fall hazard

[bill1952]

The code requires guards when the vertical distance is more than 30", with exceptions and details of course. Just curious if you ever are concerned when the vertical distance between adjacent floors is 30"or less. Seems like a significant fall.

I've also searched for the history of the 30" dimension without success. Probably a compromise in code deliberation long ago but if anyone has a more certain explanation, please share.

 

[classicT]

I presume that you are talking about a sunken living room or similar space? If so, remember the following..

Code is the minimum standard, not best practice.

Is a guard a good idea, yes. Is one required, nope.

 

[fatboy]

I code land, where the 30" has been discussed ad nauseum. Some have suggested it was the distance a average size man could step up or down from. (I know I couldn't)

Regardless, it is, what it is, and unless you could get a code change through, good luck, as classicT said, that is the minimum, and probably not a best practice.

 

[bill1952]

Well nice to know we agree on something. A lot of injuries on these 30" and under falls and I sure can't do a 30" step. I sit on edge, swing my legs around, and slide down. Or tell someone to get me a short ladder.

Thank you.

 

[Joe.B]

In order for there to be standards there has to be a line drawn somewhere and that line needs to cover a wide range of situations. 30" seems a little high if you're talking about walking areas with hard surfaces where the risk is high and/or serving people of high risk. On the other hand it's not such a stretch if you're talking about a private deck with a soft lawn below. I can understand why a private homeowner might not want a guard rail at 32" on their deck that faces their yard, and I can also understand why someone might choose to install a guard with only a 20" drop in a high risk area. Code has to draw the line somewhere.

Codes are like people, narrow minded, fallible, and subject to change.

 

[tbz]

Bill, what seems like an issue for some it not an issue for others.

I find it hard to believe that new projects built under the IBC are not providing some sort of edge protection, even when a guard is not required, unless the architectural firm or designer specifically wants the open sided area to be there for a reason.

In all the plans that I review and discuss with clients, I rarely see a vertical rise over 16-inches that does not have something in place when adjacent to a walking surface.

So, I am not sure why on new construction that would come up if it was not a specific feature the client and the designer want in place.

I am curious on how you are directly connecting falls to openside edges that are between 7 and 30 inches in height?

 

[bill1952]

Portable platforms (or risers if you prefer) in meeting rooms and ball rooms. I get beat up for wanting owner to buy the guards on the non-audience sides, and all I can point to is the number of falls - people stepping - often backing - off the edge with no warning. Typically 16 or 24" - most "standard" portable stairs are 8" risers - which I also fight - preferring 6".

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I always thought it was odd that for accessibility we need curbs on ramps and landings when they are only 6" above grade but not on a 36' wide sidewalk which has drop next to it up to 29" on an accessible route.

 

[bill1952]

I always thought it was odd that for accessibility we need curbs on ramps and landings when they are only 6" above grade but not on a 36' wide sidewalk which has drop next to it up to 29" on an accessible route.

Curious that I have not interpreted that way. If I have a ramp in middle of assembly seating - not serving seating which is an exception - I recommend a curb on it, as well as the hand rail. Maybe I should post a plan to understand - but usually a 12' ramp with 12" rise. I'm not only one.

I've had officials suggest there should be a curb on stage edges but pretty sure that is a specific exception (perhaps one I proposed).

 

[tbz]

Portable platforms (or risers if you prefer) in meeting rooms and ball rooms. I get beat up for wanting owner to buy the guards on the non-audience sides, and all I can point to is the number of falls - people stepping - often backing - off the edge with no warning. Typically 16 or 24" - most "standard" portable stairs are 8" risers - which I also fight - preferring 6".

Bill,

I can see your point, however it is a portable item you noted, and setup for a temporary purpose.

I get that the non-viewable areas are your concern, but again that is a judgement call by those as to when and when not?

Many have tried to nail down the exact reason to the 30-inch trigger point, most of us have come to the view it had to be something and if you were at the table then, the rational was seen from a different vantage point.

However, assuming that it is the wrong point because injuries still occur, well we all have to remember that minimum standards are not set to obtain a zero result, they are set to minimize the possibility of mass numbers. So one persons to many is another persons that's ok.

I still pose the question to everyone everyday why does the model IBC and IRC not require child safety locks as mandatory on all lower kitchen cabinets installed?

The injuries still happen, but it always comes back to everyone has a view of what acceptable minimums are, yours seems to be more closer to zero than most.

Regards - Tom

 

[bill1952]

I still pose the question to everyone everyday why does the model IBC and IRC not require child safety locks as mandatory on all lower kitchen cabinets installed?

I thought we were safe with our two kids but no locks on cabinets (all drawers now), no gate at top of stair, no receptacle covers (pre-anti tamper), and 5 second rule stretched. Did we watch them more? I don't know. One did fall a few steps while crawling down - no injury, more careful next time. Other than that (and too close to little league on deck circle once) pretty injury free.

Way off topic now. On falls from stages and platforms - many pages on fire but no one I know knows of a fire injury on stage. Hardly a word on falls from stage but everyone I know knows of falls and injuries from stages and platforms.

 

[Yikes]

I thought we were safe with our two kids but no locks on cabinets (all drawers now), no gate at top of stair, no receptacle covers (pre-anti tamper), and 5 second rule stretched. Did we watch them more? I don't know. One did fall a few steps while crawling down - no injury, more careful next time. Other than that (and too close to little league on deck circle once) pretty injury free.

Way off topic now. On falls from stages and platforms - many pages on fire but no one I know knows of a fire injury on stage. Hardly a word on falls from stage but everyone I know knows of falls and injuries from stages and platforms.

A number of years ago there was a long-form article in The Atlantic magazine describing how many the additional safety features at playgrounds and in sports equipment were resulting over time in a net INCREASE in childhood injuries. The theory was that kids weren’t learning in small doses how to negotiate their limits in a real world of hard surfaces, ledges, sharp and pointy things, hot objects, etc.
At some point, people become so accustomed to the world being made safe for them that they lose the natural caution and awareness needed for their own safety.

 

[DJMenitoff]

So, I always have interpreted this to mean you don’t need a 42” high guardrail if fall height is under 30” and you are, in this case, allowed to use a 36” tall guardrail.

 

[bill1952]

So, I always have interpreted this to mean you don’t need a 42” high guardrail if fall height is under 30” and you are, in this case, allowed to use a 36” tall guardrail.

I think generally if fall is under 30", the code requires no protection. (In some cases, a curb is required for accessibility reasons.)

 

[ICE]

Thirty inches is the dimension that the code committee was able to accept. You can bet that some participants were at twelve inches and some were at forty-eight. None had scientific evidence to sway the others. After much discussion they grew tired and reached a compromise. Nobody is ever satisfied with a compromise as is evidenced by this thread.

 

[bill1952]

I'm not sure there was a code committee when this was added. Pretty sure none of them are around to ask.

 

[north star]

= = = >

Insurance carriers can require more guards or methods to reduce
falls or potential falls.........They do it all the time !

< = = =

 

[tbz]

I'm not sure there was a code committee when this was added. Pretty sure none of them are around to ask.

Well Bill, we can agree to disagree, but what we can agree on is that there are a lot more that vote that believe the 30-inches is reasonable as the minimum or maximum depending on how you look at it, as that is what is in the model codes and widely adopted.

The object of building codes is not to put us all in padded cells, but to remove the major problems that have shown their head.

Do we remove the national parks and walking trails that have a lot more issues than anything a 24-inch drop can be sometimes?

As a great poet I believe once wrote or said, "you can't fix stupid, and do you really want to?"

 

[bill1952]

All I meant is that it seems the 30" was in the legacy codes long ago and prior to the current code development processes. Just some historical perspective.

 

[Paul Sweet]

30" was in the 1992 CABO code. At that time the measurement was taken at the edge of the raised surface, and not 36" away as it is now.

I believe that sometime in the 1990s BOCA had a requirement for a guardrail when the drop was over 16", but there was no requirement for balusters until the drop got to 30".

I think the 42" guardrail height came from OSHA back in the 1970s. 36" high guardrails were adequate before then in most occupancies, although it may have been 42" or 48" for schools. I think the OSHA requirement kicked in at a 48" drop or over hazards such as chemical tanks, machines, etc.

 

[bill1952]

I found the 42" guard in the 1927 UBC - it's first edition - so long before OSHA. I haven't had time yet to search other codes. My guess is no one alive who was there when 30" first was codified. And likely no record. Maybe a trip to Batterymarch Park is in order. NFPA keeps great records.

 

[ADAguy]

Bill,

I can see your point, however it is a portable item you noted, and setup for a temporary purpose.

I get that the non-viewable areas are your concern, but again that is a judgement call by those as to when and when not?

Many have tried to nail down the exact reason to the 30-inch trigger point, most of us have come to the view it had to be something and if you were at the table then, the rational was seen from a different vantage point.

However, assuming that it is the wrong point because injuries still occur, well we all have to remember that minimum standards are not set to obtain a zero result, they are set to minimize the possibility of mass numbers. So one persons to many is another persons that's ok.

I still pose the question to everyone everyday why does the model IBC and IRC not require child safety locks as mandatory on all lower kitchen cabinets installed?

The injuries still happen, but it always comes back to everyone has a view of what acceptable minimums are, yours seems to be more closer to zero than most.

Regards - Tom

That and who has the better attorney.

 

[bill1952]

That and who has the better attorney.

yup

 

[tbz]

ADA,

Why is it that every time you think a legal code regulation in your opinion should be different you go straight for the bully method of mentioning attorney?

With all the legal experts I have talked with over the years, if there was an issue that was causing payouts from lawsuits that the actuaries saw a problem with the Insurance carriers would be pushing for changes to the minimal requirements within the code. The code has many instances of change for issues they found a problem with over the decades.

IT's an inspectors job to confirm the project was built to at least the minimum required by the adopted code, LAW. saying it should have been more than code, simply states the code is wrong, but as we all know, code is law, and the law is always right, you don't like it get the law changed.

IF you have an issue with something you don't seem is correct, then put a code change proposal in with your documentation and reason statement and present it. And go the process, show the committees and the voting body a valid reason besides, In my opinion and or the theoretical attorney card.

The theoretical attorney card on forums was old 10 years ago, today well, I will end it here,

Regards - Tom