> That also implies the inverse: nobody has shown that one means is safer, they just went by gut. But this directly contradicts the entire point of requiring t

> That also implies the inverse: nobody has shown that one means is safer, they just went by gut. But this directly contradicts the entire point of requiring two staircases: that it would be safer. The modern data we have shows that in countries with single stair exits and lots of people living in these units, they are safe, safer than the general outcome. The question is about one particular rule, not repealing all the safety advancements, and that one bad rule is two staircases. The data we have shows it's safe. I don't think there's any study that could be proposed that would satisfy critics, because ultimately this is not about safety, that's just a smokescreen. The point is to block convenient apartments, and whenever one safety study has been done exactly to the critics request, it will immediately be found lacking and an entirely different study will be demanded, or a new reason fabricated to shroud the true motivation: block convenient small apartments from being built.