3 ms·

Question. We've now had outdoor dining for the past year. What do you think the chances are that this regulation significantly moved the amount of fire damage

Question. We've now had outdoor dining for the past year. What do you think the chances are that this regulation significantly moved the amount of fire damage or number of fire related deaths that occurred?

wolverine876 5y ago
I strongly disagree that we can guess without expertise. I'm not even sure the sample size is big enough: We could eliminate fire regulations in skyscrapers, and probably, over a year, it would cause no damage. Fire regulations are catastrophe insurance.
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  How much do you think it changes the risk of death? Last year ~800 ppl died of fire in commercial buildings. What would that number have been if outdoor dining was allowed everything?
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    There are more issues caused by fires thann just deaths. Non lethal injuries come to mind, along with lost livelihoods and other economic damage. And there's more than just fires to think about. You're choosing one narrow slice of potential consequences and presenting your opinion on that basis. I'm not even sure I disagree with you, but it's hard to tell because you're coming at the issue in this way.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    So using the fire code, ~800 people died last year (where? what data?). What is your argument for not using it?
ineedasername 5y ago
No data from this year can be considered representantive of what the actual trend would look like under normal circumstances. Not least of why is that none of these new structure have had much time to age and wear out to the point of causing structural issues. You might be right and there's little or no safety issues to worry about, but the data needed to assess that opinion doesn't exist yet.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Maybe it exists from before today? Where did the regulation come from?
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Data that exists from before? I suppose you could look at fire issues or structural collapses from before there were strong building codes, but these codes were generally developed specifically in response to issues like fires. In the US (colonies, 1600's) building codes emerged for exactly this reason. Later, George Washington & Thomas Jefferson were instrumental in pushing them further. [0]. They continued to evolve in response to things like massive crowding into cities in the early 1900's by new immigrants living in overcrowded and unsafe buildings [1] They continue to evolve now, with fire deaths dropping significantly over the past 40 years despite population increases as construction methods and building materials get better [2] I think it's fair to say that there's a legitimate safety concern in allowing structures not built to normal codes for a permanent structure to become permanent without some sort of review. Although I think that simple street dining-- absent these structures that weren't intended to be permanent-- should be much less of an issue. If a restaurant just has tables & chairs out there then I don't see much of an issue as long as they don't obstruct normal pedestrian traffic. [0] https://www.creia.org/the-development-of-our-building-codes https://www.creia.org/the-development-of-our-building-codes [1] https://www.tenement.org/blog/lives-gone-in-a-puff-of-smoke/ https://www.tenement.org/blog/lives-gone-in-a-puff-of-smoke/ [2] https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=34465&fromGSA=1 https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=34...

wolverine876 5y ago

I strongly disagree that we can guess without expertise. I'm not even sure the sample size is big enough: We could eliminate fire regulations in skyscrapers, and probably, over a year, it would cause no damage. Fire regulations are catastrophe insurance.

JamesBarney 5y ago
How much do you think it changes the risk of death? Last year ~800 ppl died of fire in commercial buildings. What would that number have been if outdoor dining was allowed everything?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  There are more issues caused by fires thann just deaths. Non lethal injuries come to mind, along with lost livelihoods and other economic damage. And there's more than just fires to think about. You're choosing one narrow slice of potential consequences and presenting your opinion on that basis. I'm not even sure I disagree with you, but it's hard to tell because you're coming at the issue in this way.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  So using the fire code, ~800 people died last year (where? what data?). What is your argument for not using it?

ineedasername 5y ago

No data from this year can be considered representantive of what the actual trend would look like under normal circumstances. Not least of why is that none of these new structure have had much time to age and wear out to the point of causing structural issues. You might be right and there's little or no safety issues to worry about, but the data needed to assess that opinion doesn't exist yet.

wolverine876 5y ago
Maybe it exists from before today? Where did the regulation come from?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Data that exists from before? I suppose you could look at fire issues or structural collapses from before there were strong building codes, but these codes were generally developed specifically in response to issues like fires. In the US (colonies, 1600's) building codes emerged for exactly this reason. Later, George Washington & Thomas Jefferson were instrumental in pushing them further. [0]. They continued to evolve in response to things like massive crowding into cities in the early 1900's by new immigrants living in overcrowded and unsafe buildings [1] They continue to evolve now, with fire deaths dropping significantly over the past 40 years despite population increases as construction methods and building materials get better [2] I think it's fair to say that there's a legitimate safety concern in allowing structures not built to normal codes for a permanent structure to become permanent without some sort of review. Although I think that simple street dining-- absent these structures that weren't intended to be permanent-- should be much less of an issue. If a restaurant just has tables & chairs out there then I don't see much of an issue as long as they don't obstruct normal pedestrian traffic. [0] https://www.creia.org/the-development-of-our-building-codes https://www.creia.org/the-development-of-our-building-codes [1] https://www.tenement.org/blog/lives-gone-in-a-puff-of-smoke/ https://www.tenement.org/blog/lives-gone-in-a-puff-of-smoke/ [2] https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=34465&fromGSA=1 https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=34...