Graspable handrail?

[Tom Rees]

Does this handrail meet the requirements of a "graspable" handrail? The definition in my reporting software (ReportHost) is "Handrails should be sized and shaped so your hand can encircle them". Is this right? :confused:

[Garry Sorrells]

Look at the IRC 2006 STAIR BUILDING CODE
There is a PDF that you can download.
http://www.axiominspection.com/documents/StairCodes.pdf

[Tom Rees]

In your opinion does this meet requirement in drawing 28? I saw this in another post and that's what got me thinking about this type of routed handrail which I see on ocassion in this area.

[Chris McIntyre]

I personally think it's fine and it's only 3 steps (I know others will disagree).
If you want to pick it apart, this is the section that would apply.

[Scott Patterson]

I think it is OK. Where I get heartburn is when you find a 1x4 for the top of the handrail! Makes it a tad difficult to grab that critter if you are falling.

[Raymond Wand]

Looks fine to me as the top of the rail has been routered to make it graspable.

[Jerry Peck]

If the finger-grip area is routed into both side, then that may well meet the graspability requirements of the code, and there are very specific requirements regarding that finger recess, its depth, how far from the top of the handrail it starts, how wide it is (how far from the top of the handrail it ends), the radii, etc.

[Garry Sorrells]

Tom,
Reason I just left the link was because I could not see what the rest looked like. There is code and then there is reasonable to use which is what your software is trying to say.

[Tom Rees]

Thanks, I didn't scroll down far enough in the PDF Gary provided the first time. Thanks!!

[Frazier Jeffery]

Thanks, I didn't scroll down far enough in the PDF Gary provided the first time. Thanks!!

Actually that is a factory made "graspable " configuration that has been used for the last many years to meet the requirement. But no longer allowed in many jurisdictions of lately. So I would allow same as allowing things in the past that are no longer allowed

[Jerry Peck]

Actually that is a factory made "graspable " configuration that has been used for the last many years to meet the requirement. But no longer allowed in many jurisdictions of lately. So I would allow same as allowing things in the past that are no longer allowed

Frazier,

Are you meaning that, if it existed legally in an existing house you would 'allow' the same thing, or that if it was being installed in a new house and was no longer allowed by the AHJ that you would 'allow' it to remain?

I use 'allow' for you as a home inspector because a home inspector has no authority to 'allow' or 'disallow' anything, the home inspector has a duty to 'report' on things, and to 'recommend' repairs or replacements were the home inspector opines such, but the home inspector has no authority to 'require' removal, replacement, or repair of anything - that is up to the client and what they will accept or not. I.e., if the client does not accept the seller saying 'No, I ain't gonna nuttin', then the client can walk away from the purchase and make their statement that way. When that happens, if the seller want to make the sale, the seller will repair, replace, remove, etc., what the client wants - that is how the client can 'require' something to be done.

And that happens all the time in this business.

I always told my clients that whoever needs or wants the sale *the most* will lose in the negotiations as the one who is willing to walkway holds all the cards ... or they walk away. If neither party is willing to walkway from the deal, then negotiate for your best position ... that is all you can do if you are not willing to walk way.

If the seller needs or wants to sell and the buyer does not need or want to buyer ... guess who has the advantage?

If the seller does not need or want to sell and the buyer needs or wants to buy ... yep, you guessed it.