• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Parking sign too low? See you in court!

Also the table on character height (703.5.5) seems to support my conclusion. See column header "Height to Finish Floor or Ground From
Baseline of Character."

PS - Rick I think you are pulling from the 91, we are now on the 2010
 
If you went by the bottom of the characters on a parking sign you would go by this:

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2006 703.2.9 Height Above Floor.
Visual characters shall be 40 inches (1015 mm) minimum above the floor of the viewing position, measured to the baseline of the character. Heights shall comply with Table 703.2.4, based on the size of the characters on the sign.

Notice their is no exception for parking signs here. But parking signs are in a different chapter.
There's no floor in a parking lot too, so I don't think you can go by the baseline of the characters.
 
ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 definition
sign: An architectural element composed of displayed textual, symbolic, tactile, or pictorial information.
 
Rick18071 said:
If you went by the bottom of the characters on a parking sign you would go by this:

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2006 703.2.9 Height Above Floor.
Visual characters shall be 40 inches (1015 mm) minimum above the floor of the viewing position, measured to the baseline of the character. Heights shall comply with Table 703.2.4, based on the size of the characters on the sign.

Notice their is no exception for parking signs here. But parking signs are in a different chapter.
There's no floor in a parking lot too, so I don't think you can go by the baseline of the characters.
Click to expand...


You're missing the concept entirely.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
Correct, the "sign" being the message (wording).
Click to expand...
The ICC definition would not agree with you about measuring to the pictorial or words.
I agree with your position and in my state I can actually accept a non-life safety code violation and not enforce the letter of the code on a case by case basis.

Under the federal rules there is no definition of a sign that I could find and I do not care since I do not enforec their rules
 
Thanks but I'm not sure everybody understands my position. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 60-inches is incorrect - "to the bottom of the sign" like everyone says. I'm just saying that in reality 59-inches could be correct, since the actual sign would be the lettering (provided the lettering is beneath the symbol - if the symbol is beneath the lettering then the sign would be the bottom of the symbol). It's really common sense and if I had to defend someone where they got in trouble because the sign was 59-inches I think I would have a good run of it.

But like I said, if I had to give direction I'd just use the 60-inches to the bottom. It's much simpler to do that and I can see why the feds just use that measurement. It's a lot cleaner and easier. Besides, how many people even include the "van accessible" part in that 60-inch measurement? I see this mistake all the time. Usually people put up the main sign and then stick the "van accessible" below it, which would be wrong.
 
I never care how high the "$200 FINE" sign is. Also I'm not sure why this is even put up. Would this be a local ordinance or an ADA requirement? And who would enforce it? The FBI?
 
It could be a local ordinance, or it could be state law. It is not ADA. In Florida (for instance) it is statute. So Florida statute and ADA come together:

"The space must be posted with a permanent above-grade sign of a color and design approved by the Department of Transportation, which is placed on or at least 60 inches above the finished floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign and which bears the international symbol of accessibility meeting the requirements of s. 703.7.2.1 of the standards and the caption “PARKING BY DISABLED PERMIT ONLY.” Such a sign erected after October 1, 1996, must indicate the penalty for illegal use of the space. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in a theme park..."

So if you happen to be a contractor or business owner in Florida, make sure that wording is part of the sign. Check your state statutes and local AHJ rules and laws.

Who would enforce? Could be state trooper, or local cop. Could be a building code official. Could be someone who files a lawsuit, etc.
 
You are also correct with regards to the lense height. We have always enforced the 80" to the bottom of the lense in CA.
 
This is the response to my Query to the access board


Our online guide to the 2010 ADA Standards, Chapter 5, Parking, shows and says:
Identification [§216.5, §502.6]

0
Sign includes the background, see attached. Measure, as shown.

Accessible spaces must be identified by signs with the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) (§703.7.2.1). Signs identifying van spaces must include the term “van accessible.” This designation is informative and does not restrict use of such spaces to van users only. No other text or content is required by the Standards.

Signs must be at least 60” high measured to the bottom edge so that they are visible while vehicles are parked in a space. Signs can be on posts, or where feasible, on walls or suspended from ceilings (an 80” minimum headroom clearance is required at signs suspended above circulation paths (§307.4)). ISA designations on the parking surface, even if required by a state or local government, cannot substitute for above-ground signs that remain visible at all times.

Link to Guide: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards

Paul Beatty
Technical Assistance: U.S. Access Board ta@Access-Board.gov
 
Filthy McNasty said:
The access board has determined that the "sign" isn't the physical metal, but the wording itself. So, if the metal of the sign was at 59-inches but the wording was at 60-inches, then it complies.
Click to expand...
NOT TRUE

Filthy McNasty said:
I am aware of that.
Click to expand...
NOT TRUE, see your previous comment

The sign is measured to the bottom, as exhibit, provided by the Access Board shows....Based on your comment the sign would also exclude the ISA.
"....look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."---Albert Einstein
 
Last edited:
That technical assistance guy isn't a member of the board. He's some technical assistance guy that works there. He would first have to understand my point in order to correctly interpret and answer the point that I made. I understand it is just easier to point to the guideline, and get you off the "to do" list.

Secondly, "background" is different than border, like I said. I never made any comments about background, only about the border. I could have a huge sign with a 30-inch border with no information, and placing that sign at 60-inches would be useless as it would probably violate the height requirement.

In some instances NO parking sign is even required. So it's not that big of a deal if the bottom of the sign is at 59-inches and the wording is at 60-inches like I said. I don't think it would get one sued. But like I said, if I had to advise someone on this issue I would just say 60-inches.

Kudos to those who actually understand the concept of what a sign is.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
That technical assistance guy isn't a member of the board. He's some technical assistance guy that works there. He would first have to understand my point in order to correctly interpret and answer the point that I made. I understand it is just easier to point to the guideline, and get you off the "to do" list.

Secondly, "background" is different than border, like I said. I never made any comments about background, only about the border. I could have a huge sign with a 30-inch border with no information, and placing that sign at 60-inches would be useless as it would probably violate the height requirement.

In some instances NO parking sign is even required. So it's not that big of a deal if the bottom of the sign is at 59-inches and the wording is at 60-inches like I said. I don't think it would get one sued. But like I said, if I had to advise someone on this issue I would just say 60-inches.

Kudos to those who actually understand the concept of what a sign is.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of the phrase "alternative facts".....
 
mark handler said:
NOT TRUE

NOT TRUE, see your previous comment

The sign is measured to the bottom, as exhibit, provided by the Access Board shows....Based on your comment the sign would also exclude the ISA.
"....look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."---Albert Einstein
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what the hangup is with Einstein, or what you are trying to prove by making it a mission to prove me wrong. But I think it has done quite the opposite. My comments are vaild, as is my point. I will stand by what I said.
 
For our accessibility requirements we usually specify a range that the feature shall be located within or that the lower edge of a feature must be at a certain elevation. Signage must conform to CSA B651-04. Interpretation is left to the enforcement agencies as the requirements are in the code, which is not a legally binding document until adopted by a local government. This allows us to be a little more reasonable in our interpretation and application (meet the spirit of the requirement instead of the exact words).

For instance, I'm dealing with a renovation of a restaurant and if a urinal is provided in a barrier free washroom, it must have a clear approach width, the rim must be located at a specific height and grab bars must be provided. Urinal is already there and mounted 1.5" too high. So, I told them that if the scope of work becomes such that they can remount the urinal at the proper height that they were to do so. Some people might question who in their right mind would do this if not required to do so. I've had folks do it because it made sense based on how the scope of work changed. I've had folks just do it anyway. There's not really any penalty for not doing it here. Mostly, people want their businesses as welcoming as possible to everyone. Who's going back to a business that they are uncomfortable using?
 
Plumbing fixtures such as urinals and grab bars are different from signs, but I understand your point. Some ADA elements have absolute measurements, and some have a specified range of measurements. Tolerances are not applicable when there is a specified range of measurements, as the tolerances are already accounted for in the range given.
 
To further clarify, it is your belief that a sign is the background material (which may be made of many materials) on which the information image is printed.
The viewable (readable) information (image) on the sign is (should be) the measureable element of concern.

Code/ ADA may/does mandate the minimal dimensions of the sign and the lettering on it as well as the mounting height relative to how it is supported (wall, pole, etc.) and where it is viewed from.
 
mark handler said:
reductio ad absurdum
Click to expand...

The whole ADA is absurd, it does nothing but make people hate handicapped people, especially as they circle parking lots trying to find a place to park when half the lot is filled with empty handicapped spaces.

We've come to the point that cities and states are refusing to obey federal law, if cities and states don't have to obey law why do we citizens have to obey any laws?

Mercury News said:
SAN FRANCISCO — Saying they could lose more than $1 billion in federal funding, the city and county of San Francisco sued President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his executive order last week withholding monies from sanctuary cities.

San Francisco’s sanctuary status prohibits law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials’ detainer requests, and limiting when local officers can give Immigration and Customs Enforcement advanced notice of a person’s release from custody.

In the lawsuit, City Attorney Dennis Herrera wrote how San Francisco is a city of immigrants:

“San Francisco is safer when all people, including undocumented immigrants, feel safe reporting crimes,” he wrote. “San Francisco is healthier when all residents, including undocumented immigrants, access public health programs. And San Francisco is economically and socially stronger when all children, including undocumented immigrants, attend school.”

The city is asking for injunctive relief from the president’s order, saying it violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

The city estimated it receives more than $1.2 billion in federal funding annually, mostly through reimbursements, totaling about 13 percent of its budget.¹
Click to expand...

Let the city do without the $1.2 billion, nobody seems to care what it costs to comply with ADA. BTW, violating the 10th Amendment is the exact same argument the southern states made when ordered to comply with civil rights law by virtue of the 14th Amendment giving the federal government sovereignty over the states.


¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/...nctuary-city-order-could-lose-over-1-billion/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top