2 ms·

The journalist was lazy. The only 'statistics' offered is a graphic from the lobby against 2nd exits...that website's home page says: "This website is a tool t

by petee 5y ago

The journalist was lazy. The only 'statistics' offered is a graphic from the lobby against 2nd exits...that website's home page says: "This website is a tool to make sense of the wicked problem of the second egress in Canada and prepare a building code change." It is super biased, and the bigger issue is that it is impossible record what-if situations like how many minor US fires could have been major tragedies if they had a single stair instead of two, and firefighters could tackle a fire from two sides. Just looking at one of their sources even states that rapid smoke/fire in stairways and vertical opens is a significant portion blocked-escape deaths -- https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Murdoch-University-Fire-and-at-Risk-Populations.pdf https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Murdoch-Univer... Another for canada clearly says a majority of deaths are "trapped-by" -- http://nfidcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fire-statistics-in-Canada-2005-to-2014.pdf http://nfidcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fire-statist...

pas 5y ago
Trapped-by is not the same as "would have been saved by a second egress", if the fire traps you in your room for example. It has all structure fires. This whole fire (and building) safety code problem is that it's driven by superstition instead of data. It mandates certain solutions instead of outcomes. (Eg. the railing spacings to prevent kids from being able to fall through.) Many developed countries have similar outcomes without the same strictness of code, plus housing is so overregulated in so many ways it's no wonder that many people argue for shifting the set-point in these trade-offs in order to help more people to have housing. Of course ideally society would address poverty so there trade-off between safety and other aspects would be just academic.

by petee 5y ago

pas 5y ago

Trapped-by is not the same as "would have been saved by a second egress", if the fire traps you in your room for example. It has all structure fires. This whole fire (and building) safety code problem is that it's driven by superstition instead of data. It mandates certain solutions instead of outcomes. (Eg. the railing spacings to prevent kids from being able to fall through.) Many developed countries have similar outcomes without the same strictness of code, plus housing is so overregulated in so many ways it's no wonder that many people argue for shifting the set-point in these trade-offs in order to help more people to have housing. Of course ideally society would address poverty so there trade-off between safety and other aspects would be just academic.