> these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come.
You could say the same thing about much of the building code.
A lot of code is there to ensure that the floor doesn't collapse if you fill the tub up with water, have a room full of people jumping up and down, or buy a piano. There's more on ensuring the roof doesn't collapse if there's lot of snow on it, and making sure the house is solid enough to safely sustain reasonably high winds or an earthquake.
If there are no earthquakes, wind or snow storms, you never buy a piano or have a party and only ever use the shower, is the effort put in satisfying these codes wasted?
I think it's important to consider the difference between "possible benefit" and "avoiding injury/death".
When it comes to safety--because we understandably put such a large value on human life--small risks are something we consider.
I believe all of your examples fall into the safety category. Even worse about your examples is that the situations are unsafe and misleading. I think our regulations surrounding the safety issues that you listed are reasonable.
(Additionally, building codes do consider expected usage and alters allowances. No one expects a piano in an attic and the floor load per square foot requirements reflect that.)
You could say the same thing about much of the building code.
A lot of code is there to ensure that the floor doesn't collapse if you fill the tub up with water, have a room full of people jumping up and down, or buy a piano. There's more on ensuring the roof doesn't collapse if there's lot of snow on it, and making sure the house is solid enough to safely sustain reasonably high winds or an earthquake.
If there are no earthquakes, wind or snow storms, you never buy a piano or have a party and only ever use the shower, is the effort put in satisfying these codes wasted?