While I tend to look for the rational and thus the intended value of regulations, I have to admit that I've had my run-ins with some real doozies. Take for example the regulation surrounding 'ladders'.
Back in my days working in 'hard engineering' (before I got involved in selling and supporting software) the company I worked for developed and manufactured commercial processing equipment for the food and chemical industries. My division, where I worked in R&D as a design and eventually as a project engineer, supplied automated production lines to large bakery operations. Many of our larger pieces of machinery, some as large as a small house, had to have access to the top or 'roof' area of those machines so as to maintain and service such things as exhaust fans as well as gas and steam piping. Now the regulations involving the design and fabrication of an access/inspection platform was not that problematic since such requirements as proper handrails and toe-boards could generally be incorporated into the structural members of the machine without a lot of extra cost or effort. However, when it came to the ladder used to actually reach the access/inspection platform, that was another matter altogether. For awhile there, the requirements got to be so onerous that we started to leave off integrated ladders and simply told our customers to supply their own since they needed only occasional access to the top of these machines.
Well this lasted just long enough for our lawyers to inform us that if indeed a customer utilized a 'non-approved' ladder to access an area where it was necessary to maintain and service our equipment and an employee was injured, we could be held liable for NOT providing a safe way of accessing the machine. Therefore, in the long run, it was cheaper for us to provide a ladder which complied with all of the relevant safety requirements, even if it added to the cost of the machine, since that would put the onus on the customer if one of his employees was injured since we had provided all of the safety features required by OHSA and so it must have been the individual involved who was at fault.
The other OSHA regulation which we constantly did battle with was maximum noise levels. In fact, my last couple of years working there was spent mostly modifying existing designs to reduce/control excessive noise from such items as exhaust fans, blowers, hydraulic pumps, etc.
I saw TV program on weird Washington stories. There was a strip club taken over by the government from someone who probably did not pay their taxes. Employee regulations kicked in, and they installed a ramp up to the stage so that it could be accessed by disabled strippers.
Back in the 70s I did structural design for refineries, which included stairs and ladders for reactor vessels and distillation columns up to 180 ft tall or so. Stairs and ladder design to those heights are a separate science unto themselves and the regulations are very important. You do not want to have problems between landings when you're 150 ft up.
It's probably only because of OSHA noise suppression regulations that I can still hear anything today.
If one were to look at the totality of regulations, no doubt there would be dogs and zingers, but those are essentially chaff or bits of dead bugs found in the average food can. The core regulations are there to protect us. To willy-nilly reject all regulations based on a small set of zingers plays into the hands of those that still believe that what's good for GM is good for America. That has already been proven wrong so many times. We used to be able to dump TCE and a slew of noxious chemicals in the ground because that was good for the business and to hell with the groundwater. We know better now, and that was EPA flexing its muscle.
No doubt we need to be vigilant, but as with police and fire, they are a necessary cost of doing business and living a relatively long life. If we got rid of the EPA, our air would look like that of China's, where you won't be able to see the 2nd row of houses across the street, and you certainly won't be able to see GM.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
I have spent a career fighting the stupidity[pre][/pre] and incompetent of management who had Victorian attitudes to safety and adherence to regulations etc.
At Christmas I was given by a friend a book on the history of railways - in the UK.
Interesting that the risk rates of people (men) working in railway shunting yards up to the 1960's gave a life expectancy similar on that of British soldiers in world war 2, and we thought THAT was dangerous!
While I don't necessarily have a non-parochial view of the sanctity of life of others, I do have that view of my own, and as sad as it is, my life and theirs are linked by affects, most of the time. If someone like the aforementioned actor wants to ride motorcycles with a helmet and is willing to take the fines and waive all insurance coverage for head-related injuries, I can live with that. Just like the seat-belt law; if they don't want to wear one, that's fine, they just better be able to show that they're in a separate risk pool that they've paid for and not be in my risk pool.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Needless regulation. Repealing Dodd-Frank is not at all about making banks loan money to "people that have good companies, but can't get a loan from a bank." Far from it. You might want to read up for yourself (at least about the most basic provisions) of this very important financial and consumer protection regulation before you get on the DT Midnight Express that just might put us back on the same obscure financial derivative tracks leading down to another too big to fail recession. Modifying or repealing this act is not something that you can trust to anybody in public office that keeps investments secrete and won't form a proper blind trust. Don't lose it to the banks again. Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. You might want to inform your congressmen about your opinion.... this time.
Not to mention DT revoking the requirement that a financial adviser have YOUR financial interests as primary.
In what universe is it OK to pay someone for advice and they don't act in your best interest? There is no other industry where that won't get you in trouble.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
When did they ever? Revoking the requirement just makes it ... official.
What other industry? Hummmm. Just a minute. Let me think. Coming. Almost.
I got it!!! .... LAWYERING.
Real estate agent. You hire one who actually works for the seller. But maybe that is because the seller is paying them.
If you hire a financial advisor that works for a bank or broker, then you are not actually hiring them, as they are employed already.
And if you hire them on the cheep, then you get what you pay for.
It's also like asking an insurance agent how much insurance do you need.
Cranky, technically you don't hire the real estate agent, if you're the one buying. Not that it helps. It is like a massive, tremendously yuge conflict of interest.
So from this do you gather that ASCE 7 is too big, to onerous, and simply the wrong way to help engineers....
Or is the code there to provide as much information as possible to the engineer to make engineering better....
You be the judge!!
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376
ASCE 7 Not having used the new wind load methods, or done any real structural engineering since 58.1, but being once a registered structural engineer I'll make a comment. My general opinion is it is not good to change things simply because you can change things. You need a justifiable reason. Can the design process be made better or the result safer. Can the new design process save money. Will it somehow result in better or more usable structures. If not, I don't see any reason to change. Does anyone know exactly why was it changed? What was the objective. Was the objective achieved? It doesn't sound like it was achieved, or more people would be happy with the result. In the piping world we use the legally, or otherwise contracturally required version of the code or referenced standard within. Sometimes the CFRs might even be referencing a version dating to 2002 or earlier. Why do you use the latest version of ASCE 7? Apparently it is not even referenced in a building code yet. Is there some legal requirement to use the hot off the press version, or is it just "practice"?
One's idiotic change is another's crystal clear clarification.
As with constitutional law, what is "settled" to one party is often highly disputed to another. The amount of work involved in getting a major revision passed through all the stakeholders is typically non-trivial, so if someone thinks that changes are made willy-nilly, they should volunteer to be part of the process and see, first-hand, why no substantive changes are ever passed without dissension.
I think that practicing engineers too often assume that everything in the code is so obvious that there can't possibly any need for expansion or clarification. However, when one peruses postings on this site, it's pretty obvious that what's obvious to some is murkier than ink to others.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Does anyone know exactly why was it changed? What was the objective. Was the objective achieved?
[blue] Since ANSI A58.1, this document that specifies loads for buildings has morphed into ASCE 7 and there have been numerous versions - 98, 02, 05, 10, and now 16. Each time there have been changes to the specified loads (live, snow, wind, seismic, and several others) that appear to be the result of continuing study, research and lessons learned which resulted in more prescriptions of how an engineer can determine what proper loading to apply to their structure. So in a sense, it is a toolbox of sorts with a LOT of information provided.
The concern here in the debate articles I linked to revolves around the theory of how an engineer is either helped or burdened by such voluminous amounts of information. Is it truly information or is it just a lot of burdensome rules to follow that could be replaced by a simpler system.[/blue]
Why do you use the latest version of ASCE 7? Apparently it is not even referenced in a building code yet.
[blue] Wherever a building or structure is located there is most likely an applicable, enforceable building code that will reference out to ASCE 7 and the particular version (i.e. IBC 2012 references ASCE 7-10).
So you shouldn't just automatically use the latest ASCE 7 but rather see which version is reference by the applicable code. ASCE 7-16 will be referenced by IBC 2018 so if and when this code is adopted then 7-16 would be used.[/blue]
Is there some legal requirement to use the hot off the press version, or is it just "practice"?
[blue] The only possible use of a "hot-off-the-press version is that it reflects the latest state-of-the-art knowledge and an engineer can certainly take this into account when designing. The applicable code will enforce MINIMUM standards (i.e. minimum loads) so if the later version suggests that a higher level of load is more accurate, an engineer is free to use their judgement and perhaps use the higher load even though the applicable code technically doesn't require it. But if the newer version of ASCE 7 allows a lower load, then technically you may not want to go below the applicable code provisions.[/blue]
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376
