View Single Post
Old 01-23-22, 07:35 AM
  #18  
dedhed
SE Wis
 
dedhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,515

Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2747 Post(s)
Liked 3,396 Times in 2,056 Posts
Originally Posted by flangehead
It isn’t about the engineers themselves, but the environment they function in. In most big (deep pocket) organizations there is a very understandable aversion to liability. The easy button for the organization is to not vary from recognized standards. That approach then hardens into a specs and standards culture as compared to a best practices and outcomes culture.

And it is not the case that all standards have a general duty clause in the preface. In my experience, the more specific the scope, the less likely that explicit wiggle room is granted.

Wide scope standards do usually have something akin to a general duty clause in the introduction. In practice that gets treated like the basic speed law in traffic regulations. It is much easier for the lawyers to hang you on a specific detail than a complex situation.
The FDM here is 27 chapters

https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/FDM-TOC.pdf
dedhed is offline