Im not sure if I am reading your comment right, but if you're offering a choice of less space or higher survival...

I mean, think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane; they don't crash often

> I mean, think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane; they don't crash often

And if we had all doors except one passenger seat, it might be even safer.

We neither optimize for absolute highest survival rate nor for absolute highest convenience/efficiency.

The question is-- how much does the second staircase improve survival? Is it the most economic way to get that survival difference?

Most residential detached multi story houses only have one staircase. If government forced me to give up one bedroom and build an extra staircase, so that I have a slightly higher chance of survival of a very unlikely event, I’d be fucking pissed.

I don't think we are talking about modifing existing buildings or small homes, they are talking towers and large units - a lot of places still count jumping out a residential second floor as an exit, so you'd probably be fine.

Being on the 7th story is very different from being on the 2nd story. If the staircase was to catch fire right now it'd be like a 6 meter jump down the window, maybe less if I manage to lower myself by hanging off the edge. I can land on my legs and I'd risk breaking an ankle or something like that at worst, not ideal but I wouldn't burn to death.

You can get out of 2nd and 3rd story windows relatively safely.

In that case, I advocate for single floor only buildings. At least, if higher survival rate is always paramount.

> think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane

If we could choose to fly on the same plane with 4 doors that would give us more legroom and get us to our destination in less time, I believe a lot of us would make that choice.

Eh? More legroom? Leg room is determined by the airline, not the plane.

If there were fewer doors there would me more seats, and the weight of the seat, passenger, and luggage would far outweigh the weight saving on the door.

And no, you ain't getting more legroom.

Can you elaborate how having more legroom and less doors makes a aircraft go faster?

An airplane with four doors instead of eight would weigh less so the plane may fly a little faster. Legroom shouldn't affect the speed.

I don’t think weight affects cruise speeds a whole lot, as I understand.

At least, not enough to make your flight measurably shorter.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47369/how-is-th...

No, the limit of airplane speed is the speed of sound, as you get very close to that aerodynamics changes greatly. While you can make a plane go faster it is rarely done.

So will an airplane with 5% less luggage or fuel. Go figure.

A giant heavy emergency ballistic reserve parachute system (currently used on smaller planes) is a much better analogy than 8 doors, which don't change the equation that much. Let's waste 20% more fuel to be able to recover from the rare all engine failure.

yeah. it is. but only in the same way that the prohibition of tetraethyl lead merely subsidized a slightly smaller amount of brain damage for relatively few children at the significant cost of the cheapest anti-knock agent known to mankind

seriously, who is pushing this weird anti-fire-code agenda and why is it in slate

"Architects and developers", the people with a financial stake in recovering floor space, and sounds like they formed a lobby.

Why its in slate is confusing, especially since the article definitely has a pro stance, with little research to back it up

> research

why is questioning a regulation that already lacks evidence for its efficacy requires research?

it's plenty of research to point at the other parts of the world that is not in flames despite higher urban density and only one egress per unit.

The journalist was lazy. The only 'statistics' offered is a graphic from the lobby against 2nd exits...that website's home page says:

"This website is a tool to make sense of the wicked problem of the second egress in Canada and prepare a building code change."

It is super biased, and the bigger issue is that it is impossible record what-if situations like how many minor US fires could have been major tragedies if they had a single stair instead of two, and firefighters could tackle a fire from two sides.

Just looking at one of their sources even states that rapid smoke/fire in stairways and vertical opens is a significant portion blocked-escape deaths

-- https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Murdoch-Univer...

Another for canada clearly says a majority of deaths are "trapped-by" -- http://nfidcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fire-statist...

Trapped-by is not the same as "would have been saved by a second egress", if the fire traps you in your room for example. It has all structure fires.

This whole fire (and building) safety code problem is that it's driven by superstition instead of data. It mandates certain solutions instead of outcomes. (Eg. the railing spacings to prevent kids from being able to fall through.)

Many developed countries have similar outcomes without the same strictness of code, plus housing is so overregulated in so many ways it's no wonder that many people argue for shifting the set-point in these trade-offs in order to help more people to have housing.

Of course ideally society would address poverty so there trade-off between safety and other aspects would be just academic.

Relatively few children? Citation really needed.

so mandatory CSAM scanners is too big government but the absolutely not evidence based fire code is great?

Why are you qualifying with “slightly” and “relatively few”? Relative to what?

Presumably relative to countries that don’t share these same 2-staircase fire regulations