[Porsche-O-Phile]

True dat.

I imagine it's worse on government jobs where one is virtually obligated to take the low bid, even if it's clear that so-and-so is deliberately underbidding the job and will (1) be looking to cut corners where/when ever possible and (2) be looking to slam you on change orders for every little thing possible. In the private sector, one typically has the discretion to take a different bid (although usually there has to be some kind of justification in case the shareholders or execs ever ask about it).

I think we agree more than disagree here although to cut to the heart of the difference (and to specifically address what was probably the original post's intent), I'll say that there's a HUGE difference between government regulation/code compliance and designing/executing a good, quality, safe structure. One does not lead to the other in all cases.

Are code-compliant buildings safer? Probably in most cases. But there's more than one way to fry an egg. I don't think hammering EVERY issue with "more laws, more government, more regulation" is a solution. In this case it helps some, but frankly I think the threat of lawsuits FAR outweighs the effectiveness of the voluminous tomes that sit on my desk with respect to forcing good, quality and safe end products. . .