Visible Exit?

[Doorman]

We've had the discussion of "if it looks like an exit does it have to perform like an exit" before, and I think we ended up in a stalemate. In fact, I think we've talked about it more than once.Here's one where we talked about whether a door needs panic hardware if it's serving an Assembly occupancy but isn't a required exit:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?3835-Panic-Hardware

And here's one about whether it's ok to lock a door that's not a required exit:

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?2580-Bars-Across-Non-Required-Exterior-Doors

And I'm using the word "exit" in the more generic sense, not as defined by the codes.

In the image, there is an illuminated exit sign... was that required?

 

[FM William Burns]

I didn't think so, but FMWB's reply mentioned main vs. secondary and 101 used the words "principal entrance."

Lori,

My comment "main or secondary" refers to a signage issue only. My initial response dealt with the signage not being destinctive in my opinion since from 100' one would be hard pressed to clearly define that opening as an exit.

The key in specific terms, regardless of which code one uses or enforces is the term "required" exit or means of egress. If the exit or MOE is required then the signage, visiblilty, construction, operation and access must be in compliance. Going back to various historic posts regarding the decorative doors, hardware and other operational features for openings I defer to this one principle....if the "required" exit door opening can not be recognized as an exit from a defined distance it will not pass inspection in our jurisdiction and therefore needs attention. I have argued this in courts, depositions and on occasions amongst peers and regardless of which code one is using there is clear defined means to address it.

The problem is just like those who believe there will ever be a uniform code of one for the entire country, having as many children as we have there will always be differences in opinions and interpretations. My job is to make the code simple as possible for all to understand and to use common sense in it's application and enforcement.

 

[LGreene]

My job is to make the code simple as possible for all to understand and to use common sense in it's application and enforcement.

That's what I love about you.

 

[TJacobs]

Exits aren't just for fire. Pepper spray...gun...knife...panic.

Maybe some kind of contrasting lighting around the doors to highlight their existence when the alarm activates?

 

[ICE]

1008.1 Doors. Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements

of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system

shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1020.2.

Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than

required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.

Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from

the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are

easily recognizable as doors. Mirrors or similar reflecting

materials shall not be used on means of egress doors. Means of

egress doors shall not be concealed by curtains, drapes, decorations

or similar materials.

Signs and lights don't count for anything. It's all about the door and only the door. This is a concealed door and a code violation.

 

[High Desert]

It either complies with the code or it doesn't. This clearly does not comply. There is no "grey area" for the door and adjacent construction. I'm with ICE.

 

[FM William Burns]

No grey from my perspective either.......thumbs down to it and any similar obstructed exit!