4 ms·

>that were put in place to save human lives There's an assumption here that the code was put in place to save lives. There's a whole lot of regulation that ex

>that were put in place to save human lives There's an assumption here that the code was put in place to save lives. There's a whole lot of regulation that exists simply to make it difficult to build. Lots of people profit when housing is scarce (or unavailable to certain demographics), and want to keep it that way. It is always worth asking what the point of a regulation is, and whether it accomplishes the thing it claims to be trying to accomplish.

autoexec 3y ago
I think it's a much bigger assumption that the fire code which requires people have somewhere to escape to when a stairwell is on fire was put in place to make it difficult to build instead of for helping to keep families from burning alive. I fully agree that if after careful and thorough examination it's determined that the codes are outdated and can be removed without endangering people that they should be, even if it didn't make it easier for developers.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  More likely the code is amended and not removed. Two stairs OR better fire suppression/resistance.
- notatoad 3y ago
  >I think it's a much bigger assumption... i don't think it's that big of an assumption. there's a long history of discrimination being enforced through building codes. will a second stairwell save a life at some point? almost certainly yes, but it wouldn't be an effective blocker if it obviously didn't. the question isn't whether it improves safety, it's whether it improves safety enough to be worthwhile. a second stairwell would also almost certainly save a life if it were required for single-family homes too, but we don't do that because there's some line somewhere where we decide making things 100% safe is silly, and compromise the edge case of safety for the sake of practicality. and there's a lot of forces trying to move that line away from practicality when it comes to multi-family housing.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    The difference is that for a single family home people have other ways to get out alive. Someone could easily survive a drop out of a second story window and ropes (or today ladders like this one https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kidde-Fire-Escape-Ladder-2-Story-13-ft-Long-1-000-lb-Load-Capacity-21030942/100541080 https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kidde-Fire-Escape-Ladder-2-Story...) make single family homes with only one stairwell pretty safe. That doesn't work when you're got people trapped in a six-story tenement. International Building Code requires the second stairway only for buildings higher than three stories which seems like a good idea considering that the median height leading to death is about 4 to 5 storeys. (https://thetraumapro.com/2010/01/11/what-you-need-to-know-about-falls-from-a-height/ https://thetraumapro.com/2010/01/11/what-you-need-to-know-ab...)
mcmoor 3y ago
Ah yes I also sometimes think that some people who champion more regulations and safety actually don't want the thing to exist. Like any discussion about traffic management for example. Or every "think of the children!!".
- trealira 3y ago
  You sound sarcastic, but yeah, people don't always bring up "concerns" in good faith. "Think of the children" is a good example; it's been brought up by people who are against gay marriage, and in reality they just don't want homosexual couples in public.

autoexec 3y ago

I think it's a much bigger assumption that the fire code which requires people have somewhere to escape to when a stairwell is on fire was put in place to make it difficult to build instead of for helping to keep families from burning alive. I fully agree that if after careful and thorough examination it's determined that the codes are outdated and can be removed without endangering people that they should be, even if it didn't make it easier for developers.

alistairSH 3y ago
More likely the code is amended and not removed. Two stairs OR better fire suppression/resistance.
notatoad 3y ago
>I think it's a much bigger assumption... i don't think it's that big of an assumption. there's a long history of discrimination being enforced through building codes. will a second stairwell save a life at some point? almost certainly yes, but it wouldn't be an effective blocker if it obviously didn't. the question isn't whether it improves safety, it's whether it improves safety enough to be worthwhile. a second stairwell would also almost certainly save a life if it were required for single-family homes too, but we don't do that because there's some line somewhere where we decide making things 100% safe is silly, and compromise the edge case of safety for the sake of practicality. and there's a lot of forces trying to move that line away from practicality when it comes to multi-family housing.
- autoexec 3y ago
  The difference is that for a single family home people have other ways to get out alive. Someone could easily survive a drop out of a second story window and ropes (or today ladders like this one https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kidde-Fire-Escape-Ladder-2-Story-13-ft-Long-1-000-lb-Load-Capacity-21030942/100541080 https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kidde-Fire-Escape-Ladder-2-Story...) make single family homes with only one stairwell pretty safe. That doesn't work when you're got people trapped in a six-story tenement. International Building Code requires the second stairway only for buildings higher than three stories which seems like a good idea considering that the median height leading to death is about 4 to 5 storeys. (https://thetraumapro.com/2010/01/11/what-you-need-to-know-about-falls-from-a-height/ https://thetraumapro.com/2010/01/11/what-you-need-to-know-ab...)

mcmoor 3y ago

Ah yes I also sometimes think that some people who champion more regulations and safety actually don't want the thing to exist. Like any discussion about traffic management for example. Or every "think of the children!!".

trealira 3y ago
You sound sarcastic, but yeah, people don't always bring up "concerns" in good faith. "Think of the children" is a good example; it's been brought up by people who are against gay marriage, and in reality they just don't want homosexual couples in public.