pool barrier on raised deck

[steven jones]

Rick, I assume the pool is on the upper lever hidden from view. Even if a person were to scale the rough stone wall, does not the fence on top keep them away from the pool? I can't quite see how the lower fence (with the hedge) adds to the safety of this situation. Although, I guess if there was only a 48 in. gate at the bottom of the stairs, a determined person could use the stone wall to climb up and over to gain access at the bottom of the stairs.

Unable to edit post so I added this reply. Intended for TBZ not Rick. Please explain what jurisdiction this is in.
Thanks

 

[mark handler]

Mark,
The code was changed in 2009 to the guard height starting from the fixed seating of the built in seat, go figure 2 code cycles later building officials voted to have the requirement removed.

I am not sure what to say other than, it was in and now it is out.

Okay now i have moveable benches and tables
How does the climing effect the rail?

 

[JBI]

Which is precisely why it was removed from the Code...

 

[SCBO1]

Not sure where I picked this up, do any of you measure 36-inches out from the deck to determine the 30-inch height requirement from grade on a yard that slopes down? Just asking.

 

[JBI]

Pcinspector, you 'picked it up' from the IRC in the 'Guards and Window Fall Protection' section.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Not sure where I picked this up, do any of you measure 36-inches out from the deck to determine the 30-inch height requirement from grade on a yard that slopes down? Just asking.

Yes I do this. Had a few decks where they dumped some dirt along the edge of the deck to keep the deck below 30" to grade.

 

[Keystone]

Not sure where I picked this up, do any of you measure 36-inches out from the deck to determine the 30-inch height requirement from grade on a yard that slopes down? Just asking.

Certainly Do. This horizontal measurement triggers fencing/railing the majority of the time.

 

[Keystone]

Rick, we run into this and it's a pain in the as-. We require full height barrier from whatever the established grade is, if that established grade happens to be a deck then the deck floor is ground zero for our 48" measurement. That established grade is our interpretation of the code, code language can not be black and white when attempting to address so many issues.

Also I'm one of the slim few but I do not permit gates at the top of stairs or on the last tread to act as part of the barrier/gate assembly. A 36" landing area that is fenced would in my view be required that is fenced/part of the barrier or they can hold the entire barrier off 3' from the bottom most stair. Reason being, a gate on the bottom tread does not comply with fence requirements for permitted dimensions.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

SECTION R202
DEFINITIONS
.GRADE. The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls .

The word "grade" in section AG105.2 is in italics.

This is what it says in the IRC preface:
Italicized Terms
Selected terms set forth in Chapter 2, Definitions, are italicized where they appear in code text. Such terms are not italicized where the definition set forth in Chapter 2 does not impart the intended meaning in the use of the term. The terms selected have definitions which the user should read carefully to facilitate better understanding of the code.

I don't see how a elevated deck floor can be called a finished ground level.

The code probably shouldn't be italicizing the word grade in this section. I will be measuring from the walking surface or a bench or anything else that is permanently built even though it is against what the code says, but if confronted with this by the owner or contractor it seams I don't have anything to stand on.

We will be adopting newer codes soon, has this been changed to walking surface?

 

[TZJR]

Rick, I assume the pool is on the upper lever hidden from view. Even if a person were to scale the rough stone wall, does not the fence on top keep them away from the pool? I can't quite see how the lower fence (with the hedge) adds to the safety of this situation. Although, I guess if there was only a 48 in. gate at the bottom of the stairs, a determined person could use the stone wall to climb up and over to gain access at the bottom of the stairs.

Steven,

You had 3 levels, you had the main ground level off the back of the house, then down 1 level to the mid level yard with the swimming pool and then the lower level yard, which is were the picture is viewed from.

There is no fence on top the wall, that is "36 inch high Guard", to protect someone from falling off the pool level.

Here is the other situation we found curious. On the upper level which was 12 feet above the pool level below, the inspector required us to install a pool barrier between the open yard and the pool on the mid level. The only way to get to the pool, was to climb over the "guard" on the upper level and fall down 12 feet to the mid level yard below where the pool was. Thus, they wanted protection from jumping off the patio above, down 12 ft to the lower level were the pool was.

This one still makes me think why, and just so you know, what you don't see in the picture if I turn 180 degrees and took it again you are looking right out in to the Long Island Sound.

Access from the next door residents is also all fenced in, they have pools also.

So to re-cap, swim in from the ocean to land, walk across the yard to stone 12 ft high wall, scale it, climb over 36 inch guard on top of wall so you can drown in the pool.

Hope this helps

Regards - TBZ

 

[TZJR]

Okay now i have moveable benches and tablesView attachment 2807
How does the climing effect the rail?

Mark,

Pull the code a part anyway you want, but here is a simple look at it.

Inspectors complain all the time about "Climbable Guards" things like cable and pipe, the injury statistics show no problem, but inspectors jump up and down about this all the time, we have seen it right on this forum, time and time again.

The same inspectors that talk about climbable guard designs also tell us, go right ahead and install fixed seating against the guard, there is no problem, because the code tells us to measure from the walking surface.

Thus during the review of Climbable guards by the CTC, the wording was inserted that was similar to that used in bleachers. Thus, though no problem was seen, but wording was added that simply said, if you install fixed seating then you needed to raise the guard height. If you didn't want to raise the guard height, then don't install fixed seating.

Now fast forward, everyone is complaining they have to raise the guard height because the seating is fixed in place, but if not fixed in place the guard height is fine.

Thus, my comment "Go Figure"

Now here is the real question, what is the most common type of guard that is climb over? Well if you review the data, you will find the majority of the time, its solid half height walls , why you say well my guess is because they can't see what is on the other side and thus climb over to see.

Think about that for a bit.

Regards - Tom

 

[TZJR]

I don't see how a elevated deck floor can be called a finished ground level.

The code probably shouldn't be italicizing the word grade in this section. I will be measuring from the walking surface or a bench or anything else that is permanently built even though it is against what the code says, but if confronted with this by the owner or contractor it seams I don't have anything to stand on.

We will be adopting newer codes soon, has this been changed to walking surface?

Rick,

Why does everyone want to make the barrier section of the pool code complicated.

Its simple. Stand on the outside and look at the pool. The barrier needs to keep someone from getting to the pool. Does not matter what is between you and the pool.

Rocks, trees, decks, patios, car sculptures, dinosaurs pick one, the barrier must be a minimum of 48" high, must have non climbable foots holds for a minimum of 45" of rise.

Tell them to Implant that picture between them and the pool.

Then pick, Install the barrier to compliance or don't install the pool, its that simple.

Regards - TBZ

 

[TZJR]

Pcinspector, you 'picked it up' from the IRC in the 'Guards and Window Fall Protection' section.

It is in both the model IBC & model IRC charging statement for where guards are required.

Some AHJ adopt it as is, some increase the 36" distance and others remove it all together. But its in the where required, requirements.

TBZ

 

[mark handler]

Mark,

Pull the code a part anyway you want, but here is a simple look at it.

Inspectors complain all the time about "Climbable Guards" things like cable and pipe, the injury statistics show no problem, but inspectors jump up and down about this all the time, we have seen it right on this forum, time and time again.

The same inspectors that talk about climbable guard designs also tell us, go right ahead and install fixed seating against the guard, there is no problem, because the code tells us to measure from the walking surface.

Thus during the review of Climbable guards by the CTC, the wording was inserted that was similar to that used in bleachers. Thus, though no problem was seen, but wording was added that simply said, if you install fixed seating then you needed to raise the guard height. If you didn't want to raise the guard height, then don't install fixed seating.

Now fast forward, everyone is complaining they have to raise the guard height because the seating is fixed in place, but if not fixed in place the guard height is fine.

Thus, my comment "Go Figure"

Now here is the real question, what is the most common type of guard that is climb over? Well if you review the data, you will find the majority of the time, its solid half height walls , why you say well my guess is because they can't see what is on the other side and thus climb over to see.

Think about that for a bit.

Regards - Tom

Think about what? What are you saying?

 

[tmurray]

Mark,

Pull the code a part anyway you want, but here is a simple look at it.

Inspectors complain all the time about "Climbable Guards" things like cable and pipe, the injury statistics show no problem, but inspectors jump up and down about this all the time, we have seen it right on this forum, time and time again.

The same inspectors that talk about climbable guard designs also tell us, go right ahead and install fixed seating against the guard, there is no problem, because the code tells us to measure from the walking surface.

Thus during the review of Climbable guards by the CTC, the wording was inserted that was similar to that used in bleachers. Thus, though no problem was seen, but wording was added that simply said, if you install fixed seating then you needed to raise the guard height. If you didn't want to raise the guard height, then don't install fixed seating.

Now fast forward, everyone is complaining they have to raise the guard height because the seating is fixed in place, but if not fixed in place the guard height is fine.

Thus, my comment "Go Figure"

Now here is the real question, what is the most common type of guard that is climb over? Well if you review the data, you will find the majority of the time, its solid half height walls , why you say well my guess is because they can't see what is on the other side and thus climb over to see.

Think about that for a bit.

Regards - Tom

Canada actually eliminated the non-climbable guard requirements on anything that is not more than 1 storey in height and not more than 4.2m above the adjacent ground. The reality is that there are very few injuries and no documented deaths in Canada from climbing over guards that are not above these heights.

Pool barriers are not handled under the building code here. This is accomplished through local by-laws.

 

[mark handler]

Canada actually eliminated the non-climbable guard requirements on anything that is not more than 1 storey in height and not more than 4.2m above the adjacent ground. The reality is that there are very few injuries and no documented deaths in Canada from climbing over guards that are not above these heights.

Pool barriers are not handled under the building code here. This is accomplished through local by-laws.

The Swimming Pool Safety Act 115920 - 115929

California pool safety code includes the "climbing provision":
An outside surface free of protrusions, cavities, or other physical characteristics that would serve as handholds or footholds that could enable a child below the age of five years to climb over.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

To Jester the inspector,

I have river front property and a natural five feet deep pond available for dipping, fishing and fun at ones own risk without liability to me. And if I construct an aquatic vessel that's not intended for swimming, bathing or wading i.e. a fish pond, irrigation reservoir or a watering hole for wildlife or the farm animals a barrier still would not be required.

In any event some kids like to climb the fence!