Who says? The code doesn't say "other doors not defined in a means of egress path", it just says "doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required". Because "egress" isn't defined in the code, why are you assuming it has to be part of a "defined means of egress path"?Yankee said:
but I agree with Yankee, GT and your FM. The door in question is not intended/marked/designed as an exit and therefore may be locked against entry. Personally, we would require signage to indicate "Not A Exit" and in application of the code, the intent for this door in question is nothing more than a "service door". Regarding Warwick RI, the exit doors were identified as exits and if locked (can't remember off hand) were in violation of code. The smoke development from the improper wall and ceiling covering contributed to visible accessability to MOE. In human behavioral studies that contribute to why we require what we do for MOE; people will egress where they entered and only where accessibility is provided will they seek alternative egress routes. Just my opinion and agree to dis-agree where applicable!
Who says . . . well, that is my take on it because the wording is part and parcel of the paragraph which starts out with the words "Means of egress doors. . . ".texasbo said:
Agree 99% Why install a sign that says NOT AN EXIT if the door hardware will permit it to be used as one? Defies logic.
Why make a separate paragraph when you can say it in a sentence: "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section".Yankee said:
Hold on Yankee; if your contention is that a non-required door doesn't have to comply at all, then why would you need to put any sign on it under any circumstances?Yankee said:
Yankee I said "required means of egress" and made the assumption the "service" door in a fast food resturaunt would be located in the kitchen area, because as you know you can't exit through a kitchen but you have to have an exit from a kitchen which can be out the front or a non-required rear exit door
the kitchen employees can exit from the kitchenmtlogcabin said:
First, your opinion is very much respected. Secondly, I understand why you would require the signage, but it is not required whatsoever in the code. In my opinion, that could lead to serious problems. By requiring the sign, you're acknowledging that you know people might try to use the door in an emergency situation. Yet at the same time you are allowing this non-required egress door to be locked. All of that concerns me, and it's not hard to visualize a hostile line of questioning in a court of law.FM William Burns said:Don't know if I'm respected or not
Most people think doors are simple but those of us who have to deal with them daily know better. Their complexity is just under-appreciated by the rest of the world.
Again, nobody is saying it's a required means of egress, or "exit". And the code doesn't require exit signs , lighting and accessibility for non-required egress doors. It just says the doors themselves shall comply.TJacobs said:
Didn't know that, excellent, thank you~LGreene said:Most people think doors are simple but those of us who have to deal with them daily know better. Their complexity is just under-appreciated by the rest of the world.
I'm not trying to complicate things further, just an FYI.
Although the code items may differ between exterior doors (the "other" doors) and exterior doors that are part of a means of egress ("egress doors").mtlogcabin said:
I agree if additional door are provided FOR EGRESS then the doors must comply with 1008.texasbo said:
There is N O T H I N G simple on this forum or in the codes.