Stair riser

[pi]

6 year old home, with rear patio and door about 18 inches the ground. Looks like the owner just built a nice new set of steps, actually very sturdy with a railing and all. Problem is, rise of 2 bottom steps is 8" and top step rise is only 4 inches. It's a code violation but I'm not a code inspector. Is this really a safety hazard warranting redoing steps. Opinions?

Download Attachment: 061116dan 006.jpg

137.54 KB

[Jim Morrison]

My opinion is that since about 1 million people go to the ER every year because of a slip, trip, or fall, I'd tell my client that those stairs are is a tripping hazard and they ought to get them fixed for their own safety.

Jim Morrison

[Neal Lewis]

Isn't a landing required at this door, not just steps?

[hausdok]

Yep,

A landing is required at the top and bottom of the stairs (IRC 312.1/UBC1003.3.3.5)unless it's 2 or fewer risers (IRC311.4.3).

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Darren]

In NJ, a floor or landing is required on each side of an exterior door (except for the exterior of a sliding door)(no minumum # of risers).

Also in NJ, a riser height shall not exceed 8 1/4 inches.

Darren

www.aboutthehouseinspections.com

[pi]

Thanks Jim,

Answer is what I needed but I could just see guy out their building those steps with his kid and being so proud. This will be good learning experience for him. No landing required if door swings in in NC. Storms and screen doors are also exempt.

[randynavarro]

Originally posted by pi

Is this really a safety hazard warranting redoing steps. Opinions?

Download Attachment: 061116dan 006.jpg

137.54 KB

Well, I can understand it seems hardnose and bullyish to make that recommendation but the simple fact is there are very specific rules on the construction of stairs - even down to the 1/4".

As Jim Morrison said, powers far greater than us have determined that stairs actually do cause a lot of damage in this country. I wouldn't contradict that reality.

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by pi

6 year old home, with rear patio and door about 18 inches the ground. Looks like the owner just built a nice new set of steps, actually very sturdy with a railing and all. Problem is, rise of 2 bottom steps is 8" and top step rise is only 4 inches. It's a code violation but I'm not a code inspector. Is this really a safety hazard warranting redoing steps. Opinions?

I can't even begin to understand why you wouldn't call this an unsafe defect and in need of correction.

By the way, the sentiment that "we're not code inspectors" is the biggest pile of manure that's ever been foisted upon us. First of all, there's no such thing as a "code inspector" it's a made-up term. Second of all, the code forms the backbone of knowlege that informs us.

Don't fear it. Fear of the codes is a cancer.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[pi]

OK already, I recommended new stairs and even told them how to build them to comply with NC Res. Code. Thanks fot input.

[BADAIR]

pi,

Good observation and even better of you to consult others when in doubt.

That open riser is also not Kosher, for the gentiles in our audience not built to code.

Here's the IRC stairs visually and clearly explained for the past 6 years

http://www.stairways.org/codes_standards.htm

[Erby]

What's really frustrating is that you tell the buyer about it, they choose to do nothing, and then someone gets hurt.

Did a new house today that had a set of stairs to the second floor,

first (bottom) step - 9 1/4",

intermediate steps - 7 5/8",

top step - 6 inches.

tread depth - 8"

Go figure!!!

You can lead a buyer to the code, but you can't enforce it. Each person gets to chose the level of risk they want to live with.

[hausdok]

Hi Erby,

Yeah, I get 'em like that all the time. They want to know what will happen if they do nothing. I say, "Well, maybe nothing. However, you're going to want to sell this home some day and some anal inspector like me is going to be standing here writing up this same issue when you do. When that happens, your explanation to the potential buyer - that you'd known about it but let it go because you didn't want to get into it with the guy you paid half a million dollars to build this home - isn't going to fly and they're going to want you to correct it. Do what you want, but it's screwed up now and now is the easiest time to fix it - not later."

They always seem to understand when you couch it in those terms.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Erby

What's really frustrating is that you tell the buyer about it, they choose to do nothing, and then someone gets hurt.

Did a new house today that had a set of stairs to the second floor,

first (bottom) step - 9 1/4",

intermediate steps - 7 5/8",

top step - 6 inches.

tread depth - 8"

Go figure!!!

You can lead a buyer to the code, but you can't enforce it. Each person gets to chose the level of risk they want to live with.

When we bought our current place, we slept in the bunkhouse on the property because there were no bedrooms in the main house (don't ask). At the bunkhouse stairway, every single step had a different rise varying between 3" and 10". The treads varied between 6" and 12". For the first six months that we lived there, we used those damn steps, carrying the baby up & down several times a day, often in the dark (there was no bathroom in the bunkhouse, you had to walk back to the main house for that). We got to the point where we could run up & down those steps blindfolded & whistling Dixie.

I finally re-built them so that every step was perfectly uniform. We tripped over those new steps for about a week after that. We hadn't anticipated the effect of muscle memory.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Erby]

OK, I won't ask about no bedrooms in the house.

But you could explain the lack of a bathroom in the bunkhouse?

Bet if you searched your main memory, you'd find that you tripped over the old steps for a week or so to.

Here's a neat link about muscle memory and heavy equipment:

http://www.simlog.com/muscle-memory.html

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Erby

OK, I won't ask about no bedrooms in the house.

But you could explain the lack of a bathroom in the bunkhouse?

I don't really know the reason but it's a 10-acre property that was once part of a 200-acre walnut orchard that was planted by a settler in the 1880s. I suspect that the bunkhouse was used to bunk seasonal labor. There was probably a latrine or outhouse at one time. It wouldn't have made sense to install a septic tank or cesspool for seasonal workers. Some of the surrounding farms still use outhouses for this purpose, though most have switched to porta-johns.

Bet if you searched your main memory, you'd find that you tripped over the old steps for a week or so to.

You're probably right. But we were careful because we knew that the steps were screwy. Once they were fixed, we didn't anticipate the danger.

Here's a neat link about muscle memory and heavy equipment:

http://www.simlog.com/muscle-memory.html

That's interesting. I'm a lousy heavy equipment operator. I'll have to convince Ellen that I need more practice.

- Jim Katen, Oregon