• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

What if You Could Write the New Fire Code?

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,892
Location
So. CA
What if You Could Write the New Fire Code?

Monday, May 14, 2012 | Posted by LAFD Media and Public Relations

http://lafd.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-if-you-could-write-new-fire-code.html

Well, here is your chance to at least provide some input. The Los Angeles Fire Department has recently finished its development of a proposed, new “Los Angeles Fire Code”. This code was written to be less complicated for all users and also be more consistent with both the International Fire Code (IFC) and the California Fire Code (CFC).

3932753457_ec0955b33b.jpg


But as stakeholders within the community... we need your input!

The LAFD would like to invite you to participate in this process by reviewing these proposed changes and providing your opinion. To do so, or to simply to obtain more details, please visit this link and follow the instructions:

http://bit.ly/newLAfirecode

Any questions regarding this process, should be directed to Captain Scott L. Miller in our Fire Prevention Bureau at 818.778.4939. If you so desire, Captain Miller may also be faxed: 818.778.4911.

The comment period will be open until June 11, 2012.

We kindly ask for and encourage strong participation in this worthwhile endeavor. And we "thank you" in advance.

Submitted by Matt Spence, Spokesman

Los Angeles Fire Department
 
they sure overloaded chapter one, and seem to add nfpa references when not needed

glad I work in a simple town no "" So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.

Hills, that is. Swimmin pools, movie stars"""""
 
101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements consistent withnationally recognized good practice for providing a reasonable level of life safety and propertyprotection from the hazards of fire, explosion, panic, or dangerous conditions in new and existingbuildings, structures and premises and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency

​
responders during emergency operations.

I just was wondering how you can protect property from "panic"

They sure are full of themselves when it comes to badges. I wonder if they have them copyright protected?

 
If I had to write my own fire code:

"NFPA 1 is incorporated by reference."

Then I'd go fishing.
 
Mt

If you read through it they use some undefined terms

I think under overcrowding "immediate life hazard"

Under wells something like "extraordinary fire"
 
Sure would be a lot easier to adopt the IFC or NFPA 1 than writing and more importantly having to maintain you own code? Or did I miss something here?
 
jpranch said:
Sure would be a lot easier to adopt the IFC or NFPA 1 than writing and more importantly having to maintain you own code? Or did I miss something here?
Click to expand...
It was summed up in another post

"It has been reported that incompetant individuals are blind to their own ignorance and have great confidence that they know what they are doing.'
 
"It has been reported that incompetant individuals are blind to their own ignorance and have great confidence that they know what they are doing.'

MT, love the quote!
 
I looked at some of the door-related requirements and there are some areas that I think are very light and should be more aligned with other codes. Is it worth taking the time to bring those issues to someone's attention? Or am I just banging my head against the wall (again)?
 
I would ban smoke and CO detector combinations since CO detectors have a shelf life of 2 to 7 years.
 
LGreene said:
I looked at some of the door-related requirements and there are some areas that I think are very light and should be more aligned with other codes. Is it worth taking the time to bring those issues to someone's attention? Or am I just banging my head against the wall (again)?
Click to expand...
You never know

We looked over our recent adoption of admendments numerous times , and still missed some wording issues

Maybe through your title in there, with the understanding to them you are looking at it from the code side, and not trying to sell something

I sent them a few comments, my problem is I do not know how calif operates and do know some problems are particular to certain areas
 
Don't write more code, spend time making the ones you got better.

Keep it simple so people that have to use it can understand it.

Put the authority back into the hands of the end users (building dpt. and field inspectors)

I love this so I'll post it again. I guess we are all guilty of this as some time or another. "It has been reported that incompetant individuals are blind to their own ignorance and have great confidence that they know what they are doing.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top