# Rails and benches?



## RJJ (Feb 9, 2010)

I am wondering how you all fair on this issue! Contractor want to build seats along a rail line of a deck. The deck is going to be 8' off of grade. He wants to build a standard height rail. What your take on the rail height? From the floor of the deck or the seat of the bench?


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Rail height is measured from the floor.


----------



## Mule (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Bad situation on that one! Even though the code says "floor" you would have a very dangerous condition. Gotta be something out there to require a higher guard!

Just think......an 18" bench would only have an additional 18" of protection. Don't lean back too far....or let your baby's on the deck!


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Mule,

Can't disagree with you about the potential hazard.  But remember it took the IBC until 2006 to address babies falling out of windows when the window extends to the floor.  IBC (2006) Section 1013.2 mentions "seatboard", but that is for stadia where bench seating extends to the railing.  In that case, a fan standing on the seatboard would be at a higher risk of falling over the rail if it is 42 inches above the floor.


----------



## cboboggs (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

The 09 IRC addresses this situation and requires the height of the guard to be measured from the top of the bench.  But prior additions to the code did not recognize this and the height of the guard would be measured from the floor.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

What section? I just opened the 09 book!


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

The 2009 IBC also included the fixed seating provision


----------



## cboboggs (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Section R312.2.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

2009 IBC Section 1013.2


----------



## RJJ (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

That is a good fix to an old problem!


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

rjj,

What is to prevent a toddler from pushing a chair to the guardrail creating the same conditon?  We can't codifically solve every perceived problem.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

I agree! To me this has been a issue that has been left unclear. Just like the window issue and they place a bed in front of it. We can solve everything.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

rjj,

I view decks in a similar manner as swimming pools.  The code can only build in so many reasonable safety features.  The parents still need to take responsibility.  I can think of many benches along senic views where I can sit and enjoy the vista.  Now, with the guardrail 42 inches above that seat, the view will be obstructed.


----------



## incognito (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

I have always interpreted the guardrail to be 36" higher than the seat. Some didn't agree but they were not the AHJ.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

incognito: Me too! It has been a topic of argument for quite a while. At least now someone has but ink to a page that an inspector can point to.

Coug dad: I totally agree. Some of the things placed in the code in the name of safety mean very little in the big picture. The problem is that we are held to a system of chapter and verse. If we try apply use commen sense, then we start to make up code where it doesn't exist. I believe we all could agree that this is not good.

I have done the same as incognito on the rail height in the pass. Was I correct? No! Do I feel it was a little safer? Yes! Still not code! wrong interpretation. Maybe a little bullying to force the issue. A good area for further discussion.

Just when should we cross the line an put our own two cent add on to the code? Should we just apply the code as written? Is there a section of code that allows us to stray? Oh ya when approved by the code official! Just some thoughts.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> rjj,What is to prevent a toddler from pushing a chair to the guardrail creating the same conditon?


Electrify the rail...and nail the kid's feet to the floor.

I think the committee's really ought to look at requiring both in the 2012 cycle.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

burdgers: Just a little extreme!


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> rjj,What is to prevent a toddler from pushing a chair to the guardrail creating the same conditon?  We can't codifically solve every perceived problem.


The chair on the deck is not permanently constructed as part of the deck permit and is not regulated by the code.


----------



## mjesse (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

{devil's advocate}

1- Deck is 12" above grade, 18" benches are built and fastened to deck.

Are guards now required to be at 66" above grade?

2- Deck is built with 36" wood rails and matching wood benches NOT fastened or secured to deck.

Are higher guards required?

3- Same deck again, benches WITH 20" backrests secured to deck. Junior could climb on the seat then onto the bench back.

are guards required above the backrest?

My interpretation has always been for the guard to prevent someone from walking/tripping off a 30" high deck. If a bench is placed as illustrated in 1, 2, or 3, the intent has been met.

mj


----------



## peach (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

can't control the "what if's" with Code enforcement.  A built in bench on the deck presents it's own set of hazards.. that we have addressed in 2009.

What if someone isn't a good parent in the first place?  We can't control that... just like we can't control what they do with movable furniture.. fixed benches.. we absolutely can do something about...

What if you don't trust the homeowner or builder?  Take a picture with a camera equipped with a time/date stamp.. upload it and e-mail to your home e-mail account.. and save it.

"Your honor.. this is what it looked like when I did the final inspection"..

When Junior falls over the rail and is vegetating in the hospital.. you'll be happy you have that..it's kind of like copyrighting something..


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Coug Dad said:
> 
> 
> 
> > rjj,What is to prevent a toddler from pushing a chair to the guardrail creating the same conditon?  We can't codifically solve every perceived problem.


The chair on the deck is not permanently constructed as part of the deck permit and is not regulated by the code.

Good God!  We need to close this loophole.

Hopefully we can in the 2012 code.

Too many people are getting away with this.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				peach said:
			
		

> can't control the "what if's" with Code enforcement.  A built in bench on the deck presents it's own set of hazards.. that we have addressed in 2009.What if someone isn't a good parent in the first place?  We can't control that... just like we can't control what they do with movable furniture.. fixed benches.. we absolutely can do something about...
> 
> What if you don't trust the homeowner or builder?  Take a picture with a camera equipped with a time/date stamp.. upload it and e-mail to your home e-mail account.. and save it.
> 
> ...


Most what ifs end with a child's death.

It's high time the IRC addressed this loophole.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Peach: Some courts will not honor digital pictures! They can be altered. However, 35mm prints are still excepted in all court rooms. Check with your town Lawyer on this, if you have a situations that may become sticky use a 35mm camera for your back up proof!


----------



## RJJ (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

brudgers: You can't be serious?


----------



## peach (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

RJJ.. the only photos you can't really alter are Polaroids.. and the cameras/film are getting harder and harder to find...

Courts have accepted time/date stamped digital photos for years...

unless Tom Hanks is superimposed, I guess..


----------



## RJJ (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

There is some cases out there that lawyers had the photos tossed! I use both just to be safe!

Go to photobucket and see how you can enhance a photo! pretty easy!

How is the snow in DC?


----------



## JBI (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Actually, my understanding is that the 'negative' was the admissable evidence, with the print being 'attested to' by the Code Official as being truly representative of the conditions observed on the date and time in question. Same would hold true for a digital equivalent and its' printed version. An  :ugeek: can run a digital image through a computer and determine whether any anomolies exist that would lead to a conclusion of evidence tampering.


----------



## peach (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Very shortly, Polaroid film and 35 mm film is going to be absolutely obsolete... there won't be a choice except to accept digital photography..

I see fewer and fewer places that process film...

Yes, you can alter digital photographs... Once you have to go to court to testify that the photos are what you saw, the temptation to alter the photos goes down.. it's called PERJURY!


----------



## Heaven (Feb 11, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Interesting timing on this subject -

I went by a project today that had submitted a sketch of "bench railings" for the decks several months ago. I rejected the design as not being "equal or better" in terms of safety to a 36" guard. Well, the bench railings are built. So I expect what will happen is that they will take my denial decision (or my notice of violation) to the building board of appeals which to my knowledge has never been convened in my town. The ZBA sits as the Building Board of Appeals.

Another aspect of this which I don't think they have considered, is that the original building permit shows traditional guards and the building permit has not been amended/approved for a change in this element. In the meantime, , , the code has changed. So, should they win the appeal, and come in for an amended permit showing the bench guards, I can't approve it per 2009 IRC.

Any thoughts?


----------



## RJJ (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Under the 06 code you don't have chapter and verse! So you loose! under 09 they have added the words for compliance. In the real world is it a fix? NO! But at least it is clear when a bench is included in the design what the rail height shall be.


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				RJJ said:
			
		

> Under the 06 code you don't have chapter and verse! So you loose! under 09 they have added the words for compliance. In the real world is it a fix? NO! But at least it is clear when a bench is included in the design what the rail height shall be.


My feeling is that under '06 it is an equivalency determination made by the BO. A bench is not a guard, it perhaps can be equivilant to a guard, but it is a bench to start with. The question is, does the bench design provide the same or greater safety features as a traditional vertical guard. A guard (defined in the book) is to minimize the possbility of a fall. The definition of minimize is "to make small or insiginificant". My judgement as BO was that the bench/guard design did not minimize to an equal or greater degree as a verticle guard, the possibility of a fall. There is one book and thousands of situations. That is why there is often room for interpretation, and that is where a BO earns his pay, IMHO.

All that being said, this will probably end up going through the whole appeals procesws, so I would like to hear your thoughts on both the interpretation and on the building permit issues, as the conversation will help me prepare my arguments. Thanks


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> Any thoughts?


The whole, if they amend the permit drawings they have to meet the new code is, in my opinion, indication that the main agenda is not safety.

That sort of bureaucratic denial is all about gotcha'.


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts?


The whole, if they amend the permit drawings they have to meet the new code is, in my opinion, indication that the main agenda is not safety.

That sort of bureaucratic denial is all about gotcha'.

duplicate of below


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do I understand that you are saying that the permit drawings don't need to be (or shouldn't be required to be) ammended to show this change in the railing?

Since I denied the proposed bench/guard originally based on the safety issue, if I then use the (unexpected) permit process in my favor, what do you feel the main agenda might be seen as? Beyond that, if the appeals process doesn't support my original denial and the new design is submitted as an ammendment, can I approve it in conflict with the (new) code? By the way, if the appeals process overturns my original decision I am not adverse to that. That is how the process works.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> Since I denied the proposed bench/guard originally based on the safety issue, if I then use the (unexpected) permit process in my favor,


Your "favor?"

"use?"

If you need to use things in your favor, you're constructing an argument for your position not applying code.

If there isn't a clear cut prohibition in the code, then it's a matter of opinion.

If you can actually back that opinion up with facts demonstrating that a bench plus rail is not safe, then it's a professional opinion.

Otherwise, it's just an ordinary one.

While there may be specific issues with the configuration in this case, generally:

  railing + standoff  > or = safety of railing alone.

The further you keep a person from the edge, the less likely it is the person falls off the edge.


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

"Construct an argument" for my position is exactly what happens and is expected when a board of appeals or a judge in court hears a case.

If technically I cannot issue a building permit on an amended application, whatever the judgment of the bench/guard might be, then I can save the owners and the jurisdiction time and money and I consider that pragmatic.

And you are right that it is a professional opinion, and that opinion can be based on the background and experiences of the professional and not only on facts in the numerical sense. This is what I understand interpretation to mean. If there are numerical facts, there is no longer (or, less of) an element of interpretation. I can use my background and experiences in life to interpret that a convenient built-in standing surface that essentially reduces the "guard" height to 24” can be considered an attractive nuisance for anyone under the age of 12, (and perhaps for many over the age of 12).

If the board of appeals has a collective mind from their background and experiences and they overturn my decision, that is fine. I don’t expect to have all of the answers all of the time.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> "Construct an argument" for my position is exactly what happens and is expected when a board of appeals or a judge in court hears a case. If technically I cannot issue a building permit on an amended application, whatever the judgment of the bench/guard might be, then I can save the owners and the jurisdiction time and money and I consider that pragmatic.
> 
> And you are right that it is a professional opinion, and that opinion can be based on the background and experiences of the professional and not only on facts in the numerical sense. This is what I understand interpretation to mean. If there are numerical facts, there is no longer (or, less of) an element of interpretation. I can use my background and experiences in life to interpret that a convenient built-in standing surface that essentially reduces the "guard" height to 24” can be considered an attractive nuisance for anyone under the age of 12, (and perhaps for many over the age of 12).
> 
> If the board of appeals has a collective mind from their background and experiences and they overturn my decision, that is fine. I don’t expect to have all of the answers all of the time.


A private attractive nuisance?

Now there's a bureaucratic leap.


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Sure.

Explian your difficulty with that metaphor?

Also, I am curious, what would NFPA say?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

A 12 year old would never sit on a railing would they?

BTW, this is sort of foolishness is why I recommend getting a lawyer involved when dealing with the building department.

Sure, you rejected it and they did it anyway.

But now it's become a blood feud.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> Sure.Explian your difficulty with that metaphor?
> 
> Also, I am curious, what would NFPA say?


36" rail, 4" sphere, nothing about benches.

   NFPA 101 2003  7.2.2.4 via 24.2.5.1


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> A 12 year old would never sit on a railing would they?BTW, this is sort of foolishness is why I recommend getting a lawyer involved when dealing with the building department.
> 
> Sure, you rejected it and they did it anyway.
> 
> But now it's become a blood feud.


Whoa! It isn't a blood feud, they had and have an avenue for relief from my decision through the building board of appeals. If they would like a laywer to do that, then they are welcome to hire one.

You never really answered my question about the ammended plans and the code change? Do you feel an ammended plan is required, If not, why not, if so, how would you suggest I treat the approval of a design that doesn't meet the code under which it was submitted?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa! It isn't a blood feud, they had and have an avenue for relief from my decision through the building board of appeals. If they would like a laywer to do that, then they are welcome to hire one.

You never really answered my question about the ammended plans and the code change? Do you feel an ammended plan is required, If not, why not, if so, how would you suggest I treat the approval of a design that doesn't meet the code under which it was submitted?

Do you frequently change the code requirements mid project?


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Do you always answer a question with a question?


----------



## Heaven (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

Aha! Now I understand, brudgers is a lawyer!


----------



## Architect1281 (Feb 14, 2010)

Re: Rails and benches?

In RI we have had this we know better amendment since 1977 and the CABO regs

R312 Add new section as follows:

R312.3 Seat or Bench Elements.

Guardrails which incorporate seat or bench elements shall have a guardrail system complying with R312.2 to a height of 36” measured from the seat surface. The guardrail system shall also extend to the floor surface below the bench or seat element.

Exception:

1. Porches, balconies or raised floors 30” or less above the floor or grade below.

2. Freestanding moveable seat and bench elements


----------

