• 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!

mtlogcabin said:
code provisions that don't significantly reduce risk are bad code provisions
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.

Again, my point is regarding what constitutes a "properly designed handrail."

Having a handrail is the critical factor...and I've never advocated not having them.

Indeed requring some sort of handrail on both sides would probably increase safety more than having one graspable handrail on either side.

BTW, the hazard is the icy steps not the particular shape of the railing.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

BTW, the hazard is the icy steps not the particular shape of the railing.
Click to expand...
Agree but the ability to wrap my hand around (grasp) the handrail is what aided me in catching myself thus preventing the fall down the hazardous icy steps.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

"BUBBLE WRAP" never leave home with out it! or at least go down a flight of stairs without it :lol: !
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Perhaps if the rail wasn't there, you would avoid the icy steps altogether and reduce the hazard.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

I have seen this type application before in a SFR split entry stairway where the short wall betwen stairs has a deco trimmed 1x8 at the top of the wall without handrails, real common not to see a handrail from the upper floor down to the front door platform. In most cases the shortwall is about 42" tall exceeding handrail required height of 34"-38". All trimmed out with the moving van coming down the street!
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

RJJ - Keep that up and I'm going to start a thread on attic stairs... :eek: :shock: ;) :D :lol:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

If this was a historic building with historic conditions, I would be the kind of ____________ to drop in the U.S. Department of Interior regulations regarding work on Historic Buildings - into the mix.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

"RJJ - Keep that up and I'm going to start a thread on attic stairs... "

Sorry John, you're too late.........someone beat you to the punch.

Attic "stairs", Round Two! :mrgreen:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Maybe we need to start breeding people with bigger hands! :roll:
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

I like you brudgers! the problem nowdays is common sense is not all that common.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

...and adopted "minimum code standards" are not met!

 
Re: Another fail inspection!

I've been figuring out what bothers me about the IRC handrail requirements.

Instead of just writing the damn thing to allow the 2x railings that make compliance easy, the Ick goes out of it's way to disallow them.

Yet it allows many varieties of unsafe configurations at the end of a flight.

It will allow a really expensive and grossly unsafe conditions because of aesthetics, and disallow a reasonably safe cheap condition based on pet peeves.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

As a proactive recommendation, you might consider getting actively involved in the various

Code Committees and the code adoption process.

How can ' brudgers ' make the codes better? :?:

 
Re: Another fail inspection!

brudgers said:
I've been figuring out what bothers me about the IRC handrail requirements.Instead of just writing the darn thing to allow the 2x railings that make compliance easy, the Ick goes out of it's way to disallow them.

Yet it allows many varieties of unsafe configurations at the end of a flight.

It will allow a really expensive and grossly unsafe conditions because of aesthetics, and disallow a reasonably safe cheap condition based on pet peeves.
Click to expand...
Since ICC does not "write" the code but merely publishes what it's members write, propose, re-write, re-propose, vote, etc., maybe you are blaming the wrong entity. Maybe you should propose some code changes and fix it.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

A graspable hand rail may have made a difference for the lady who died.. maybe not..

It's in the Code, and we need to enforce it.. even if they chose to change it later.. (and some do).

The Code doesn't address other slip and fall hazards (like my street, right now).. no requirement in the code to get rid of ice between cars (like a neighbor who got hauled away yesterday probably slipped on).. OR even for a riser (one).. These landing, riser, landing things are nuts.. all that to avoid putting in a stinking handrail!

Oh well.. maybe, it's just me.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

** ...the sounds of crickets chirping **

long silence from Alabama...

** ...the continued sounds of crickets chirping **

No peach, it is not just you!

 
Re: Another fail inspection!

There's no fixing the Ick.

That's why the NFPA left.

The process is bad.

The Carbon monoxide detector lobby gets detectors mandated.

The turnout and Volute lobby gets turnouts and volutes excepted.

The ICF lobby, gets twenty pages of requirements inserted.

The Ick's process isn't intended to develop public good policy.
 
Re: Another fail inspection!

Brudgers,

I agree with many of your posts. I have to ask though...what is "lck"? I see you mention it alot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top