# R612.2 Window sills



## skipharper (Oct 10, 2012)

Another Virginia ammendment is dropping this 24" requirement to 18"--anyone else doing this in your State?


----------



## JBI (Oct 10, 2012)

I do not believe NYS is considering changing this.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 10, 2012)

No statewide adoption in CO, no local amendments. Don't know of anyone in CO that amends the section either.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Oct 10, 2012)

Georgia deleted that requirement from the IRC but not the IBC.

Soooooo you could have a 3 story townhouse next to a 4 story townhouse with different requirements - crazy!

GPE


----------



## Sifu (Oct 10, 2012)

Again, not sure about now but last I knew NC did not have this in their code.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Oct 13, 2012)

Skip,

That has been in the USBC for several cycles. Are you advocating that it stay in or revert back to 24"? The code change would in effect keep the language the same as the last several adopted codes.


----------



## Architect1281 (Oct 13, 2012)

The Baby falls out the window section we left well enough alone in RI

cause are kids have smaller feet and longer legs to get up the 8-1/4 risers

so they tip over easier.


----------



## skipharper (Oct 15, 2012)

I think in Virginia this requirement is less strict than in the IRC but I seem to stay confused from time to time!!! I would like to see it as written in the IRC


----------



## jar546 (Oct 15, 2012)

R612.2 Window sills

The real question is who was lobbying for this change and why?????

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## conarb (Oct 15, 2012)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> The Baby falls out the window section we left well enough alone in RI cause are kids have smaller feet and longer legs to get up the 8-1/4 risers so they tip over easier.


Well Architect, I guess it's possible Rhode Island being as small as it is, after all, if





 I guess Rhode Island can too.


----------



## skipharper (Oct 15, 2012)

jar, the Va ammendments drop the height requirement to 18" and I am wanting to submit a change to put it back to 24". So if I am reading it correctly a window sill height of 21" in Va would not need the required opening protection.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 15, 2012)

New Code Requirements and Education Aim to Prevent Window Falls | Window & Door

I suspect it is "those people" that want to protect everyone from every possible accident that may ever occur during our life time.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 15, 2012)

[h=2]Monday, November 26, 2007[/h][h=3]Child Safety in the Home - Who is responsible?[/h]



Everyone knows that the building code is intended to protect the homeowner and his/her family...right? Wrong. Building codes are intended to provide a greater measure of safety for the greater good of an entire community. They only protect an individual by default. They are not a quality assurance manual and they do not lessen the responsibility of the individual to ensure his/her own personal safety.

That said, occasionally individual protection for specific classes of individuals sometimes finds its way into a code. Recently the code was amended (2006 International Residential Code) to include provisions to "protect" children from falls from high windows. The change will require guards over the windows if the window sill is not placed at least 24 inches above the floor. This will apply to any window with an opening height more than 72 inches above the ground below. This was approved based on anecdotes of children falling through open windows. Many were seriously injured or even killed by these accidental falls. Now the building code will protect these children...or will it?

What typically happens under high windows? Furniture is placed underneath it. When a window is raised from 18 inches above the floor to 24 inches, the typical response is to place the bed under the window. Do children use their beds for sleeping? Sometimes. The other times it is used as a trampoline.

Did moving the window sill up to 24 inches provide for a safer condition in this home? Hardly. Does the building code REALLY protect your children? Think again.

Parents are still responsible for assessing the safety of their home when they have small children. Once junior is mobile, the first thing you do is plug up those electrical outlets to avoid electrocution. One of my earliest memories as a child was testing an outlet for functionality using a paper clip. I got to experience alternating current first hand and learn a lesson that I have never forgotten.

There are other things to consider. How about the things stored under the kitchen sink? Some cleaning chemicals are given fragrances that smell like peppermint candy and are enticing to children. How about the toilet seat? Many drownings result due to children falling into the open toilet and not having the ability to pull themselves back out. What about mommy's bottle of sleeping pills on the bathroom counter? What about daddy's loaded Beretta in the night stand? All of these constitute items that pose significant hazards to your children, yet will never be regulated by a building code. Each is your responsibility as a parent to identify and address.

So the moral of this story is never be complacent. Do not think for a minute that the building code will take care of your kids' safety. Look around your home and identify anything that could be a threat. Take advantage of the multitude of websites that provide child-safety tips. Take parenting responsibility seriously and don't ever trust a government official who tells you, " Don't worry, the code will protect you


----------



## Sifu (Oct 15, 2012)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> The Baby falls out the window section we left well enough alone in RI cause are kids have smaller feet and longer legs to get up the 8-1/4 risers
> 
> so they tip over easier.


Thanks....needed the laugh!


----------



## Sifu (Oct 15, 2012)

Don't know who wrote the essay on responsibility but to whomever.....WELL DONE.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 15, 2012)

Sifu said:
			
		

> Don't know who wrote the essay on responsibility but to whomever.....WELL DONE.


Forgot to post the link

Sustainable Building Codes: Child Safety in the Home - Who is responsible?


----------



## Daddy-0- (Oct 16, 2012)

Skip,

Because Virginia has amended this section it would not need a code change to revert back to the IRC 24". In fact, if we leave it alone it will go to the adopted section in the 2012 IRC by default which would leave it at 24". Since we are reviewing the IRC 2012 code changes now we would need a new code change for the 2012 to keep it as amended at 18" or it will just revert back to the IRC un amended. I don't know if anyone has brought this up yet but you should bring it to Emory at DHCD for the next workshop group meeting or just keep quiet and it may sneak through under the radar at 24".

I think I confused myself with the amending of the amendment bit but hopefully I made some sense.


----------



## righter101 (Oct 19, 2012)

Washington has the requirement at 24" and it will likely remain that way.  A spin off issue about this came up because 612.2 is specific to "dwellings".  If someone has a "loft" or "office" above their garage, would it need to meet this requirement??

We posed this question beacause of the rural nature of our jurisdiction, we have a large number of "bunkhouses" that aren't full blown dwellings (no kitchen or cooking facilities).

Interesting debate to have.  The short of it is that we apply the requirement to living space of structures built under the IRC.


----------

