• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

So what is right and what is wrong with the ICC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jpranch

jpranch

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,976
Location
Gillette Wyoming
I wanted to start a discussion on what you all see that the ICC is doing right and what you think is wrong. I must tell you that having enguaged on a much deeper level over the past 1 1/2 years there is quite a lot of good going on out there. Seen some of the ugly as well. Thank goodness that the ugly I have seen is a very small percentage. So with that introduction let the discourse begin!

 
I like ICC's online courses and practice exams. I like their initiative in sending the 2012 ISPSC. I like their email updates. They have come a long way in the past few years.
 
rshuey said:
I like ICC's online courses and practice exams. I like their initiative in sending the 2012 ISPSC. I like their email updates. They have come a long way in the past few years.
Click to expand...
I think that their online practice exams are just so, so. We can make it a whole lot better by dramatically expanding the number of questions and practice exams. For those of you that have been to "The Construction Exam Center"

http://www.constructionexam.com/ I would highly recommend that the ICC use their format.
 
I'll just focus on what they are doing wrong, because they are really doing it wrong.

The code development and revision process is totally based on emotion and anecdote rather than reason and data.

How many people have lost their life in church fires over the past 20 years?

That's the reason NFPA allows more than 300 occupants in places of worship with fixed seating (and other conditions) without sprinklers.

ICC pretends to be "more safe" by creating more stringent requirements, even though they have zero effect on life safety.

The second problem is that the I-codes are spaghetti.

More code provisions are always favored over clarity, consistent organization, and simplicity...they've never met a requirement they didn't like enough to add.

Just look at the damn IRC.

It's a disorganized clusterfk.

Page after page on ICF.

Nothing on masonry lintels.
 
Yea, lets just take you to five other Chapters and four sections where we will try to explain why this is not permitted. Oh yea agree with Brudgers and MT!
 
For those complaining about the code development process, are you involved in it?
 
Codegeek said:
For those complaining about the code development process, are you involved in it?
Click to expand...
It's the process which is the issue, not participation. Since this is the internet, I'll invoke my right to use Godwin's Law in an analogy:

Joining the Nazi party, doesn't solve the problems with the Nazi party.

I'm not saying that the ICC is a bunch of Nazis.

Rather that participation doesn't change the process.
 
For those complaining about the code development process, are you involved in it?
Click to expand...
Yep, not with ICC though...not interested...too much "emotion and anecdote rather than reason and data". Principal on a 101 TC strong on reason and data and saying what is necessary in the section covering the issues at hand.
 
I think every three years for "New" Codes is too often. I realize you can't make as much publishing money if you stretch the time between series' but 5-6 years should be good. If some incredible updates need to be done more frequently, publish an addendum (for free!)
 
I don't know if this is the place for this thought and I know I'm not as experienced as most (all?) of you but one thing that I have always thought is this:

The best codes aren't the always the most restrictive or the most safe. Sometimes they are the most easily understood and most easily implimentable.

The point is, I think the more complicated or difficult it becomes to understand a provision, the more you push people away from it. Sometimes even inspectors. When I go to training classes and see 75% of a room glassy eyed or sleeping while the instructor or engineer teaching the class goes on and on I just know that however good and valid that code is, it is not going to be enforced the way it should be. Maybe the ICC or any other code making body should use a little more of the KISS principle, Every code gets thicker by allowing more and more prescriptive elements, more and more exceptions. Is there a limit? Will there eventually be 34 methods of wall bracing? Maybe its just where I am but I think these folks would respond better to fewer regulations even if they offer fewer options.

Just a perspective from lil' old field inspector. Let me have it.
 
mjesse said:
I think every three years for "New" Codes is too often. I realize you can't make as much publishing money if you stretch the time between series' but 5-6 years should be good. If some incredible updates need to be done more frequently, publish an addendum (for free!)
Click to expand...
NFPA updates some of their standards every three years so should they change as well or just ICC?
 
Codegeek said:
NFPA updates some of their standards every three years so should they change as well or just ICC?
Click to expand...
Both/any/all. 3 years is too frequent.

Technology changes pretty fast, but not enough to justify reprinting the ENTIRE code. The big important stuff changes at a much slower rate. Allowing new technologies to fit into the existing codes shouldn't be a big deal.

Since the 2015's are in full development, let's clean those up then hold off 'til 2020
 
This is my number beef with the ICC...number two is the code adoption/amendment process.

mjesse said:
I think every three years for "New" Codes is too often. I realize you can't make as much publishing money if you stretch the time between series' but 5-6 years should be good. If some incredible updates need to be done more frequently, publish an addendum (for free!)
Click to expand...
 
Codegeek said:
NFPA updates some of their standards every three years so should they change as well or just ICC?
Click to expand...
The NFPA adds a few new provisions every cycle. A lot of the changes in each code cycle are editorial with the intent of making the code easier to understand or more internally consistent in structure.

The ICC radically changes code requirements and extends the scope significantly each cycle.
 
A BIG thank you to jpranch for bringing this idea and topic up for discussion.

How come no one from ICC has reached out? The meeting in Denver, IMO, was

a farce and a failure. Not blaming Kyle, but no one from ICC has asked for any

improvements have they? Too many special interests are involved at ICC.

Someone has stated that ICC "is in bed with too many special interests".

I, for one, fully support Jim Brown for being elected to the board of directors.

Go get `em Jim!

Also, I too agree that 3 yrs. is too frequent of a code cycle!

WHAT IS RIGHT AT ICC?

They are the only game in town, besides the NFPA. Do we want the NFPA

brand of codes as a model standard? :confused:

.
 
So what are your thoughts on CDP Access? A.K.A. remote voting. Where do you see us right now, are we on track, the future?
 
NFPA initiated a policy many years ago that any proposed code change had to demonstrate a documented need. For example (using a previous example), if there was a history of fire deaths or injuries in non sprinklered churches with occupant loads of less than 300 persons then a code change proposal could be made to require those occupancies to be sprinklered. The intent was to get the emotion and financial interest out of the code writing process. The new policy worked for a few cycles, but then NFPA digressed into the same old patterns and code changes are now made with little or no substantiation. ICC should adopt this type of policy and stick to it.
 
I do like the publications. I have limited human interface outside of this forum for ideas and education so I read lots of stuff. Not crazy about how expensive they are but I do like the content I find in most of it. (Unfortunately I need it to explain what the heck the code means sometimes)
 
Since I'm in Canada I use the Canadian building code, but I though I might have a little input. First the thought of voting on code requirements sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. Since we have an objective based code each code requirement will satisfy both a functional and operational objective of the code. operational requirements are broken into 4 sections such as "fire and structural protection of buildings" this operational statement is further broken down twice more so you end up with something along the lines of "collapse of physical elements due to a fire or explosion". Functional statements further describe an operational statement; "to retard the effects of fire on areas beyond its point of origin. Basically every section of our code satisfies one or more operational and functional requirements of the code. This evaluation is done by the National Research Council(NRC) who also publish our code. Before a requirement can be written into the code they preform hundreds of hours of research to determine its necessity or effectiveness. An excellent example is residential sprinklers in single and two family homes. The NRC calculated an average cost of 38 million dollars per life saved, which is almost 13 times what they consider a reasonable abatement system should cost per life saved (3 million is their number in case you were wondering). Finally the code changes are published for public commentaries which are reviewed by the NRC before adoption of the code changes to make sure they are not overly restrictive, they are clear and concise, ect.

We also publish codes every 5 years. the NRC releases addendums (yes, for free) as well as emergency changes (none since smoke alarm requirement in single family dwellings in the 70s).
 
mjesse said:
You Canadians and your common sense approach to things.....That'll never work here!
Click to expand...
Trust me... It's no more common up here than it is down there...

The problem is it costs a lot of money for the NRC to employ industry leaders and specialists, so they are sponsored by the government.
 
I have 2 more in addition to what others have said:

1. Structural requirements are getting ridiculously complicated. The IBC should have a simplified conservative set of requirements, with the option to use ASCE 7 if you want your answer to the 10th decimal place.

2. Requirements get moved back & forth too often. For instance, I'll never understand the logic of moving Table 602 away from Section 705. Comparing the IBC with past editions of the BOCA code, the critical requirements are not all that different (except for structural & increased sprinkler requirements). There are just more exceptions, and they've been moved a half dozen times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top