In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to Jim Fraser) a good builder should be able to make an intelligent judgement on a beam based on similar houses they have done before.
And what credible tools for an intelligent judgement on such a matter does the good builder have?
We have to get a grip of the fact that buildings stay up for a reason. Older buildings are still there because all the weaker old ones have fallen down. The ones that are still there weren't necessarily better designed: they often just had a bigger pile of decent stones available or the ground beneath them happend to be better. Modern ones usually stay up because someone with a bit of inteligence understood the materials thoroughly and understood the ground beneath them.
In the 21st century, we expect high standards. We need to get a grip of what that means. Most politicians weren't listening in maths and science at school otherwise they could have got proper jobs. This can result in poor judgements about what is required for technical legislation. In spite of that, most European legislators get it right a lot of the time thanks to extensive consultation.
Mistakes have been made in legislation about fasteners in construction and about foundations. The foundations are usually too good and the fasteners are often too poor. We pay for the former in cash and the latter, well, that remains to be seen.