A117.1 /2003

[jar546]

Re: A117.1 /2003

Went back to pre 2009 IBC and read 1109.13

My opinion is that a peephole is not "hardware intended for operation" as nothing gets operated, you simply look through it.

Still does not apply in my opinion.

If a challenged employee made a complaint then I could see the company have to accomodate but this is not required under IBC or ANSI 117.1

Again, my opinion.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Re: A117.1 /2003

"Advisory 809.5.5.2 Identification. In doors, peepholes that include prisms clarify the image and should offer a wide-angle view of the hallway or exterior for both standing persons and wheelchair users. Such peepholes can be placed at a standard height and permit a view from several feet from the door."

I believe the key words here are; Advisory, should, and can be.

Great, now they are adding opinions in the code. This belongs in the Commentary.

Not required.

Uncle Bob

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: A117.1 /2003

Great, now they are adding opinions in the code. This belongs in the Comentary.

Yup! The feds put their commentary in "advisory" notes rather than in a separate commentary. At least it's better than the current ADAAG which has the commentary in the appendix.

 

[brudgers]

Re: A117.1 /2003

Great, now they are adding opinions in the code. This belongs in the Comentary.

Yup! The feds put their commentary in "advisory" notes rather than in a separate commentary. At least it's better than the current ADAAG which has the commentary in the appendix. [/quote:rwsjbbk3]

Just another reason the proposed version is so bad.

You can see "the ick's" hand in it.

They'd never organize a code in the manner of the NFPA.

Heck that's only worked for a century or so.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: A117.1 /2003

Great, now they are adding opinions in the code. This belongs in the Comentary.

Yup! The feds put their commentary in "advisory" notes rather than in a separate commentary. At least it's better than the current ADAAG which has the commentary in the appendix.

Just another reason the proposed version is so bad.

You can see "the ick's" hand in it.

They'd never organize a code in the manner of the NFPA.

Heck that's only worked for a century or so.[/quote:1n8s7e5a]

The NFPA is the only hold-out of the major organization in this country to refuse to abide by the numbering system recommended by the National Bureau of Standards. Everyone else has been making the switch since 1978. Oh, and I really like those references in the NFPA to Sections as in 7.12.3.2.12.1.1.1©. (Easy to remember. . . . . )

 

[brudgers]

Re: A117.1 /2003

The NFPA is the only hold-out of the major organization in this country to refuse to abide by the numbering system recommended by the National Bureau of Standards. Everyone else has been making the switch since 1978. Oh, and I really like those references in the NFPA to Sections as in 7.12.3.2.12.1.1.1©. (Easy to remember. . . . . )

Gene, you shouldn't try to remember it. You should look it up and make sure you're right. And you should do it every time.

Changing something that works for the sake of change is "the ick" way.

Fortunately the NFPA's mission is not "instituting standard nomenclature systems."