# Maneuvering Clearence?



## RJJ (Dec 10, 2009)

Under a.117.1 section 404.2.3.4!

Does the mim 12" clearance apply in figure © if panic bar is in place. Door size is 36" Over all width is the 48" require. Latch side is 11"?


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

Sadly, Richard, the answer is yes - according to the feds.

We've spoken with the Access Board on this and they cannot agree that the panic device will be an "equivalent facilitation" to the 12 inch maneuvering space.

In talking the subject over with the ICC folks, including the people who are involved with the A117.1, they seem to think that it *should *be equivalent.  So, you might agree that the 12 inches isn't an issue from a building code standpoint (depending on who's doing the interpreting       ) but the feds will stand you up on the issue.


----------



## RJJ (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

Boy! That just doesn't make sense to me. I agree we need to make everything we can work for those with less fortune then us, but this makes no sense.


----------



## JBI (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

RJJ - It's not supposed to make sense... it's Code Enforcement!  :lol:

I'd add something productive, but there isn't much to add to Gene's comment...


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

I agree that there should be something else that will allow it but the folks at the Access Board could not reach a consensus.  We even argued that if the panic bar *and *door motion did not take not more than 5 pound force it should be equivalent.  They did not all agree.  The biggest dissenters were those who advocated for individuals who would be approaching the door with a cane or walker.  They will inherently approach the edge of the door to get the greatest leverage.  But that argument falls short if you can make the opening force work.

sadness  . . . .   :cry:


----------



## brudgers (Dec 10, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

Consider a person without use of their right arm approaching the door in figure ©.

Without the additional space at the recessed door they would have to push with their left arm from an awkward angle.

5lbs of force at 36" from the hinge means 10lbs of force is required 18" from the hinge.

A panic bar doesn't change the physics.


----------



## JBI (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

"The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"?


----------



## north star (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

*John said:*



> "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"?


*Why of course John!    Just look at Washington D.C.! *  :x


----------



## Yikes (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

I'm pretty sure that if the access board would allow panic bar + 5 lbs. closing force, some creative manufacturer would figure out how to solve the issue of leverage - - maintaining 5 lbs. force at 12" in from the strike edge.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 11, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

Yikes, you'd think so.  But, when specifically asked. . . . .

*N*egative *A*nswer

(Wait a minute!  That goes to a different thread!)   :lol:


----------



## Big Mac (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

John, are you implying that making this more accessible to the disabled is making it less accessible to the able bodied?


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

Not exactly.

The big reason for H/C access reqs is so that persons with disabilities don't have to ask for help to get in to, out of, or move around in a space. So they don't need to 'feel different'. Do you think for one second that they don't 'feel different' every time they get in their chair, grab their crutches, or struggle to get themselves in an upright position?

There are darn near as many people over 6'8" tall as there are people in wheelchairs, but you don't see the Codes requiring doors over 6'8" yet...

I, like many people, am left-handed, but I don't see any code requirements for 'left-handed operating controls'.

I'm all for accessibility, to a reasonable extent.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> I'm all for accessibility, to a reasonable extent.


Civil rights:  not a pet peeve.


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

:?:


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 14, 2009)

Re: Maneuvering Clearence?

rjj

Can the closer be removed? You would then be compliant with figure (b) no minimum clearance


----------

