new construction non conforming guardrail

[Peter W. Bennett]

check out this climable gem.
The guards are above 30 inches.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

How else are they going to get to the lake?

[wsiegel]

How high is the deck?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Nice railing with a nice view.

[Marc D. Shunk]

The deck might not even be high enough to require a rail in the first place, so that rail that's there isn't really a rail. It's a decorative piece that looks a lot like a rail.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

The deck might not even be high enough to require a rail in the first place, so that rail that's there isn't really a rail. It's a decorative piece that looks a lot like a rail.

Exactly.

[Larry D. Kage]

The "ladder effect" was taken out of the requirements a few years back, as I recall. I is no longer necessary/required to have all infilled panels, ballusters, or patterns in guards/railings verticle only. There is still the 4" sphere rule but horizontal type infills are accepted in many jurisdictions.

[pdickerson]

I agree that a a guard rail on a deck lower than 30" is not required to meet the 4" rule. I do however call them out if they don't meet the 200 lb load rule. When someone leans on a rail, it needs to be solid regardless of height off ground.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

The deck might not even be high enough to require a rail in the first place, so that rail that's there isn't really a rail. It's a decorative piece that looks a lot like a rail.

It's on the balcony above the front door.

[Peter W. Bennett]

So a climbable railing above thirty inches is not a concern?
Ladder or no ladder effect, it's still unsafe.
For the very same reason greater than 4" sphere is.
Injury.

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

I personally don't have a problem with it......."climbable"......people do all sorts of stupid things....trying to legislate those things out of existence become ridiculous.........I suspect the deck is off the master bedroom, which if this is the case means access is restricted. If the rail is secure than I would let it be.

As both a licensed contractor and inspector, I find that there can be a happy medium between building a homes that is safe and aesthetically appealing, much of that has to do with using common sense.

I personally would not call it.......
On a side note, you can always suggest that the occupant install a double cylinder dead bolt to control access to the balcony.

regards

Jeff

[Michael J. Merino]

I would call it if they have young kids that do not know the consequences of climbing the rail.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Kids crawl out windows and fall too. If you try to make it idiot proof, they'll come up with a better idiot.

I don't have a problem with it unless there is a code about the "ladder effect" of which I am not aware.

[Mark Thorman]

Originally Posted by mmerino

I would call it if they have young kids that do not know the consequences of climbing the rail.

I try not to write a report geared to the specifics circumstances of my clients. The test should be is it right or is it wrong.

www.MauiHomeInspections.com

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by pbennett1

check out this climable gem.
The guards are above 30 inches.

Needs GFCI protection, how about a poll?