• 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!

Re: Another fail inspection!

Which part of "They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries." don't you understand?
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers.......WOW.....since you can't understand graspable handrails, I am glad that you are not a building official, and I'm glad you are in Alabama. Although, I'm thinking that doing a plan review on something of your design could be fun........

"Plenty safe for a dwelling"? Maybe for you, but obviously not for Granny, or perhaps Gramps, or the 4 year old, or someone with a disability.........
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Enough with the hand rails already!!!!!!

We all know what is required.

What’s next fart fan terminations?????

Anything but attic stairs and SFD sprinklers is fine by me.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

mueller - Could a set of structural strap nets made those stairs compliant? :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

John Drobysh said:
Which part of "They witnessed her reaching out for the railings but unable to grasp it and she fell backwards with her groceries." don't you understand?
The part where it goes from an internet story about a tragic isolated incident to a code requirement leading to the rejection of a reasonably safe and well constructed garage stair.

I personally knew someone who slipped while taking a shower in the bathtub, hit his head, and died.

Apparently it's amazing that I am able to go on without demanding that grab bars be installed in every residential bathroom from now until the end of time.

Two years ago, two of my son's friends were riding with their father in a golf cart. He got distracted and drove into the pond on their property. All three drowned.

Somehow I don't think advocating for a Coast Guard requirement for personal flotation devices in golf carts is an appropriate response.

If you want to prevent people from falling down stairs, ban stairs.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

fatboy said:
brudgers.......WOW.....since you can't understand graspable handrails, I am glad that you are not a building official, and I'm glad you are in Alabama. Although, I'm thinking that doing a plan review on something of your design could be fun........"Plenty safe for a dwelling"? Maybe for you, but obviously not for Granny, or perhaps Gramps, or the 4 year old, or someone with a disability.........
What you fail to grasp is that there is a difference between believing that the code is bad and disregarding it.
 

Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers said:
John Drobysh said:
I happened to be there back in the old SBCCI days when the gentleman that got this code change through showed up at every code hearing on his own dime to lobby. He had tacks of documentation to prove his point. It took him years of going to all three code bodies to get this done. There were no theatrics or sob stories just hard plain facts backed up by data from insurance companies and OSHA and various other agencies.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

OSHA data wouldn't be relevant to a dwelling, which is what my posts are about.

You can look up mortality statisics at CDC.

Here is a link for 2006.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

You can see age based fall data on page 35.

Of the 21,000 fall deaths, about 80% were people over the age of 65.

To the extent that stairs are a contributing factor, it's stairs themselves which are the problem.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Well folks, we have been duped. At first I thought Jeff was right and brudgers is just an idiot. Having observed brudgers's replies on this and other threads I have come to realize that he is twisting our collective noses. Brudgers espouses mean spirited, nonsensical diatribe not worthy of a reply.

Brudgers purports to be an Alabama Architect but is more likely a failed draftsman using a computer located in a prison library. He gives us ignorance and deserves ignorance in return. Ignore brudgers.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is just that an opinion until they can get the code changed therefore we continue to enforce the provisions of the code as written and adopted.

As far as brudgers is concerned, he is a registered architect in two states, both Florida and Alabama. I don't agree with his position; I have let him know that and he has explained his side. I can actually share in some of his opinions but obviously not all. I know where he is coming from and understand his thought process. I just don't agree with him

Many of us will never agree with each other and will have to agree to disagree just as Tigerloose and I disagree on the F-1 for a commercial kitchen.

I already made some harsh comments and don't want this to start going downhill.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

I am suppose to re inspect these stairs today, so I will post a new photo and see how they did.

4 pages of debate! Wow! Sure glad it wasn't a stairway to the attic! :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

tiger - Where's the fun in that? :roll:

I have a stray cat that lives in the woods behind my house, I ignore him but he doesn't go away. :?

I tried like he<< to ignore the illegal activities of a despot, and it took eight (looooooong) years for him to go away. :shock:

I have tried to ignore my wife and she won't go away. She just wants to feed that d@m^ cat! :eek:

No, I vote for engaging brudgers in heated debate! :cool:

An easy target, I'll grant you, but isn't that what 'target practice' is all about? If we can keep our cool while discussing these issues with the 'brudgers' of the world, imagine how well we will handle the typical PITA Homeowner when they whine about code requirements they don't think should apply to them. :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Yeah, no debate, no fun, no learning.

I never heard of open risers being a trip hazard. Always thought it was to protect kids from falling through, hence the 4" rule which means you can have a thin strip running across the open riser. That would be a trip hazard too but code compliant.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Actually I had heard it was kids sticking their heads through the open risers from the back to 'scare' each other and subsequently getting their head/neck stepped on...
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

JD,

Arguing with brudgers is like playing chess with a monkey. You get him into checkmate and he swallows the King.

It is the mean comments I've seen from him that have no place here.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

tigerloose said:
JD,Arguing with brudgers is like playing chess with a monkey. You get him into checkmate and he swallows the King.

It is the mean comments I've seen from him that have no place here.
To make it up to you, I've added $50 to your account.

http://www.sanrio.com/
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Now I think I get it.

brudgers is this forum's resident curmudgeon, gadfly, iconoclast, and/or contrarian, maybe Devil's advocate.

The old forum had a good one of those named George Roberts who liked to rub posters' fur in funny ways, but he did make us think at the same time.

Such participation keeps us from "gargling in a rat-race choir", to quote B.Dylan.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

jar546 said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is just that an opinion until they can get the code changed therefore we continue to enforce the provisions of the code as written and adopted.As far as brudgers is concerned, he is a registered architect in two states, both Florida and Alabama. I don't agree with his position; I have let him know that and he has explained his side. I can actually share in some of his opinions but obviously not all. I know where he is coming from and understand his thought process. I just don't agree with him

Many of us will never agree with each other and will have to agree to disagree just as Tigerloose and I disagree on the F-1 for a commercial kitchen.

I already made some harsh comments and don't want this to start going downhill.
From my standpoint, the issue with the photograph is that it's bad design.

The lack of code compliant handrails is not the hazard.

The change of level is.

The best way to reduce the risk of falling is to eliminate the change in level...though even that won't reduce the risk to zero.

Old people can fall and die anywhere.

And that's by and large who falls and dies.

Complying with the code as written comes with the territory, and I'm able to distinguish my personal likes and dislikes from the needs and goals of my clients.

You can add two handrails, three guards, and closed risers to the stair; build them out of titanium; and cover it with a full NFPA 13 system.

It won't significantly reduce the risk.

And in my opinion, code provisions that don't significantly reduce risk are bad code provisions.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

"...And that's by and large who falls and dies..."

It is statistical fact that past a certain age (can't provide that, no statistician I) the greatest health risk to Americans is falling and consequent injury.

That's one reason my wife, as a health educator, teaches tai chi, qi gong, and other balance exercises to seniors.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

jim baird said:
"...And that's by and large who falls and dies..."It is statistical fact that past a certain age (can't provide that, no statistician I) the greatest health risk to Americans is falling and consequent injury.

That's one reason my wife, as a health educator, teaches tai chi, qi gong, and other balance exercises to seniors.
For older Americans, it's a significant non-medical cause of mortality.

But it's not even close to being a leading cause of death.

You can see CDC mortality statistics at my earlier link.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

code provisions that don't significantly reduce risk are bad code provisions
Brudgers; I see your point that if there are no stairs there would not be slips and falls on stairs, but to say a properly designed handrail when used will not reduce the number of falls on stairs is irrational. There has been a number of times where a handrail kept me from slipping down an icy set of steps in this climate.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

I've been going up and down the steps to my rear deck, which are just like these, for 15 years, often carrying groceries, trash, or cats, and never realized they were such a death-trap. At least the ones in the picture didn't have wet leaves or algae on them.
 
Top