To: seconsultant(--nospam--at)earthlink.net, MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Testing the waters in Court
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 13:20:26 EST
Yesterday I wrote a reply to your posting; I am not sure it went through
since I don't see it listed here today.
The UBC, in my opinion, is merely a guideline, a "minimum requirement"
standard that engineers must follow to achieve a "safe" design, which is the
ultimate goal of the UBC. The UBC may not be the ONLY Road towards that
goal; engineering creativity and judgment, along the guidelines prescribed by
the code, if applied responsibly may equally achieve that goal.
As to your comments regarding testing the waters in court, it is
appropriate and certainly feasible, in an existing case where code
applicability is in issue, to subpoena the head of the seismology committee,
which is responsible for setting the "lateral forces guidelines." As such,
the seismology committee may be forced to rationalize the basis of their
guidelines, and may be even pinned-down to admit that these guidelines are
only that (a guideline), and are not necessarily the ONLY way to achieve a
By all means this is not a panacea, a cure-all medicine.Further
discussions are certainly in order.