2018 Georgia Life Safety

[tbz]

So, I am looking to play a little Devil's Advocate here....

7.2.2.4.5.5
New handrails shall be installed to provide a clearance of not less than 2 1/4 in. (57 mm) between the handrail and the wall to which it is fastened.

So here is my question, if the handrails are installed with posts down to the stair treads and landings, and not connected directly to the walls, are they still required to meet the 2 1/4" minimum clearance?

So how do you read this.... do you see wiggy room?????

 

[e hilton]

Must have fat fingers in georgia.

 

[bill1952]

I believe both the Life Safety Code and OSHA require 2 1/4". An article on this subject: https://wagnercompanies.com/nfpa-osha-clearance-requirements-handrail-brackets/

 

[e hilton]

That article aligns with my opinion: everybody except the fire dept is ok with the smaller clearance. And the article states that the reason behind the FD logic isn’t supported by reality.

 

[bill1952]

And the article states that the reason behind the FD logic isn’t supported by reality.

Well yeah. It's a railing manufacture and their opinion would be don't change anything because it will cost us. Entirely too much builder and manufacturer influence in ICC codes and standards.

 

[e hilton]

The reality is … anybody can buy an “expert” opinion to bolster any position. You can even get college professors to write papers supporting your position.

 

[tbz]

So Bill,

Well yeah. It's a railing manufacture and their opinion would be don't change anything because it will cost us. Entirely too much builder and manufacturer influence in ICC codes and standards.

We both know where the 2.25" clearance came from, J.P. and his involvement in the process for NFPA Life Safety 101. And the statement by Wagner is dead on that it came from the "Firemen" wanting more clearance for gloved hands. I have quotes from state officials in Florida, Maryland and Georgia all confirming the reasons they like the larger clearance and won't amend during state adoption of 101 life safety. No other reason stated when asked and yes, they all point back to a J.P. personnel recommendation, with both the FM in Florida and Maryland confirming they went by the J.P. recommendation only.

As to your statement that an open process for the ICC hearings is to open and the process should be closed down to only certain entities because industry takes it seriously to be involved. Well, either you have the option for all to be involved or elitest rule.

How, "Entirely too much builder and manufacturer influence" can be stated and not acknowledge the many things the small "I am right" group got wrong and it took industry and builders to prove the point was out of line, is just not seeing it for what it is, the only correct way is always the most controversial.

I get heated under the collar on this point because of the whole "climbable guards' issue", the wording intended to eliminate a small group of designs because a small group believed in a non-factual opinion, based on an assumption, not facts, because they know what is best for all. It led to many small and basic designs being called in to question and almost financial killing off an industry of industrial artists.

The bottom line when the facts were looked at and then peer-reviewed by an independent third parties, yes paid by industry with open input from all, what it showed was there no correlation on that assumption, but what did come up on the radar, was all these climb overs being singled out as the guards were climbable, but in reality were solid nonvisible walls acting as guards, inducing children to climb over to "SEE" what was on the other side, that they could not see.​

Sorry, I get heated when industry takes it seriously and is blamed for taking part in an OPEN process, and the solution is to close down the open process.

 

[tbz]

So back to the OP,

Only Bill and E.H. have an opinion?????

Come on Gang live a little...

The standard specifically states

"and the wall to which it is fastened."

So, if it is not fastened, is it still required to meet the 2.25" Clearance??????????

I know you are all drying to say something about intent, but the words are the words....

 

[bill1952]

I would say yes, 2 1/4" clearance, even if posted.

 

[bill1952]

How, "Entirely too much builder and manufacturer influence" can be stated and not acknowledge the many things the small "I am right" group got wrong and it took industry and builders to prove the point was out of line, is just not seeing it for what it is, the only correct way is always the most controversial.

I have not looked at the climbable guard issue much. The graspable handrail and the IRC allowance of the pinch grip design that doesnt allow a hook or power grip is just plain wrong. As is the minimum run, maximum rise IRC allows, and the homebuilders defense is not justified.

 

[e hilton]

So, if it is not fastened, is it still required to meet the 2.25" Clearance??????????

Looks like part of your response didn’t carry over.

If you’re asking … if the handrail is floor mounted does the 2-1/4” dim still apply? I think using that logic is juvenile, the intent is a certain dimension regardless if it’s mounted to the wall, floor, or anti-gravity paint.

 

[ICE]

So back to the OP,

Only Bill and E.H. have an opinion?????

Come on Gang live a little...

The standard specifically states


So, if it is not fastened, is it still required to meet the 2.25" Clearance??????????

I know you are all drying to say something about intent, but the words are the words....

I am not familiar with Georgia code. Is there a separate section for handrail that is not connected to a wall? If yes, use that. If not what would you propose...2.25" or whatever suits you?

The intent of code is always at the forefront of any dispute so why not now?

 

[tbz]

I am not familiar with Georgia code. Is there a separate section for handrail that is not connected to a wall? If yes, use that. If not what would you propose...2.25" or whatever suits you?

The intent of code is always at the forefront of any dispute so why not now?

The IBC, A117.1 and the adopted 2010 ADA all require a minimum 1.5" minimum clearance from wall guard or surface adjacent.

NFPA 101 requires a 2.25" from the wall it is fastened to.

OSHA uses NFPA 101 life safety as Safe Harbor and pulls the 2.25" from there.

Thus, if not attached would it not fall back the adopted building code and ADA of the 1.5" clearance?

Not saying no spacing, but NFPA 101 Life Safety is the only document with the 2.25" clearance and projects in many places are not getting that requirement specified in the main packages approved for construction and issued permits.

 

[tbz]

Looks like part of your response didn’t carry over.

If you’re asking … if the handrail is floor mounted does the 2-1/4” dim still apply? I think using that logic is juvenile, the intent is a certain dimension regardless if it’s mounted to the wall, floor, or anti-gravity paint.

No E.H. it was the full question if not mounted to the wall and maintains a minimum 1.5" clearance that every other plan reviewed and inspector approved for clearance.

It's a project where all the documents were submitted and the call outs for 1.5" min. are followed, specifically 1.875" is the distance I am told, the last person through is the FM and is failing for the 2.25" clearance, however nothing is mounted to the walls, as they are artwork.

So here again is my question. It says specifically to the wall fastened to...and the handrails are not fastened to any walls.

Splitting hairs, but the wording is the wording, yes/no...

 

[tbz]

I have not looked at the climbable guard issue much. The graspable handrail and the IRC allowance of the pinch grip design that doesnt allow a hook or power grip is just plain wrong. As is the minimum run, maximum rise IRC allows, and the homebuilders defense is not justified.

Bill, I have to disagree on the handrails because the studies and many of the people I talk with who have problems with handrails don't have issues with most type II's, there are some, but the majority they are fine with.

As to the rise and run, well everyone has their opinion. Personally, don't like any of the minimums, I always prefer a 14 on 6 myself. But you have to start some place and I don't think you would see any change in the injuries even at everything being 7 and 11.

 

[bill1952]

But you have to start some place and I don't think you would see any change in the injuries even at everything being 7 and 11.

I think there's plenty of research to show you most definitely would see a decrease in injuries at 7 x 11.

Was just looking for the study proposing the 6 x 14 was the "best" stair. Lots of videos and data.

CPSC identifies stairs as the cause of more injuries than any other non-vehicular product. Toilets and bathtubs are next iirc, but not too close to stairs.

 

[e hilton]

No E.H. it was the full question

So here again is my question. It says specifically to the wall fastened to...and the handrails are not fastened to any walls.

Splitting hairs, but the wording is the wording, yes/no...

I meant part of your response got cut off when i cut & pasted for my reply.

So i did interpret correctly, you’re splitting hairs on the mounting method. And my response stands: i think that’s a bad position on your part. Clearly the intent is the space to “the wall“ regardless of the mounting method.

And i also think, if everybody except the FM is happy … tell them to go away.

 

[tbz]

I think there's plenty of research to show you most definitely would see a decrease in injuries at 7 x 11.

Was just looking for the study proposing the 6 x 14 was the "best" stair. Lots of videos and data.

CPSC identifies stairs as the cause of more injuries than any other non-vehicular product. Toilets and bathtubs are next iirc, but not too close to stairs.

Bill, I also read all the studies and though they all speculate a reduction may occur, a read into many of the incidents show other conditions contributing to the falls and speculate.

Why do we know they speculate, as none of the CPSC data collected that I have ever seen in any of reports includes the locations note other than "Stair flight" or similar wording.

Studies do show in testing people are able to negotiate the 7 & 11 better than the 7.75 x 8 I have in my place built in 1875. But there is no data to specifically says what the stair flights construction was in the CPSC data....

 

[bill1952]

Certainly several different causes for injuries on stairs. Visibility, non-uniform geometry, dysfunctional or just plain missing hand rails, as well as too short treads and too high rises. They all contribute. As do alcohol and drug use, and I suspect obesity.