Stair rails greater than 4 inches. Question

[Ronald L. Felton]

I dont think subjecting someting to todays standards has anything to do with codes. Its a justified safety concern. If you dont report it then you could end up in court. I come across stuff every week that isnt built to todays standards thats still acceptable. GFCIs are good to have, so are breakers instead of fuses. Both code violations by todays standards, both safety concerns.

1) Is this going to compromise the clients safety
2) Is this going to cost the client money
3) Is this going to compromise the structure

After that I try and leave my personal (not professional) opinion out of it.

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

Originally Posted by rfelton

I dont think subjecting someting to todays standards has anything to do with codes. Its a justified safety concern. If you dont report it then you could end up in court. I come across stuff every week that isnt built to todays standards thats still acceptable. GFCIs are good to have, so are breakers instead of fuses. Both code violations by todays standards, both safety concerns.

1) Is this going to compromise the clients safety
2) Is this going to cost the client money
3) Is this going to compromise the structure

After that I try and leave my personal (not professional) opinion out of it.

Curious, so when you see a service panel with fuses instead of breakers, do you write that up?

As to GFI's, I simply recommend that for areas where moisture / water is present, the receptacles should be labeled "not GFI protected" or replace same. (I have seen the labels for which I simply explain why they are labeled and leave it at that).

Jeff

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachi.tv/episode16

[William J. Decker]

I, regularly, see this kind of stuff, and not just for older houses.

Like these.

They may be "cool", but they are ALL unsafe, even without little kids in the house.

Climbable ballisters, openings between the treads of > 6", no ballisters, etc.

Sure, your house looks "cool" and you win design awards, but functionality and safety are much more important than looks, and gaining prestique from your friends.

And, if some one does get hurt, who do you think they are going to sue?

Surely not their "designer".

[Jeffery L. Haynes]

People often purchase a product based upon its looks......with houses, that is one of the overriding decisions in the process.....especially with women.

What is important is how you word your concerns as well as where you place such concerns.....body of the report versus the summary page.

Too many times inspectors think they are code officials....... which does nothing more than create a divisive atmosphere between REA and HI's.

Growing up, most of us have done well...........its amazing that today we are regulating ourselves to death...........often with the same old excuse........"its for the children". I don't know about you all but I was told not to play on steps, not to play around the stove, not hang out the window, to pay attention where I walk, etc.............. but today where adults, especially parents, don't want to take responsibility for their actions or those of their little hoodlum brats.

just my 2 cents....

[Douglas Cossar]

Originally Posted by wdecker

I, regularly, see this kind of stuff, and not just for older houses.

Like these.

They may be "cool", but they are ALL unsafe, even without little kids in the house.

Climbable ballisters, openings between the treads of > 6", no ballisters, etc.

Sure, your house looks "cool" and you win design awards, but functionality and safety are much more important than looks, and gaining prestique from your friends.

And, if some one does get hurt, who do you think they are going to sue?

Surely not their "designer".

Will:
That third set of stairs is very scary. I wouldn't want to climb them.

Cheers

[Wayne B. Wilson]

I mention it because if you do not then you will get sued. Fuses same thing just add recommend to update, recommendations are not a problem more of a heads up.
Most people understand that.

[Bob Elliott]

FUSE PANELS ARE GENERALLY SEEN AS BEING MORE RELIABLE THAN BREAKER PANELS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY WILL ALWAYS TRIP WHEN OVERLOADED BY EITHER LOADS IMPOSED ON THEM OR UNDER DEAD SHORT CONDITIONS. BREAKERS ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE BEEN KNOWN NOT TO TRIP AT THE SPECIFIED AMPERAGES.

MANY INSURANCE COMPANIES HOWEVER WILL EITHER NOT INSURE, OR INSURE AT A HIGHER PREMIUM HOMES THAT STILL HAVE FUSE PANELS. THIS IS NOT DUE TO ANY DANGER FROM THE FUSES THEMSELVES, RATHER IT IS INDICATIVE OF A GENERALLY OLDER UNIMPROVED SYSTEM WHICH STATISTICALLY WILL PRODUCE MORE ELECTRICAL FIRES.

That is my stored Library phrase.
Sorry author unknown.

I think I need to convert to small case lettering.

[bdoles2]

Originally Posted by jhaynes

People often purchase a product based upon its looks......with houses, that is one of the overriding decisions in the process.....especially with women.

What is important is how you word your concerns as well as where you place such concerns.....body of the report versus the summary page.

Too many times inspectors think they are code officials....... which does nothing more than create a divisive atmosphere between REA and HI's.

Growing up, most of us have done well...........its amazing that today we are regulating ourselves to death...........often with the same old excuse........"its for the children". I don't know about you all but I was told not to play on steps, not to play around the stove, not hang out the window, to pay attention where I walk, etc.............. but today where adults, especially parents, don't want to take responsibility for their actions or those of their little hoodlum brats.

just my 2 cents....

Excellent post Jeff! I couldn't agree more!

Gotta go, time to play in the street!

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Originally Posted by ccurrins

Would you call this out? Built in 1983.

The loft guardrail is 27". The main floor is 12' below.

Yep... all sorts of problems there. Call out multiple safety infractions... not code violations, even though they're really the same thing.