When you can't install a waterless toilet without hiring a licensed plumber, that's just corruption.
  - _asummers 10y ago
    Where is that code, out of curiosity?
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      All I know is what the manufacturer said about unexpected resistance to changing building codes, and the blatant make-work compromise they ended up with: https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterless-u/amp https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterl...
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    Surely just a legacy law?
- drcross 10y ago
  Stop being overly dramatic. People need to realise that there is a happy gray area wherein regulation is most efficient. When I get into a neighbors shower I want to be nearly certain I won't be electrocuted but also the flip side of heavy regulation is the money wasted on inefficiencies when adhering to the numerous European pillow manufacturing standards, for example.
  - colanderman 10y ago
    While I agree with your point, the "numerous Eurpoean pillow manufacturing standards" meme is based on a fabricated claim: https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?t=273 https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?t=273
  - ivanhoe 10y ago
    Many of those rules are important, but lots of them are really insignificant from the safety viewpoint, just a pure bureaucracy. Is it really important that fire extinguishers in the hallways of buildings have to be mounted on the wall at exact prescribed height? If you just let them sit on the floor you can get yourself fined, although they will function exactly the same regardless of the position.
    - stuaxo 10y ago
      Sure, however they will always be in the right place if you fix them to the wall. If they are on the floor they could easily be moved or be a tripping Hazard.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I can think of a lot of reasons it'd be unsafe to place fire extinguishers on the floor. Floods could corrode the casing, children could reach the trigger components of a device that emits a suffocating chemical foam, etc. It's often easy to suggest the number of regulations are unnecessary, but most came from some sort of logic or reason... In many cases in response to a tragedy that occurred before.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- cgag 10y ago
  The costs of regulations are equally well measured in blood though it's a lot less visible than when it comes from say a building collapsing.
- wyager 10y ago
  The productivity costs of excessive regulation are also written in blood, but it's a slightly more abstract relationship, so most people aren't capable of making the connection. "Oh my god, this building collapsed during an earthquake and killed a family! Alert the national press!" Versus "The expected per-capita cost of this new electrical wiring legislation over the next 50 years is $12/person/year, which according to our consumption models means that the average person will spend $2.50 fewer a year on health insurance, which will result in a 0.00003% higher annual medical casualty rate. Now, moving onto expected effects on nutrition..." Even though the regulatory costs kill a lot more people, it's not as immediate or violent, so most people don't care.
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    Your point is a good one, although it not at all obvious or self-evident that the regulatory burden is more "costly" on society than that of poorly built structures. Your post doesn't provide any evidence of that. I would guess that the general consensus holds the opposite to be true, at least for building codes in the U.S. today. It is certainly a difficult question to analyze in any kind of numeric detail.
tfigment 10y ago
Or hair braiding [1]. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...

Hmm, sounds a bit like taxi licenses and hotel regulations

praptak 10y ago

The stakes are higher. "Building codes are written in blood."

prodigal_erik 10y ago
Not all of them are. When you can't install a waterless toilet without hiring a licensed plumber, that's just corruption.
- _asummers 10y ago
  Where is that code, out of curiosity?
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    All I know is what the manufacturer said about unexpected resistance to changing building codes, and the blatant make-work compromise they ended up with: https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterless-u/amp https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterl...
- stuaxo 10y ago
  Surely just a legacy law?
drcross 10y ago
Stop being overly dramatic. People need to realise that there is a happy gray area wherein regulation is most efficient. When I get into a neighbors shower I want to be nearly certain I won't be electrocuted but also the flip side of heavy regulation is the money wasted on inefficiencies when adhering to the numerous European pillow manufacturing standards, for example.
- colanderman 10y ago
  While I agree with your point, the "numerous Eurpoean pillow manufacturing standards" meme is based on a fabricated claim: https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?t=273 https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?t=273
- ivanhoe 10y ago
  Many of those rules are important, but lots of them are really insignificant from the safety viewpoint, just a pure bureaucracy. Is it really important that fire extinguishers in the hallways of buildings have to be mounted on the wall at exact prescribed height? If you just let them sit on the floor you can get yourself fined, although they will function exactly the same regardless of the position.
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    Sure, however they will always be in the right place if you fix them to the wall. If they are on the floor they could easily be moved or be a tripping Hazard.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I can think of a lot of reasons it'd be unsafe to place fire extinguishers on the floor. Floods could corrode the casing, children could reach the trigger components of a device that emits a suffocating chemical foam, etc. It's often easy to suggest the number of regulations are unnecessary, but most came from some sort of logic or reason... In many cases in response to a tragedy that occurred before.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
cgag 10y ago
The costs of regulations are equally well measured in blood though it's a lot less visible than when it comes from say a building collapsing.
wyager 10y ago
The productivity costs of excessive regulation are also written in blood, but it's a slightly more abstract relationship, so most people aren't capable of making the connection. "Oh my god, this building collapsed during an earthquake and killed a family! Alert the national press!" Versus "The expected per-capita cost of this new electrical wiring legislation over the next 50 years is $12/person/year, which according to our consumption models means that the average person will spend $2.50 fewer a year on health insurance, which will result in a 0.00003% higher annual medical casualty rate. Now, moving onto expected effects on nutrition..." Even though the regulatory costs kill a lot more people, it's not as immediate or violent, so most people don't care.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  Your point is a good one, although it not at all obvious or self-evident that the regulatory burden is more "costly" on society than that of poorly built structures. Your post doesn't provide any evidence of that. I would guess that the general consensus holds the opposite to be true, at least for building codes in the U.S. today. It is certainly a difficult question to analyze in any kind of numeric detail.

tfigment 10y ago

Or hair braiding [1]. [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episode-381-why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/06/22/155596305/episo...