Handrails on stairs necessary?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711764#Comment_121711764

If they're carrying their phone, child or laundry, what are they holding the second handrail with?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711771#Comment_121711771

The one hand that isn't carrying the phone, child or laundry.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711782#Comment_121711782

So they only need one handrail. You think they're going to approach the stairs with their child in one arm on the handrail side and instead of putting the child in their other hand they're just going to say "Well, my architect didn't give me a second handrail, so guess we just gotta take our chances with this. I love you, buddy"

They would put their child, laundry, phone, whatever, in their other hand.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711764#Comment_121711764

Adherence to the building regulations is good practice.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711806#Comment_121711806

Have you tried speaking to people at all when designing?

People have dominant hands and arms. So when they're carrying a child with one arm, they're going to want to use their dominant arm - probably right arm, whether they're going up or down - leaving their left arm free to grip the handrail. That's why they need handrails on two sides.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711818#Comment_121711818

Now we know why we end up with poor quality and unsafe buildings.

Adherence to building regulations is minimum legal requirement. Good practice in this area is publications like Building for Everyone is Universal Design Guidelines For Homes in Ireland, which go considerably beyond building regs.

If adherence with building regs is the best you can do, it's time to find a new career.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711821#Comment_121711821

I am a designer, and assigned certifier. I know people have dominant arms. I also know they're going up a set of domestic stairs, not a mountain trail. You do not need handrails on both sides unless the stairs are wider than 1m. You may think it best practice or good design to have handrails on both sides, but on the other hand (the hand without a handrail), it's excessive and needless when it's not required.

So Bannon's design in this case can, at worst, be considered "adequate" or "compliant". You might not think it's good design, but it is compliant with the regulations. A second handrail is not required.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711835#Comment_121711835

I have forgotten more about good design and best practice than you'll ever learn.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711970#Comment_121711970

Your suggestion that building regs constitute good practice suggests otherwise.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711866#Comment_121711866

It's not about what I think. It is recommended good practice from those who take a UD or design for all approach. It provides more flexibility. It accommodates people who have one good arm. It accommodates the family member of mine who broke their arm twenty years ago and still has poor strength on one side. It accommodates people after a stroke. It absolutely IS good design - not my opinion, but in guidance from reputable bodies.

To create a staircase that won't accommodate this comfortably in the future is poor design.

sydthebeat

How difficult do you think it is to retrospectively install a second handrail on a stair if required?

Answer, it's incredibly easy to do. Home adaptation grants include this in their covered works.

Like most things in the world, if you need it you can get it

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712159#Comment_121712159

If the stairs is too narrow, it's not easy at all.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712182#Comment_121712182

In the real world, it’s quite easy.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711835#Comment_121711835

Forgot to add. As stated by you .... buildings that comply with the regulations are unsafe.

That is one of the most stupidest comments I have ever read. Says it all really.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712192#Comment_121712192

So widening a staircase is easy? Please, tell us more.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712198#Comment_121712198

You stated handrail fitting. Easy.

Try Construction Studies as part of your Leaving Cert.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712203#Comment_121712203

Have you been following the thread at all? The issue isn't about fitting handrails.

The issue is about designing stairs that are too narrow to allow handrails to be fitted, without involving major structural works.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712259#Comment_121712259

The photos posted by the OP show a compliant wide stairs.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712523#Comment_121712523

How wide are they?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121711337#Comment_121711337

Throughout the thread we've gone through from the Regs to the TGDs, to the UK Guidance, to UD principles, and nowt back to the regs. Each time the goal posts was moved to a new mistake. It simply highlight the lack of understanding of the regs, TGS and everything else.

I'm well aware that the baseline is the regs (that was also pointed out on page 1) The TGDs are a mens to comply, but not the only means. That fact does not strengthen the argument that this private stairs are non compliant. It actually weakens it. Not really why you brought that up. Have you read the regs?

"Stairways, ladders and ramps shall be such as to afford safe passage for the users of a building"

That's it. If the stairs was in a nursing home. I would not back it as being compliant, for obvious reasons. But this is a private dwelling, to a private bedroom, in a converted attic. The situation is simply not the same.

The UD principle of preparing for the future, given that we're all getting older every day is absolutely sound.

Of course it is. As a whole we should be following UD principles. I have not suggest otherwise. There are no UD principles that apply here. The fact you suggested they did, highlights that you didn't understand that. I asked you what the requirement was, you didn't know. Simply as that.

Ease of conversion isn't 'your point'. You don't have a monopoly on points. I've been making that point since the start of the conversation, with points like these.

I'm not claiming ownership of any point. I'm pointing you you replied to MY post, by rephrasing what I had just. That's pointless conversation. You tried to refer to regs, but you repeatedly muddled them up. Now you trying to move the goalposts. Give over.

The above comment related to his new build in Blessington for an elderly couple that include a stepped front entrance.

CEUD guidance absolutely IS government guidance. It's not statutory guidance like the TGD, but it absolutely IS guidance from a government body.

You don't need to explain Part M, TGD, UD and accessible design thanks. I'm quite familiar with these.

I can't comment in the house in Blessington. As I haven't seen it. But given the misunderstandings here. I would be surprised if they also apply.

CEUD is not government guidance. It's from the National Disability Authority. If you google the NDA you see they confirm the first line is "The National Disability Authority (NDA) is the independent statutory body". Independent, that advise the various levels of government, they are not the government.

You clearly have an awareness of accessible design. But given the mistakes you've repeatedly made in this thread, you didn't appear to be as familiar as you make out.

I've never suggested that they need to fit every possible feature from day one. I've suggested that the design needs to accommodate the fitting of every possible feature in the future.

In the case of the staircase, it needs to be wide enough to accommodate two proper handrails, one on each side.

It isn't wide enough to accommodate two proper handrails, one on each side - so it is a poor design by Dermot, poor future proofing.

As I've already pointed out, that is incorrect.

You are re-confirming your lack of understanding. That is a requirement for a UD home. The NDA recommends (via the CEUD) that 30% of new homes are UDs. Obviously that applies more to larger developments, than one off. This wasn't even a new build. It's an existing dwelling.

It would not be possible to make a provision for every UD and UD+ feature. And NDA do not expect it. As it would be awful design.

I'm not talking about compliance with building regs. I'm talking about good practice with a new build. 

Another attempted goal post move. The thread is not about new builds. It is about the attic conversion in an existing dwelling. You know which stairs, you screenshoted it.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712182#Comment_121712182

But as we’ve already proven. The stairs are not too narrow. There is sufficient space if they want to in future.

You’re making up strange hypotheticals instead of admitting your estimate was wrong.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121714745#Comment_121714745

So when you say 'prove', you mean 'expressed an opinion', right? Did I miss some measurement of the stairs?

ULEZ23

jeepers Andy, I thought the night sleep would have let you see sense but no, doubling down to take on the task of proving 10 other posters that they are wrong is topic number one for the Saturday of a bank holiday weekend.

insert that famous frozen song

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121714738#Comment_121714738

You've done a fair bit of jumping around yourself. It was your good self that put TGD out there as the baseline, rather than the regs. Remember "Unfortunately, you misjudged you're baseline. (TGD vrs UD).". Perhaps you're not as familiar as you make out?

You might want to give up on repeatedly telling me that the stairs comply with building regs, given that I've never said that they didn't.

Did you notice the 'statutory' bit in the bit you quoted about the NDA. They are a government body. Their staff are public servants. They are funded directly from Government, under DCEDIY. And I don't think they need or want you acting as their unappointed spokesperson.

I love your 'can't comment on the house in Blessington' immediately followed by your comment on the house in Blessington, which you know absolutely nothing about. Go back and watch the episode and then we can have a sensible discussion.

This section of the house was effectively a new build, and greenfield site, where the designer had loads of choices available to him. He made a poor choice on the width of the stairs.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121714755#Comment_121714755

No, I meant prove. I guess you did miss it. Despite it being pointed out to you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121715046#Comment_121715046

Jumping around? Where? My inputs have been highlighting where people have made false claims, and misinterpreted the requirements.

The TGDs are a means to comply with the regs, if you comply with the TGDs, you defacto comply with the regs. That’s how it works.

The NDA are independent, their words, not mine. Being funded by the government doesn’t not make them the government. Regardless, you claimed that the UD standards are recommend for this house. That is completely incorrect. You were wrong.

It was a stairs to an existing attic. That is not a green field design. Besides, the width was still compliant, as the drawings showed.

You are literally digging deeper and deeper non-stop. Give up. You are clearly wrong.

And I haven’t commented on Blessington. Stop making things up. If you want an opinion or discussion start a thread.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121715355#Comment_121715355

There is no proof of anything about that staircase posted here. Unless you knock at the door and run in with your little measuring tape, you're not going to have proof.

You're jumping around between TGD and regs. You clearly said that TGD was the baseline, not the regs. Yes, TGD is one means of achieving compliance, but not the only way. So to use TGD as the baseline, and not the regs, is excluding solutions that comply with the regs but don't comply with TGD. Why would you want to exclude such solutions?

Look, it's a not a huge mistake, in the run of a discussion like this. But a bigger man would acknowledge it and move on, instead of trying build a cloud of confusion around it.

The NDA are part of government. They're a statutory government body, set up by legislation. You've taken the word 'independent' and turned it into 'independent of government and outside of government' without any actual basis for doing so. In the context of government agencies, independent means that they have their own board, appoint their own staff, run their own pension scheme. It doesn't put them outside of government.

There's lots of external agencies who are actually independent in this sector, like DFI, IWA, Vision Ireland, AsIAm and more. NDA are a government body, and their guidance is government advice.

Drawings don't confirm anything about stairs. Drawings tell you about drawings. Implementation on the ground is often different to drawings.

You literally did comment on the Blessington scenario, without even having seen the show the in question. It was discussed in the RTI thread if you want to go back to that, rather than commenting on something you know nothing about.

Those stairs would not allow for dual handrails to be fitted when these become required. It's not a good design.

Gumbo

NDA guidelines have no statutory precedent over the Details set out in the Technical Guidance Documents. You are under no obligation to consider them in a private dwelling. None whatsoever.

You can consider them in buildings, along with BS8300 but fundamentally, once compliance with the TGD (Regs) is achieved then that’s it.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121715768#Comment_121715768

Oh Andy, you just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

You're jumping around between TGD and regs. You clearly said that TGD was the baseline, not the regs. Yes, TGD is one means of achieving compliance, but not the only way. So to use TGD as the baseline, and not the regs, is excluding solutions that comply with the regs but don't comply with TGD. Why would you want to exclude such solutions?

The role of the TGD is very clear. The TGDs are absolutely the defacto baseline for compliance with the regs. That doesn't exclude other solutions. But how do you think that benefits your argument here? If something is compliant and outside TGD ranges, that means that compliance is even broader? Ho does that help anything you've said. In reality, you were wrong about the UD guidelines being the baseline, and attempted respond pedanticly with "well ackchyually, the TGDs not the regs", and it's just made you look foolish.

The TGDs are so exemplary of the regulations, that people informally refer to the TGDs as the regs. Just like you did a few post up. I mean, I'm assume you meant to say TGD here, otherwise what you said was completely incorrect.

Adherence to building regulations is minimum legal requirement. Good practice in this area is publications like Building for Everyone is Universal Design Guidelines For Homes in Ireland, which go considerably beyond building regs.

But maybe you did mean that literally. Given you also said this;

Your suggestion that building regs constitute good practice suggests otherwise.

The building regs are not simply good practice. They are legal requirements. There is no level out design outside of the building regs that is acceptable.

A stairs that does not meet the building regulations is, by definition, not safe.

You might want to give up on repeatedly telling me that the stairs comply with building regs, given that I've never said that they didn't.

Now you are just lying. You claimed on multiple occasions that the stairs did not comply. The fact you are now divorcing yourself from your own posts highlights that you know you are wrong.

The NDA are part of government. They're a statutory government body, set up by legislation. You've taken the word 'independent' and turned it into 'independent of government and outside of government' without any actual basis for doing so. In the context of government agencies, independent means that they have their own board, appoint their own staff, run their own pension scheme. It doesn't put them outside of government.

"The National Disability Authority (NDA) is the independent statutory body, providing evidence-based advice and research to Government on disability policy and practice and promoting Universal Design."

They are a small agency that that advises the government, the advice they put out is from the NDA and not from the government. That is not complicated. And even if there were it would change nothing anyway.

It's really simple. You were asked about the requirement for compliance. And you said the the official government guidance was the UD guidelines. That is incorrect, that's a fact. The official government guidance is the Technical Guidance Documents published directly by a department of the government.

Drawings don't confirm anything about stairs. Drawings tell you about drawings. Implementation on the ground is often different to drawings.

Refusing to accept anything other than an on-site measurement highlights how ridiculous you are being and how weak your argument is. But yes, the reality is often different to the drawings, that's true. Contractor's can and do take liberties on site. Mostly without issue, but not always so.

But the drawings are the design that was intended. And throughout the thread you have criticised the design of the stairs. Even gone as far as personally blaming the designer. The drawings show that the design did allow for sufficient space for a handrail to be fitted, and it could easily be fitted. So on that basis, your complaints on the design have been shown to be completely baseless.

Now, if you want to knock at the door and run in with your little measuring tape, and prove the stairs is 750mm (it isn't) then go for it. And I'll criticise the contractor with you.

You literally did comment on the Blessington scenario, without even having seen the show the in question. It was discussed in the RTI thread if you want to go back to that, rather than commenting on something you know nothing about.

What are you waffling about now? I literally said "I can't comment in the house in Blessington. As I haven't seen it."

If you mean the where I said I wouldn't be surprised is similar misunderstandings applied. That's a factual statement. I wouldn't be. And it's a comment on other posters, not the house itself.

Edit: I just Googled it, is it this one? https://cococontent.ie/episode-3-blessington-room-to-improve-series-14

That concrete to the left of the steps. That's a Ramp, specifically for Part M. A directly level entrance is better, but ramps are often required on very sloped sites (I don't have enough info to know if that was the case here). It's not ideal, but it's not non-compliant with Part M as was claimed on the RTI thread. So yeah, not surprised.

Those stairs would not allow for dual handrails to be fitted when these become required. It's not a good design.

Except that they would. 🤣🤣

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121717118#Comment_121717118

No one said anything different here.

dathi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr57W6R1qVE&t=41s

let it go lads

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121712197#Comment_121712197

Where did I state that?