Tireless? He looked so casual in that close-up headshot he stuck in between the pictures of the inferno.

sounds reasonable to me, Jeremy.

i doubt, however, that the cab-passenger who had that "firecracker" blow through his stomach, "blasting a big hole" therein, damaging his spleen and thereby killing him as he rode past a restaurant's impromptu fireworks-laden celebration would agree.

unless, of course, the restaurant responsible for his death was setting off "Class A" explosives, in which case i'm sure he'd be totally on board with you.

who doesn't enjoy blowing off steam, after all?

What an idiotic misdirection to make this about class. It's not about "Class A" people vs. the common man.

It's about common sense and safety.

Look at all the crap Beijing people store on balconies open to the outside. Look at the height and explosive power of "regular joe" fireworks set off this year - higher and bigger explosions than ever.

A single ember, into a single "excess renovation materials" pile on a single balcony, and rather than an empty hotel, you have an old apartment block burning down killing 20 families.

Fireworks *must* be clear of buildings.

I don't care how "nongming" you are, you don't get to endanger other people's lives for "fun".

slowboat: I've posted a translation from a blogger who makes the excellent observation that the car-door puncture story was run in Xinhua's Auto Channel rather than a hard news section, meaning that it was likely a hoax perpetrated by a competitor to Chang'an Suzuki, the manufacturer of the car in question, to mislead consumers about that make's quality.

If you think forbiding fireworks in Beijing is a bad idea try this: Now all microwaves, freezers, and even water dispensers were forbiden at the "old" cctv buiding, and smoking was also forbiden inside the cctv complex :(

PyroBoy:

With this comment, you join the ranks of the killjoy, spoilsport, safety-obsessed, hypochondriac nannies who rule the 21st Century.

Don't worry, there are plenty of people who feel the same as you, possibly the majority, especially when it comes to the English speaking world, where nanny governments are becoming the norm.

My initial reaction was the same, because I am a curmudgeon and not a big fan of fireworks, but I think it's obviously unreasonable to ban all fireworks in Beijing - they are too popular, yes, and in general they do not cause problems that can't be avoided by using them properly. Over-regulation is expensive, ineffective and stupid. It is also the defining trend of seemingly all governments - look at the financial crisis. Will we even have a capitalist system (in the US, particularly) when it's all said and done?

So, here's another vote for some new year's anarchy.

Next spring festival can someone let off some Class A firecrackers very close to Jianwai SOHO or any of the myriad of ugly buildings that Pan Shiyi has "created".

@Jeremy:

"With this comment, you join the ranks of the killjoy, spoilsport, safety-obsessed, hypochondriac nannies who rule the 21st Century."

Because I demanded that fireworks be clear of buildings when they are let off?!?

Reading comprehension problems, much?

I guess you're the sort of fuckwit who believes seatbelt laws are "killjoy, spoilsport, safety-obsessed" as well, eh?

There ARE killjoys, no question. But there is also BASIC HARM MINIMIZATION.

The difference shouldn't be too hard for even an intellectually challenged individual like yourself to grasp.

"BASIC HARM MINIMIZATION"?

Were you schooled in the Department of Newspeak? Maybe? Did your father and mother put plastic covers on all the electrical outlets when you were crawling about the family living room? Yes? Have you ever abandoned yourself to a single, mad desire and acted on it? No? And you call others fuckwit? Are you content with the moniker "twit"?

@Scott

Answers: no, no, yes of course. So much for your straw men.

Harm minimization is hardly "newspeak" mate. It's the basic principle that says, for example: instead of banning eccy at raves (which is impossible), making an obviously pleasurable drug "illegal" and trying to scare kids into not using, you simply make sure there's lots of free (or cheap) water available at parties where there's likely to be eccy.

Harm minimization is the OPPOSITE of killjoy oh-god-think-of-the-children-ism.

Harm minimization is "let off all the fireworks you like, but don't be a shit-for-brains and burn down someone else's apartment block", to return to my original example.

But these are, granted, subtle arguments that are obviously a little too advanced for Messrs Loar and Goldkorn.

And do invest in a better class of insults, won't you boys? I mean "hypochondriac" and "twit"?! Come come now.

I'd rather that commenters refrain from investing in insults, regardless of class. Thanks.

I, too, would hope commenters refrain from insults but "basic harm minimization" simply invites ridicule. It will take a better man than I to let such idiocy in a native speaker pass without comment.

Sadly Scott, your last comment "invites" the observation that you seem to be the kind of chap that believes encountering concepts you've never heard is grounds for "ridicule".

Please do me, yourself, and everyone you meet in future a favour, and google "harm reduction" or "harm minimization", would you?

It covers things as diverse as: designated drivers; syringe boxes in public toilets; basic quality standards for Chinese fireworks (which reduced the number of kids losing eyes and fingers TENFOLD when they were bought in a few years back); mandatory safety ratings on cars, etc.

The basic premise is: you can't stop people engaging in risky (and bloody fun!) behaviour, but you CAN minimize the harm to others that behaviour could cause.

And with mandating a minimum distance fireworks must be from buildings, that is ALL I was suggesting be done in China. Easy to publicize, easy to enforce, easy to have even the most dedicated pyromaniac (like me!) understand.

But, of course, to Goldkorn it's all about .... wait for it .... Class A people versus the fun of the masses. Or something. Which is just utterly baffling, really. And for even suggesting there might be some kind of simple safety guideline that would prevent the bulk of potentially lethal fires, I get labeled a killjoy spoilsport.

Note to self: don't try to actually discuss anything on Danwei.

PyroBoy, while I tend to agree with the general thrust of your argument, minimum distance from buildings is not the only guideline that can prevent fireworks accidents. Power limitations are safety guidelines that do prevent injuries and fires. Class A fireworks are prohibited in downtown Beijing for a reason, and the fact that CCTV was able to use them without a license does say a lot about relative liberties of classes of people and institutions.

I'm all for safety regulations, but (a) they have to be enforced consistently, without separating revellers into a class of people who can set off fireworks wherever they wish and another class that gets banished to a remote part of town for their pyrotechnics, and (b) the CCTV fire, whose immediate cause was directly related to a violation of safety regulations already on the books, should not be used as a justification for restricting people who were following existing regulations.

There's a good case to be made for sensible revisions to the current fireworks laws, but the CCTV fire is a red herring.

>>the CCTV fire is a red herring.

No it isn't. It's an example of what can very easily happen when fireworks (of any "class") get set off too close to buildings.

Can we, at the very least, agree that there is a happy and relatively safe place somewhere between "woohoo! let's blow shit up!" and "no fireworks in cities"?

And having agreed on that, I see (literally) nowhere on that continuum for a discussion of what "A Class" people can and can't do compared to what "poor sods" can manage. Now that is a red herring, courtesy one J Goldkorn, and we've come full circle.

Sure, the law applies equally to all with no "Class A" vs "poor sods" in principle, but when a state institution is able to turn a blind eye to police warnings and burn up a building with a class of fireworks that it wasn't supposed to use, it can very well do the same thing in an area where it's technically not supposed to be holding a fireworks display. That's the issue with the CCTV fire.