• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Dueling Casps, what to do?

pwood said:
mark, Plan checked under the 2010 cbc but if they aren't required in the new cbc per ADA guy then I won't require them. Oh yeay just where would I find that in the new code?
Click to expand...
There is no exception in the CBC 2010 or 2013 that I have seen. A CAS may have a special interpretation, but not that I an aware of.....
 
Zero curbs are not ramps or blended transitions (which is what, or are they?) 11B-705. 2 & 11B-705.1.2.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),
 
ADAguy said:
Zero curbs are not ramps or blended transitions (which is what, or are they?) 11B-705. 2 & 11B-705.1.2.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),
Click to expand...
I recommend that the word "hazardous" be eliminated from the code because it creates a grey area for enforcement. Who decides if the situation is hazardous enough to warrant the dreaded domes? Could a couple of Franklins in an envelope make a hazardous vehicular way safe? Don't like it one bit. One CASP said a car backing out of a parking space makes for hazardous and another says no. The ahj has to put on the rubber boots and wade thru the $hit and make a decision. ADAguy has not validated his opine with code sections yet.
 
Yeah, there is no exception in the CBC for detectable warnings on public property. Could have been made up by a Casp, if so change Casp's? Here even a rolled curb is not considered a separation and dots are required. My understanding is that any traffic over 5mph is "hazardous". I have even tried a "solution" where we would post 5 MPH maximum signs in the lots, thereby eliminating the "hazard" and therefore no dots would be required. Have not gotten anyone to buy into that yet!
 
conarb said:
Are CASps required to carry E&O insurance? If not required can they buy it?
Click to expand...
Anyone that provides a service can get it.

Can they be sued, yes. Can they"go bare" or with out insurance yes, the state does not require it.
 
ADAguy said:
Zero curbs are not ramps or blended transitions (which is what, or are they?) 11B-705. 2 & 11B-705.1.2.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),
Click to expand...
Detectable warning in hazardous location is always an interpretation.

I have required them in some locations and not others. That was based on the size of the lot the anticipated speed of the cars and the lot configuration.
 
mark handler said:
Thus the special interpretation.....
Click to expand...
Having seen many built-in architectural hazards, It would seem easier to address that, thereby benefiting everybody, rather than a few.

I refer specifically to rows of columns or vernacular detail placed almost directly at entrances adjacent to the roadway. It's like playing Frogger waiting to see who might pop out of occlusion. This seems to be a trend the past few years.

Better to see the entrance itself and have more time to react to shopper stupidity, or those walking along in Condition White, oblivious to traffic.

Brent.
 
Might have been wishful thinking on my part, thought I heard it mentioned on a recent Access Board webinar.

MH seems to agree that it is a judgement call, subject to a property owners decision.

The use of decorative (architectural) bollards is great but cane spacing dimension is often seen as too frequent (hence expensive) by some owners.

Even with them, there is no prevention for speedy drivers.
 
i believe the decision falls soley on the ahj. The building standards commission and the state architects office shape the $hitstorm and hang the ahj out to dry interpretating the "language" of the code. The ahj can toss it to an appeals board if all else fails in order to resolve conflicts or disputes. Seems to me that the CASP program has creatd one more headache for the ahj to deal with and a cash cow for someone else!
 
Not good to put them where they are not necessary.

Confusion for the blind and pi$$es off the non visually impaired
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top