waross If you're quick, you might be able to delete your 1 Feb 17 23:07 post, and the last one as well... if you prefer.
wannabe, I can symphasize with that "windy" code. Thankfully it worked when people complained and it was pared down. Maybe more complaints are in order.
I'm not saying problems don't exist. In fact I feel that some of these organizations that write codes were originally very necessary, however today they may be doing so mainly to fund a lot of their own "research". I meant "justify their own existance". Especially when the difference between issues is minor. If codes and standards were made freely available on the internet, there would be a lot less of them. The federal law in the USA is that if a code is a US Gov design requirement, it must be made freely available. For example, ASME B31.4 (pipeline design code) 2002 edition is referenced in the CFRs, therefore that 2002 edition is made freely available at the law.resource.org website.
Even though there have been a few revisions since 2002, there is no legal requirement to use any edition other than 2002. That helps a bit not having to buy new codes every couple years or so.
Insurance is a contract, so why don't insurance companies write the required codes into policies?
Not that all the codes should be that way, but maybe to lessen the number of codes in the public domain.
Maybe like not paying your medical clams for an auto accident if you were not wearing seatbelts. Instead of making the police stop cars to see than everyone is wearing them.
Sort of conditional insurance, for only people who follow the rules. Let people do stupid things on there own nickle.
I asked a code writer at a code seminar why the wind code was expanding from 1997 UBC to ASCE 7. Basically, he admitted that there were no problems with the UBC two page approach, but this was more accurate (?) and covered more cases (I'll agree with that) and besides, this all can be programmed into computers, so it's really not much more work.
Of course, for fossils like me, who do everything they can by hand, oh well.
"Insurance is a contract, so why don't insurance companies write the required codes into policies? "
Code enforcement would only happen by litigation, which is costly, and would come out of the insurance companies' pockets, while in the current approach, code enforcement is by law and enforced by someone else who doesn't cost the insurance companies any money.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Cranky really? Think about it. Insurance companies may only have an indirect interest in protecting us, if any at all. I demand some sense of assurance that I won't be killed by simply driving down the street next to their plant when it happens to explode, or drinking the water provided from a reservoir located in the same valley. I won't entrust my safety to some insurance company with headquarters in the Bahamas who's real business is nothing more than financially protecting some billionaire's pocketbook and that may be perfectly willing to overlook certain deficiencies, if they think they can sell an insurance policy at a high enough rate to some idiot with a lot more money than brains or any cares for our safety.
Yes I interviewed with Factory Mutual years ago. And BTW there inspections amount to a licence to operate a boiler.
But really you think everything needs to be a law? Why don't you endorse having cars inspected removal of airbags, and tire wear, and while at it inspect the whole car for rust.
That's the problem, we want government to do what it is not that good at doing.
"That's the problem, we want government to do what it is not that good at doing."
Seriously? Industry is really good at not doing anything unless prodded by forces greater than them. The only exception I can readily think of is IIS' safety ratings for cars, where the insurance industry needed to rein in car damage repair bills, and created a surrogate that could bully-pulpit automakers into building safer cars, but that's only because the insurance industry had a huge profit motive to get it accomplished. The automakers would have never done that on their own, even with public pressure.
> Auto: no seat belts until required by law
> Auto: no desire for better mileage until CAFE standards -- if not for the CAFE standards, we'd be using about 2x the oil we currently do.
> Smog: no abatement until Clean Act, for both autos and factories
> Beef: butchering obviously sick animals and shipping for human consumption
> Beef: feeding possibly CJD-infected meat to cows
> Supermarkets: relabeling expired meat as "fresh"
> Canning: no limit on bug parts in canned food
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
The auto industry did try once to sell safety.
Was it 1956 that was remembered as the year Ford sold safety and everyone else sold cars?
It was sometime in the fifties.
The general public does not often willingly spend money on safer products.
Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
Interesting point on the cars.
There are currently one or two little vehicles (maybe more) on the market that have more than two wheels, but still try to qualify as motorcycles for government standards. Of course, if you don't have to comply with any crash test, seat belt, or airbag requirements, your vehicle gets cheaper and lighter and faster, etc. But the point is, that people WILL buy the things, the safety really doesn't matter.
Oh. Right. We've been ignoring that. Industry is only half the problem. The peps also need to be protected from themselves and their spontaneous combustion Corvairs. Put on those seatbelts, wear the helmets, put out the cigarettes. No second hand smoke (unless it's a toke). Insurance and hospitalization costs musn't go up for all of us. With dumb industries and dumber people, what else can you do. It's all begging for regulation.
I agree that's a big issue, there was some idiot actor that was defiant about not wearing a helmet. So, one weekend, he got into a horrific accident and fractured his skull and supposedly suffering some sort of brain damage. So, ICU, surgery, all expenses paid for by someone's premiums.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Not someone's premiums. Your's and mine. That's why effective regulation is in our immediate and personal best interests, aside from providing a subtantial spread of butter on a lot of engineer's daily bread.
"So we are stuck with what other people think we need/want."
How has that ever been different? Did Henry Ford allow people to customize their brand new cars? Everything you buy is built on someone else's concept of what the market wants.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
![URL]](https://res.cloudinary.com/engtips/image/fetch/w_800,c_lfill,q_auto,f_auto,g_faces:center/[URL unfurl="true"]http://hi-tecdesigns.com/images/pictures/Footwell%20Animation%20Tiny.gif[/URL])
