3 ms·
When the topic is "Why doesn't the US do stairwells like other countries?" and the answer is almost entirely "Fire codes prohibit it for the following list of m
by Syonyk 5y ago
When the topic is "Why doesn't the US do stairwells like other countries?" and the answer is almost entirely "Fire codes prohibit it for the following list of mass-casualty fire deaths due to stairwell behaviors in fire," the rest of those things seem rather off topic.
- mlyle 5y agoEh, the topic is broad. The real question is: where does it make sense for society to put resources to prevent premature death? One option is staircases (aimed at reducing mass casualty events in fires). There are other options to improve fire safety. There are other options to improve safety in other circumstances. Perhaps with the costs of second staircases, there are things we could do to buildings for less money that would save more lives from fire. Should we do both? Just the cheaper one? Neither? How do we decide which ones are justified for their cost, and which ones aren't? Who should bear these costs? What things should be grandfathered and have a slow transition towards higher safety? What things should be immediately improved? The answer to the staircase question comes down to how we answer questions like this. And the fact that we may be tolerating much bigger risks is definitely an interesting point.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoYet they seem hell bent on making houses from a cardboard and other extremely flammable materials.
- lazyasciiart 5y agoBut that’s not what the topic was - it became “safety rules that should exist because not doing so is clearly insane even to a non-expert”.