Most of the building codes were written in blood - either that of the construction crew (in the case of site safety regulations) or that of the eventual owner (in the case of fire standards and suchlike). In both cases, long term costs should be reduced - lower insurance for developer and owner, less rebuilding burnt out shells, less earthquake damage, etc.

The regulations that weren't written in blood generally fall into the "zoning" discussion. Stuff like parking minimums, set-backs, etc.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that straddles the line is the requirement to have two staircases in low-rise apartment buildings. This is a uniquely (US)American code. Nominally to manage fire risk. But much of Europe and Canada manage with one staircase and improvements in building materials that reduce the risk of a fire starting before fast egress is necessary.

>Everyone talks about zoning, but building codes, etc are a big issue too.

In every single place where housing is "unaffordable", a literal empty plot of land is also unaffordable. It has very little to do with what it costs to build a tiny shed. This is also why "tiny houses" and "3D printed houses" are nonsense and have done nothing to improve the situation.

The problem has nothing to do with the fact that the outlet next to the bathroom sink requires a GFCI device, or that you need a separate flue for your pellet stove, and everything to do with a small plot of land being a couple hundred thousand dollars despite literally being a forest.

The homeless aren't being kicked out/arrested because their tents aren't up to code, they are being kicked out/arrested because they do not have a plot of land they are legally allowed to pitch that tent on.

Not just loss, but permanent damage. A good friend jammed his thumb into a table saw, only lost the "fatty" tip, but there's permanent nerve damage, so increased risk of burn or other future injury. So, that was on the mild end of possibly injury, but still cost a small fortune to fix (still required surgery) plus a lifetime of lost function (albeit only a small loss).

> The vast majority of tablesaw users don't lose fingers.

Practically every single person I know who does "woodworking" has some finger injury from a saw--generally the table saw. It's north of 75%.

Have you spent 20 years using a table saw most days of your working life? I think some of this centers around people who use saws day in and day out, to the point they spend a significant part of their working life using a saw when fatigued.

I don't have strong opinions on this change. I've used a table saw for years as a homeowner, and I always leave the guards on. I've never seen a table saw on a job site with the guards on.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of the people injured by table saws owned the saw that they got hurt on. How many are workers who didn't choose which saw to buy?

There is a zero percent chance you have paid 100% attention 100% of the time. A lot of accidents happen when two (or more) edge cases collide. The wind slams a door shut at the same moment that the blade catches a knot in the wood.

It's foolish to be a human and think you have the abilities of a robot.