> Everyone - everyone - is certain that the codes are all overzealous and their little thing needs an exception. Politicians get elected promising to 'get rid of the red tape'. And then an event occurs and we learn why these building codes exist.
> Like workplace safety rules, they are written in the blood of the dead.
Some of the rules are, but some of the rules aren't. When code calls for a maximum distance between electrical outlets, that's partially for convenience, and partly because of unsafe practices with extension cords, so there's some blood there, but if you miss the mark by a foot, it's not disasterous.
Uniform application of some rules without considerations for cost or practicality is foolish. For example, where I live, with my size house, any permitted remodeling triggers a requirement to retrofit fire sprinklers, despite the fact that I have a well which likely couldn't supply said fire sprinklers in a reasonable manner --- especially if a fire resulted in electricity being cut off, or was caused by unsafe heating choices when utility electricity was out of service (this is a common cause of house fires as I understand it). You could mitigate that with a high mounted water tank, but that's not actually required, might require substantial engineering to ensure the weight of the water and tank doesn't exceed the structure's weight bearing capacity, and would add significant maintenance to ensure the condition of the tank such that it did not leak and cause major damage to the structure. Oh, and how are you supposed to get such a tank into an attic like that anyway?
Structural requirements tend to be more likely to be written from experience though. And earthquakes and high winds have a way of striking everywhere. TR is known to be seismically active, so cutting corners on earthquake safety is a worse risk/cost tradeoff than in places where earthquakes are rare.
Fire sprinklers are extremely useful even connected to a limited water supply because fires start small and sprinklers can respond quickly.
As long as as you have enough water to use a shower that’s plenty to make a huge difference because they don’t operate like in the movies where everything in the building goes off at once. Instead you only get water when part of the sprinkler head got hot enough to melt.
The last house we lived in---a moderately expensive and well constructed house, compared to many of the others we looked at---didn't have electrical boxes behind wall- and ceiling-mounted light fixtures. The romex was just directly connected to the fixture and the fixtures were secured with drywall anchors.
Electrical boxes are low cost during construction and address a real risk; electrical connections are where wiring is most likely to break and potentially cause heat and sparks. Electrical boxes are an effective mitigation to that risk, and really should have been included in construction. Retrofitting boxes in may be a lot of labor though. In bulk, single gang new work boxes are less than $1/box, and don't take much time to put in (two nails + a little extra time while wiring to pull the wire through the holes). Plenty of other places to save a little money and a little time.
For heavy fixtures, like large chandeliers and ceiling fans, appropriate boxes also help with bearing the weight; preventing the fixtures from pulling out of drywall and being suspended only by the wiring.
The thing is, in the absence of someone (like an inspector) specifically checking, you can assume that anything that isn't immediately visible uses the cheapest possible materials and the fastest, shoddiest installation.
In my case, it may have been as simple as, "we didn't order enough junction boxes and we're running late as it is; just skip 'em".
> When code calls for a maximum distance between electrical outlets, that's partially for convenience, and partly because of unsafe practices with extension cords, so there's some blood there, but if you miss the mark by a foot, it's not disasterous.
I mean, it could be disastrous, couldn't it? That foot could be the threshold of someone saying "Aw screw it, I'll just use my parent's frayed extension cord from the 70s."
Where I roughly draw the line is where the user was stupid. People should know not to be dangerous with extension cords; but there's no way a user should be required to know that the fifth outlet box on the left side actually has no box and that if you were to pull out something plugged into it the whole outlet would come out of the wall and short to a water line.
And perhaps this kind of thing should be more explicit in the code - things that are for convenience and things that are actual life/death safety issues.
And as we see, the latter often involves things that only become apparent when disaster strikes.
Designing to prevent common mistakes – even if they're stupid mistakes – is a good idea, but you can't idiot-proof absolutely everything. At some point personal responsibility starts. I think this is somewhere before "I'll use a frayed extension cord from the 70s" – even a child can understand that's not a good idea.
> Like workplace safety rules, they are written in the blood of the dead.
Some of the rules are, but some of the rules aren't. When code calls for a maximum distance between electrical outlets, that's partially for convenience, and partly because of unsafe practices with extension cords, so there's some blood there, but if you miss the mark by a foot, it's not disasterous.
Uniform application of some rules without considerations for cost or practicality is foolish. For example, where I live, with my size house, any permitted remodeling triggers a requirement to retrofit fire sprinklers, despite the fact that I have a well which likely couldn't supply said fire sprinklers in a reasonable manner --- especially if a fire resulted in electricity being cut off, or was caused by unsafe heating choices when utility electricity was out of service (this is a common cause of house fires as I understand it). You could mitigate that with a high mounted water tank, but that's not actually required, might require substantial engineering to ensure the weight of the water and tank doesn't exceed the structure's weight bearing capacity, and would add significant maintenance to ensure the condition of the tank such that it did not leak and cause major damage to the structure. Oh, and how are you supposed to get such a tank into an attic like that anyway?
Structural requirements tend to be more likely to be written from experience though. And earthquakes and high winds have a way of striking everywhere. TR is known to be seismically active, so cutting corners on earthquake safety is a worse risk/cost tradeoff than in places where earthquakes are rare.