Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpcx01 | Hacker News Reader

Even being a free marketeer, building codes are one of the few government interventions that have had huge positive impact on society (i know, i know, there are others as well).

View on HN

To the extent that people want earthquake/tsunami insurance, building codes could just as well be administered by insurance companies. (A structure that doesn't meet the insurance company's code would be more expensive to insure.) Also, insurance companies, because they have an incentive to mitigate their risk, would likely be quicker to adapt codes to new technology and information. If an idea is good, it doesn't require government, that is, people don't have to be forced to adopt good ideas.

how would that work when most people here in chile don't have building insurance?

seriously. i live here.

What do you mean by "most people"? Most buildings, most renters, most landlords, most owners...?

An average of 2 7.0 earthquakes in this small country each decade and buildings aren't insured?

That's the point exactly. What insurance company would offer earthquake insurance at a price that an average citizen could afford in such circumstances.

No, that's begging the point.

Small country in population, not length (over 4000 km). The previous major earthquake in Chile (Iquique) didn't affect the central and southern regions at all.

Besides, the fact that authorities care about earthquake prevention doesn't mean that consumers do (not at the time of buying property, anyway)

Presumably he meant that most owners of buildings do not buy insurance (and who else would?). And yeah, it's amazing just how little a risk of total loss once every couple of decades (no single quake hits the entire country, especially in Chile) means to people, compared with a substantial monthly or yearly bill.

Presumption is one thing; details and substantiation, another.

i've replied twice to this and deleted both because it's difficult not to be rude.

so can i just suggest that, in the future, before you tell other cultures how to live, you do the research?

"before you tell other cultures how to live"

I didn't. I asked you exactly what you meant, as I am skeptical of your vague claim, especially when it comes to details I mentioned above.

I'm sorry that it's hard for you to stand by your words in a civil way.

EDIT: Folks, vote this down as far as you like. I don't take kindly to someone pulling an accusation of racism out of his ass because I had the effrontery to question him.

Your trust in people's rationality and long-term thinking is rather sweet, but history disagrees. Case in point: seat belts. Proven to be life-saving devices, but people just wouldn't wear them because "how dare you suggest I am a bad driver?!?"

As for insurance companies - between people simply doing without insurance because those meddlesome insurance companies have all those ridiculous requirements and insurers making a quick buck by competing on low requirements and going bankrupt when the quake hits, you'd be asking for government regulation pretty quickly.

Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made people wear seatbelts; not the best example.

The legislation requiring automobiles to include seat belts[1] was passed at the federal level, not at the municipal level. At the municipal level, resources are also put into seat belt education campaigns and PSAs, which if effective would lower the availability of scofflaws as a potential revenue source. So yes, it's still a valid example.

(I assume you meant type type "if laws didn't make people..." or equivalent)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehi...

"I assume you meant type type "if laws didn't make people..." or equivalent"

How would that even make sense?

Your original comment:

> "Municipalities would miss out on a lot of traffic ticket money if laws made people wear seatbelts; not the best example."

I thought that the original sentiment you meant to express was that municipalities have an economic incentive to create seatbelt laws, in order to fine people who break them, with the implication being that seat belt laws are made for selfish reasons, not reasons related to the public well-being. I parsed the sentence, as written, as saying that the presence of an additional fine-worthy offense would somehow lower the amount of fine-generated revenue, and inferred the mistaken absence of a negation. After scrutinizing your comment and follow-up for some time, it's possible to parse the sentence as saying that if seatbelt laws were more effective at making people wear seat belts, this would reduce revenue. This sentence, while correct, does not seem more than tangentially related in context of replying to the parent. Perhaps you can clarify if I'm missing something.

I'll put it simply: if seatbelt laws made people wear seatbelts, municipalities would not be able to collect revenue by ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts.

And if the penal code made people not kill and rob and steal, prisons would be empty?

Compliance to laws is not an all-or-nothing thing, and the statistics clearly show a massive increase in compliance after the enactment of seat-belt laws.

"And if the penal code made people not kill and rob and steal, prisons would be empty?"

Let me know when someone gets convicted of a seatbelt violation after the extensive use of forensic evidence, victim testimony, and a statewide manhunt.

Let me know when a police officer sweats a confession out of someone that ey didn't wear a seatbelt.

Let me know when police offer a reward for information leading to the conviction of someone who failed to wear a seatbelt.

At that point, your apples will then become oranges.

Actually it's a perfect example. That people still won't wear the seatbelt when they're not just running a small risk to lose their life, but additionally a not quite as small risk to pay a fine shows that people suck at dealing with risks - or maybe that they're careless and forgetful, but designing a building isn't the kind of thing where you just forget an important step (ín part because it's feasible to inspect every single building for compliance, as opposed to inspecting every single auto driver and passenger).

"designing a building isn't the kind of thing where you just forget an important step"

Nor is having a building built much like getting into a car and "forgetting" to put on a seatbelt. If anything, I think your point makes the example less relevant.

"ín part because it's feasible to inspect every single building for compliance"

Absent corruption of the inspection process. Turkey had building codes and many wrecked buildings after the last major earthquake that had "passed" inspection due to money changing hands under the table.

No, it is your example that is made less relevant.

The only example here is yours - I didn't bring up seatbelts.

You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying that building codes would not be followed as well.

This point is invalidated by my observation because with seat-belt laws, the entity passing the law cannot realistically inspect compliance in every case while with building codes, it can.

Additionally, while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised rates of seat-belt use from from 11% in 1981 to 68% in 1997

"You brought up people not wearing seatbelts despite laws, apparently implying that building codes would not be followed as well."

I pointed out that seatbelts were a bad example for your argument. All you've done is emphasize that seatbelts are a bad example that don't fit what you're trying to say about building codes.

As as per the Turkey example, one would hope you're willing to acknowledge that even with the ability to inspect every structure, such factors as corruption, poor inspectors, bad inspection practices, plain human error, etc. mean that the we cannot assume universal compliance.

As important as building codes are, there are factors entirely separate from the codes themselves that determine how well they're actually followed.

"while seat-belt laws have not achieved 100% compliance, they have raised rates of seat-belt use"

I'm afraid you can't firmly demonstrate that relationship; 1981-1997 was also a period of extremely heavy propagandizing to get people to wear seatbelts.

FYI, you'll be slapped with a ticket if you drive without a seatbelt it New Delhi. Guess governments are right sometimes :)

There's problems when other people's buildings collapse, too. A large proportion of the population lives, works, and otherwise spends time in buildings which they don't own and don't have any convenient way of telling whether they're earthquake-insured or not. And buildings don't necessarily collapse neatly--they damage adjacent and nearby property as well. There's a huge public good in everyone being fairly confident that nearly every structure in the country is properly constructed.

Building codes ARE administered by insurance companies. The insurance industry is the main reason we have building codes. The organizations that maintain the codes (e.g. the National Fire Prevention Association which maintains the National Electric Code) is a nonprofit, non-governmental organization made up of people from the insurance and construction industries.

These codes are then adopted into law by various municipalities, possibly with amendments. The government itself doesn't write the code though.

In this post, we see the strange assumption that large corporations inherently make more efficient bureaucrats than elected officials.

Ugh. My experience is that insurance companies are one of the few institutions that somehow manage to be even more bloated and bureaucratic than the government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com