3. Some parts of the codes, while they all have technical components, make socio-cultural-economic tradeoffs that are more properly made by elected officials. Such as economic damage from loss of life (it's not $infinite); fire deaths vs. traffic deaths.
Oh, wow!
Thank you! And much respect from my side as well.
I strongly agree with the idea that politics should stay out of technical consensus standards.
I think I differ as to whether this case is a case of the general case.
2. I think the ICC's custom Gov Consensus Process doesn't reflect technical expertise the way that the ASTM or ACI standards do, since those follow the ANSI process. (I'm only gesturing at the ICC's codes, not the referenced standards which are ANSI.)
4. The codes don't perform to the safety level of other countries.
There are many successful technical standards that simultaneously enable innovation while keeping us safe. They're so good they're like air: we don't even realize they exist.
I think we need an ICC that grows into that kind of an org.
"Mausoleum" is an excellent arrow to add to your rhetorical quiver. Instead of "[city] isn't a museum," say, "This will turn [city] into a mausoleum."
My favorite is to talk about mutuals.
1. It's one thing to defer/respect the technical experts. But it's another thing to barely know this process exists (to the extent that it's willful ignorance for plausible deniability, that should be taken away). Technical standards have a role to play in consumer safety, etc.!