3 ms·

I think they've served their purpose, and have now taken on a life of their own. Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their no

I think they've served their purpose, and have now taken on a life of their own. Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. Like, people don't smoke nearly as much any more, clothing and furniture is far less hazardous, and electrical appliances are lower power and safer now. These days, the only time people actually die in fires is when they are doing something hazardous and illegal anyway.

maxxxxx 10y ago
Yes, and while we are at it, let's abolish safety belts, crash zones in car, food safety inspections , motorcycle helmets and non lead paint. These are all solved problems. Things have changed.
daviross 10y ago
They're a solved problem, solved by implementing fire codes. Or, more to the point, as noted above, they're paid in blood. Each time enough people die in previously unforeseen ways, we come up with solutions in aggregate. Chesterton's Fence is apt here.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  But we're not talking about fire codes, we're talking about building codes. The stamp on lumber does not make it less flammable.
  - daviross 10y ago
    "Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. " We're exactly talking about fire codes. But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? Probably not, different ways wood can be treated can dramatically affect how it behaves. How it's cared for (drying, etc) can also do the same. Both of those definitely contribute to flammability. Or just "Where did the wood come from? Is it from an area likely to have borer beetles, compromising any treatment?" I mean, sure, if you pick through codes, there's probably cruft in there. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that everything is 100% based on modern understanding of materials science. But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
    - scaryspooky 10y ago
      Most lumber stamping is done by machine vision. If you've spent any time at a big box store that sells lumber you will realise how shitty lumber can be while still having that magical grade stamp. I've picked up 2x4s that break when you pick them up at one end but they still have a grade stamp and could be used in a structural wall because it bears the correct grade stamp.
      - Tempest1981 10y ago
        So based on that, do we A) fix/improve our quality controls, or B) get rid of them entirely?
        scaryspooky 10y ago
        c) use our brains instead of looking for a stamp For most stick construction you can clearly see a 2x4 or 2x6 will or won't support the load given the checking and knot size. Code, though, requires a grade stamp.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      >We're exactly talking about fire codes. No we're not. That poster pointed out how fire codes helped, but that most codes do not. We're talking about building codes. >But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? None of those things have anything at all to do with stamps. That's the point. If the code specified lumber by strength it would be fine. But it specifies lumber by "you have to buy it from an approved member of the lumber cartel" and makes absolutely no mention of strength. >Probably not, different ways wood can be treated Building lumber is not treated. If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, why throw out random nonsense? > But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!" Nobody suggested that. Responding to silly strawman arguments is not constructive.
RockyMcNuts 10y ago
The folks who died in the 2016 Oakland fire were maybe doing something hazardous and illegal. So...not really sure what you're saying...the codes that made that illegal have served their purpose? Seems like an oxymoron, the reason there are fewer deadly fires is at least in part because things that are hazardous are illegal.
kalleboo 10y ago
> clothing and furniture is far less hazardous, and electrical appliances are lower power and safer now These are all only thanks to the regulation you despise. Remove the regulation and manufacturers will cheap out and things will get more hazardous and wasteful (see: China)

maxxxxx 10y ago

Yes, and while we are at it, let's abolish safety belts, crash zones in car, food safety inspections , motorcycle helmets and non lead paint. These are all solved problems. Things have changed.

daviross 10y ago

They're a solved problem, solved by implementing fire codes. Or, more to the point, as noted above, they're paid in blood. Each time enough people die in previously unforeseen ways, we come up with solutions in aggregate. Chesterton's Fence is apt here.

MustardTiger 10y ago
But we're not talking about fire codes, we're talking about building codes. The stamp on lumber does not make it less flammable.
- daviross 10y ago
  "Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. " We're exactly talking about fire codes. But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? Probably not, different ways wood can be treated can dramatically affect how it behaves. How it's cared for (drying, etc) can also do the same. Both of those definitely contribute to flammability. Or just "Where did the wood come from? Is it from an area likely to have borer beetles, compromising any treatment?" I mean, sure, if you pick through codes, there's probably cruft in there. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that everything is 100% based on modern understanding of materials science. But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
    Most lumber stamping is done by machine vision. If you've spent any time at a big box store that sells lumber you will realise how shitty lumber can be while still having that magical grade stamp. I've picked up 2x4s that break when you pick them up at one end but they still have a grade stamp and could be used in a structural wall because it bears the correct grade stamp.
    - Tempest1981 10y ago
      So based on that, do we A) fix/improve our quality controls, or B) get rid of them entirely?
      - scaryspooky 10y ago
        c) use our brains instead of looking for a stamp For most stick construction you can clearly see a 2x4 or 2x6 will or won't support the load given the checking and knot size. Code, though, requires a grade stamp.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    >We're exactly talking about fire codes. No we're not. That poster pointed out how fire codes helped, but that most codes do not. We're talking about building codes. >But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? None of those things have anything at all to do with stamps. That's the point. If the code specified lumber by strength it would be fine. But it specifies lumber by "you have to buy it from an approved member of the lumber cartel" and makes absolutely no mention of strength. >Probably not, different ways wood can be treated Building lumber is not treated. If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, why throw out random nonsense? > But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!" Nobody suggested that. Responding to silly strawman arguments is not constructive.

RockyMcNuts 10y ago

The folks who died in the 2016 Oakland fire were maybe doing something hazardous and illegal. So...not really sure what you're saying...the codes that made that illegal have served their purpose? Seems like an oxymoron, the reason there are fewer deadly fires is at least in part because things that are hazardous are illegal.

kalleboo 10y ago

> clothing and furniture is far less hazardous, and electrical appliances are lower power and safer now These are all only thanks to the regulation you despise. Remove the regulation and manufacturers will cheap out and things will get more hazardous and wasteful (see: China)