LGreene
Registered User
That is correct. On a single door the strike is mounted in the frame, and the latch/latchbolt engages with the strike.mark handler said:
-
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
Latch vs. Exit Device
- Thread starter Gizmo
- Start date
I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way,
Most cities have a board of appeals, that if someone believes the code has been mis interpreted, they can go through the appeals process.
Most cities have a board of appeals, that if someone believes the code has been mis interpreted, they can go through the appeals process.
Gizmo
Bronze Member
So when the code author states "...equipped with a Closer and Latch", he is definitively speaking of an actual Door Closer, but when he referenced the "Latch", he is explicitly referencing the component inside of a device that cannot be operated except with a lever, push pad, or actuator tied to a solenoid within a device. For one item he's perfectly clear by stating a "Closer", but you wish to believe he is only referencing an internal part of a larger device that is unaccessible when he states a "Latch".LGreene said:
Ahh... I see, now it's clear. The 12" side clearance is not for accessing the lever handles by the leading edge of the door, it's for the spring loaded plunger inside of a panic device that can be operated from the center of the door, away from the 12" side clearance. Yes, you people have somehow convinced yourself that logic is overrated and common sense does not apply.
This is my last post on this thread, so no need to reply... my brain hurts. :banghd :beatdhrs
mark handler
SAWHORSE
xx ~(_8^(I)
pstockert
Member
I don't think you have a chance, but you can call the Access-Board at (800) 872-2253 or e-mail them at ta@access-board.gov
Very helpful group.
The Access Board is an independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards. Created in 1973 to ensure access to federally funded facilities, the Board is now a leading source of information on accessible design. The Board develops and maintains design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, medical diagnostic equipment, and information technology. It also provides technical assistance and training on these requirements and on accessible design and continues to enforce accessibility standards that cover federally funded facilities.
Very helpful group.
The Access Board is an independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards. Created in 1973 to ensure access to federally funded facilities, the Board is now a leading source of information on accessible design. The Board develops and maintains design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, medical diagnostic equipment, and information technology. It also provides technical assistance and training on these requirements and on accessible design and continues to enforce accessibility standards that cover federally funded facilities.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
He/she has a great chance that they will agree that a panic device is a mitigating device. But not for the reason of no latch. They will agree it midigates the requiement based on function.
To further the conversation; the feds are only a part of the puzzle.
Even with a positive letter of option from the feds, the owner could still be sued.
They must also meet CA code requirements, so they need the AHJ to be on board.
The feds only write opinion letters on case by case basis. You will need to send them all the specific info..
To further the conversation; the feds are only a part of the puzzle.
Even with a positive letter of option from the feds, the owner could still be sued.
They must also meet CA code requirements, so they need the AHJ to be on board.
The feds only write opinion letters on case by case basis. You will need to send them all the specific info..
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
I know of none that address this topic but here are
Americans with Disabilities Act Technical Assistance Letters
Note: many of these are based on the OLD Guidelines.......
http://www.justice.gov/crt/foia/readingroom/frequent_requests/ada_tal/
Americans with Disabilities Act Technical Assistance Letters
Note: many of these are based on the OLD Guidelines.......
http://www.justice.gov/crt/foia/readingroom/frequent_requests/ada_tal/
CodeAble
Member
@Gizmo, FYI, the ANSI A117.1 committee and the Access Board spend a LOT of time, effort, and money to develop and vet these rules. They are minimums and, like all codes, they don't cover all conditions. With respect to the door issue that you are so worked up about, recent anthropometric research confirms the extra effort needed to operate an exterior fire door with a closer, which translates to extra maneuvering space needed. No surprise to those who use wheelchairs or crutches. You can download the entire report at http://www.udeworld.com/documents/anthropometry/pdfs/AnthropometryofWheeledMobilityProject_FinalReport.pdf . Start at page 72. The research was funded by the Access Board, and Marsha Mazz encouraged the Committee to make use of it for this development cycle.
Most of the A117.1 Committee members cope with some kind of disability, so they know quite a bit about the topic. Overall the Committee does a lot of good work, although some believe it over-zealous. Many will agree when this year's new proposals go public. However, commercial members have a voice and a vote and balance the group somewhat.
A standard must be usable; it cannot be so complicated that field personnel don't understand it and the lawyers can shred any provision. Gizmo, you might have a legitimate POV about the panic actuator releasing the latch, but most people in a wheelchair still have a tough job getting through a door with a threshold and a closer, latch or no latch. Differentiating between types of latch releases is not necessary in this case - a latch and a closer means more space is needed for harder work. The straightforward requirement for a larger push-side clearance is an obvious solution, founded on anthropometrics developed in the 1950s.
In existing buildings, all accessibility standards that I know of allow reasonable non-standard fixes if the result is an improvement in accessibility. But in new construction it will be hard to find an accessibility specialist to agree with your arcane actuator argument.
BTW all, this is MichaelPatrickAllen from the Naffa forum posting for the first time here. Still working 3rd party access in the Southeast from Tennessee to Florida. And still don't know much about California rules, but I have noticed that CA rules are starting to align w/ the feds. Well, kinda
. Nice to see everyone still at it.
Most of the A117.1 Committee members cope with some kind of disability, so they know quite a bit about the topic. Overall the Committee does a lot of good work, although some believe it over-zealous. Many will agree when this year's new proposals go public. However, commercial members have a voice and a vote and balance the group somewhat.
A standard must be usable; it cannot be so complicated that field personnel don't understand it and the lawyers can shred any provision. Gizmo, you might have a legitimate POV about the panic actuator releasing the latch, but most people in a wheelchair still have a tough job getting through a door with a threshold and a closer, latch or no latch. Differentiating between types of latch releases is not necessary in this case - a latch and a closer means more space is needed for harder work. The straightforward requirement for a larger push-side clearance is an obvious solution, founded on anthropometrics developed in the 1950s.
In existing buildings, all accessibility standards that I know of allow reasonable non-standard fixes if the result is an improvement in accessibility. But in new construction it will be hard to find an accessibility specialist to agree with your arcane actuator argument.
BTW all, this is MichaelPatrickAllen from the Naffa forum posting for the first time here. Still working 3rd party access in the Southeast from Tennessee to Florida. And still don't know much about California rules, but I have noticed that CA rules are starting to align w/ the feds. Well, kinda
. Nice to see everyone still at it.