From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:42:46 -0400
>>As long as someone profits from publishing the code every 3 years
regardless of errors, and without any liability, the code, will be published.
Realistically, is there that much scientific data warranting the publication
of a new code on a regular interval? (If the answer is yes than by all means
there should be some sort of amendment to the code) Has full scale testing
been done to back up the changes to the 97 UBC, or was it a compromise? We
all know that the code had to be rushed out by a specific deadline, and now
we're paying the penalty for an ambiguously written and untested code.<<
I agree wholeheartedly! Unfortunately, the situation is even worse as the
code cycle is not a 3-year cycle, but a 1-year cycle. While ICBO has
*printed* new codes every three years, the code change cycle for about 20
years now has been a 1-year cycle.
It used to be that code changes submitted that were unclear or incomplete
were "Held for Further Study." Then ICBO went to a 1-year cycle to eliminate
these hold overs.
Witness the current IBC2000. It wasn't even printed when the deadline for
changes, November, 1999, occurred. It still wasn't printed when the code
committees held their public hearings. It will probably not have been
adopted by many, if any, jurisdictions when challenges to the code committee
recommendations are due. It probably will not have been adopted by many, if
any, jurisdictions when the annual meeting is held in September to adopt the
changes to the IBC2000.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that it would not be difficult to pierce the
cloak of immunity by showing the absurd review and amending procedures that
A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)