• 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

Another fail inspection!

RJJ

Co-Founder
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,940
Location
about 1' east of the white water
Just can't get it right!

IMG_0920.jpg
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

I'm sure they have every intention of closing in those risers - probably just need a new router bit after chewing up all of that treated pine! :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

John Drobysh said:
One of my pet-peeves is graspable handrails.
The IRC and IBC are full of pet peeves.

That's the problem.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers said:
John Drobysh said:
One of my pet-peeves is graspable handrails.
The IRC and IBC are full of pet peeves.

That's the problem.

Thanks to litigation and people with a lack of common sense. Oh and don't forget the injured and dead people.

Time for a true story from my memory bank: I was able to get information from a witness.

I worked part time for years as a paramedic on nights and weekends. One memorable call was for a fall victim. An older lady was dropped off in front of her house which had 5 risers leading up to the front porch. The driver asked her if she needed some help getting in the house and she stated no. He asked again and she said no, she would be fine. They watched her walk up the steps and toward the top she lost her balance. The handrails were not graspable and similar in width to the ones shown. They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries. When I got there she was having snoring respirations, unconcious and bleeding from the back of her head profusely. We packaged her, I intubated her to ventilate her and delivered her to the hospital within 10 minutes. She died a few hours later of a subdural hematoma.

I won't forget that. I won't forget the look of guilt on the driver of the car who wanted to help but was not assertive enough.

These codes are here for a reason. Take them seriously.

So if you think the residential codes are too hard to comply with then you are sadly mistaken. Maybe you have not eaten a piece of humble pie in a while.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

A graspable handrail on someone else's house would not have made any difference.

On the other hand if everyone was required to where a crash helmet, she might still be alive.

The handrails like that shown are reasonable for dwellings.

We don't outlaw driving because people die, either.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Ok JD, tell brudgers how much sense he's not making. And JD, don't forget to check it for spelling. :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

tiger -

I may be a 'Master of the Obvious', but it would be a waste of even my less-than-precious time to point anything out to ol' brudgers. :roll:

Too set in his ways, too stubborn in the face of reality to accept his position as untenable. :eek:

Poor guy didn't even realize that by 'pet-peeve' I meant one thing I always look for, NOT one that I wish weren't there. :? Maybe some day he'll realize how different the world is today compared with the good old days of his youth... NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Why would this stairway have to be built with treated material, it's a garage, is't above grade? Graspable handrail and kickers, is there anything else to fail?
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

John Drobysh said:
tiger - I may be a 'Master of the Obvious', but it would be a waste of even my less-than-precious time to point anything out to ol' brudgers. :roll:

Too set in his ways, too stubborn in the face of reality to accept his position as untenable. :eek:
A position held on the basis of ethics, is never untenable.

To give it up because it is unpopular merely demonstrates a lack of character.

As far eliminating hazards from the home goes, a person is far less likely to die falling down stairs than from intentionally shooting themselves with a firearm.

John Drobysh said:
Poor guy didn't even realize that by 'pet-peeve' I meant one thing I always look for, NOT one that I wish weren't there. :? Maybe some day he'll realize how different the world is today compared with the good old days of his youth... NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! :lol:
I apologize for failing to assume you did not know how to properly employ "pet peeve" in a sentence.

When solid reasonably safe construction such as depicted in the photograph does not meet the code, the problem is the code.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Pcinspector1 said:
Why would this stairway have to be built with treated material, it's a garage, is't above grade? Graspable handrail and kickers, is there anything else to fail?
Doesn't meet the pet peeve requirement.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

:(

"I apologize for failing to assume you did not know how to properly employ "pet peeve" in a sentence."

pet peeve

NOUN:

Informal

Something about which one frequently complains; a particular personal vexation.

My frequent complaint, my particular personal vexation is that after more than 6 years in the Code as a REQUIREMENT, there are still so many 'contractors' who insist on ignoring the adopted code...

Now, what were you saying about my linguistic knowledge?
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers said:
A graspable handrail on someone else's house would not have made any difference.On the other hand if everyone was required to where a crash helmet, she might still be alive.

The handrails like that shown are reasonable for dwellings.

We don't outlaw driving because people die, either.
No, but they have to have their seat belt on, and the car needs all kinds of safety design and equipment. A handrail is useless if you can't grab it, no matter how pretty it looks or how put out you would be to actually fail something that looks so good.

Good luck defending reasonable in court.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

TJacobs said:
No, but they have to have their seat belt on, and the car needs all kinds of safety design and equipment. A handrail is useless if you can't grab it, no matter how pretty it looks or how put out you would be to actually fail something that looks so good.
In the anecdote upon which defense of the code has been based, the sweet little old lady was carrying groceries.

If you don't use the handrail, it's profile doesn't make any difference.

On the other hand, if she had been properly harnessed and on belay then she might have been saved.

TJacobs said:
Good luck defending reasonable in court.
My comment was that the code requirements are absurdly excessive.

That's not the sort of thing one needs to defend in court.

If you want to eliminate falls on stairs, eliminate stairs.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Brudgers wrote: "In the anecdote upon which defense of the code has been based, the sweet little old lady was carrying groceries.

If you don't use the handrail, it's profile doesn't make any difference."

From the OP: "They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries."

Next!
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Risers may be compliant if the total rise is less than 30 inches.

Agree handrails are non-compliant

R311.5.3.3 Profile.

....... Open risers are permitted, provided that the opening between treads does not permit the passage of a 4-inch diameter (102 mm) sphere.

Exceptions:

2. The opening between adjacent treads is not limited on stairs with a total rise of 30 inches (762 mm) or less.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers, your ignorance amazes me. There is a hell of a lot more that you don't know or hear about than what you do. I am one person and I can tell you that this is not the only fatalitiy from falling down a set of steps that I had as a call. I am only one person and can think of many. This one sticks out because of the eyewitness account.

I would love to plan review your work. You are apparently smarter than the codes and sound quite full of yourself.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

jar546 said:
brudgers, your ignorance amazes me. There is a hell of a lot more that you don't know or hear about than what you do. I am one person and I can tell you that this is not the only fatalitiy from falling down a set of steps that I had as a call. I am only one person and can think of many. This one sticks out because of the eyewitness account.I would love to plan review your work. You are apparently smarter than the codes and sound quite full of yourself.
There's nothing ignorant about it at all.

I know people die from falls.

I just recognize handrail requirements for dwellings for the knee jerk reation they are.

I'm not suggesting that handrails be eliminated from the code.

Only pointing out that the handrail in the picture is plenty safe for a dwelling.

I'm not criticizing you for enforcing the code, either.

I'm merely saying that the code is bad...and bad because over regulates in areas where it doesn't make a statistically measurable difference.

Just because the code is a certain way, doesn't mean it ought to be that way.

Granny didn't die because the handrails weren't graspable.

She's dead because she hit her head in the wrong way while trying to carry groceries up steps in the dark.

You could just as easily blame it on improper lighting levels, or anyone of a host of other factors.

Correlation is not causation, even though the I-codes are constructed as if it were.
 
Top