Handrails on stairs necessary?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675702#Comment_121675702

No different?

What's the width of the top of that rail vs the width of the top of the plywood?

What's the slope of the top of that rail vs the slope of the plywood edge?

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675702#Comment_121675702

We are not talking about that glass sided stairs, we are talking about the cheap wooden one in Cashel. In any case, the width of the handrail on the glass sided stairs is a lot wider than the glass underneath it, so it could be gripped (finger tip and thumb under the wooden bit). it would be difficult to know if the hand-rail on that glass sided stairs would pass the regs or not without measuring it , but at least those stairs / the handrail on it looks a lot safer than the stairs in Cashel without a handrail.

In the UK it specifies the handrail should be between 40 - 45mm diameter. No way was that vertical edge of plywood 40 - 45mm diameter. For oval shaped handrails, it specifies the minimum radius on the corners of the cross-section etc, so it would be reasonably comfortable to grip.

As asked before , when people are being killed and others have life changing injuries, do you not think we should at least strive to match UK standards when it comes to something as simple as handrails? It makes you wonder what other poor design or build decisions were taken if something as simple as a stairs hand-rail is treated like this?

In the Celtic Tiger days there was an attitude of "Ah sure it'll do", but should' nt we be show-casing better examples of build and design quality now, if they are to be showcased at all?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675848#Comment_121675848

Where does the TGD specify width's?

Where does it specify slopes?

Please answer this Andrew. I don't see where this is specified.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675822#Comment_121675822

You said "we have had a child fatality over this in recent years ", my bolding for emphasis.

That was nonsense, wasn't it?

You said that the requirement for lower handrails was being removed. Removed from what by who?

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675897#Comment_121675897

A child fatality in and around a stair core where they fell over a bannister/ballustrade.

No that wasn’t nonsense and very ghoulish of you to use a child death to score some points on an internet discussion.

It’s a relevant event in this country to consider the design of stairs, handrails and accessible foot holds.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675880#Comment_121675880

2 inches is 50mm Are you saying that the top of the guarding here is less than 2 inches? Not to my eye anyway, I wonder what others think.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675935#Comment_121675935

In the house in Cashel there is no handrail as specified on page 26 of the K document. The regs there specify the handrail should be between 40 - 45mm diameter. It shows a section of circular hand-rail. It also shows a section of a more oval shaped hand-rail, and specifies the minimum radius of the curve in the section ( i.e it should be rounded a bit, without sharp corners )

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79b642e5274a684690b8f0/2077370.pdf

The film of the stairs taken just before your photo above, from ground floor level, show there is no rail on the stairs and the top edge is not rounded and affords no grip underneath for finger tips and/or thumb, so is not a rail.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675922#Comment_121675922

It was YOU who brought up about the child fatality and tried to score points. Post no. 81.

And then you accuse others of being "ghoulish" ! It back-fired on you anyway, it seems the lower handrail was not the reason for the child's death.

It does show however we should all try to minimise risks when it comes to stairs design. As shown already, here in Ireland we have had approximately 280 people die from accidental falls each year, with many, many more just injuring or hurting themselves, sometimes seriously. Should'nt we strive to at least equal if not exceed UK safety regs and compliance when it comes to something as simple as hand-rails on stairs?

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676289#Comment_121676289

I never once stated the lower handrail was a cause. This whole thread looks to have back fired on yourself now as it appears there’s nothing wrong despite all the whinging.

We really should stick to Irish regulations requirements as constantly quoting some other country is irrelevant and obtuse.

Can you source please for the 280 stair deaths.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676233#Comment_121676233

The OP question was about Irish regs.

Please observe.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676289#Comment_121676289

The onus is now on you to show via data, not anecdote or worrying, that the type of Reg compliant stairs installed in Cashel is more dangerous than a traditional staircase.

*'Traditional' being the word you should be using and not 'proper' BTW

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676361#Comment_121676361

I referred to it already. I said just google "280 deaths from falls in Ireland" and it will come top of the list.

It is from www.lenus.ie

Lenus, in case you did not know, is Ireland's central source for Open Access health research.

Even if it was just 100 who died from falls, instead of 280, each year ( with thousands injured?)....is it still not worthwhile trying to minimise those falls? Not all are on stairs, but some are.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676368#Comment_121676368

The Irish regs seem as clear as Tubridy's pay from RTE, and there is little or no building control or inspection of residential properties here. However, as I asked you already, given here in Ireland approximately 280 people die from accidental falls each year, with many, many more just injuring or hurting themselves, sometimes seriously, do you not think that anything to help reduce that number should be done? Do you not think our standards should be as good as UK standards? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Remember In the UK there is a responsibility for compliance ( see 0.6 at bottom of page 7 ). Knowing more than a few people who have been injured on stairs, I think our standards need to be improved to at least UK levels.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675922#Comment_121675922

What 'this' were you referring to when you said 'child fatality over this'?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676464#Comment_121676464

Nowhere in what you posted does it attribute any amount of falls to stairs.

You're now resorting to sensationalism and an appeal to emotion by trying to say handrails should be provided to minimise falls even though that is exactly why they are in the regulations. The very thing you're referencing is also about older people falling while just walking about. Should there be handrails along every wall? Handrails up and down the middle of each room a 1m spacing so an older person can walk up and down the room? Guess what? They'll still fall. You cannot design everything to accommodate absolutely everyone, that's not what the regs are for. The regs give a baseline which should be sufficient for everyone. If someone has a concern about something in particular in their house because of their own conditions, they are free to go above and beyond the regs. If the people in the episode of RTI felt they needed a handrail on the set of steps, or something more akin to a traditional handrail on the main stairs, they would have asked for it.

You have no argument left to make because what was designed by Dermot Bannon and accepted by the clients, is compliant with the regulations. So now you have nothing left but "I just want to protect old people from falling down stairs" as if everyone who points out the regulations have been followed and are sufficient for the vast majority of normal usage don't care if old people fall down the stairs.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121675893#Comment_121675893

Careful now, with that shifting of the goalposts there.

You said it was 'no different'. In width and slope, it's completely different.

TGD says "readily gripped by the hand" which relates to the width of the rail ( or piece of wood, in your case and "safely used" which relates to the slope of the handrail (or edge of the piece of wood, in your case.

How does your piece of wood meet these TGD requirements?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676464#Comment_121676464

It doesn't matter what your opinion of the Irish regs are.

The question in the OP was about THE IRISH REGS and compliance.

When you didn't get the answer you so desperately want you deflect to UK regs. Stock behaviour.

Yes, it is everyone's responsibility to design safely.

Now have you any DATA, not anecdote or conjecture or worrying, on the increased dangers of the compliant stairs in Cashel and a more traditional iteration?

If you don't, go find some.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676568#Comment_121676568

So you accept that the Irish state authorities state that there were 280 deaths in Ireland due to falls, but you think that stairs in Ireland should not need to be anywhere near as safe as in the UK because you do not know how many people fell down stairs in Ireland? How pathetic.

As stated already even in the UK, where virtually all handrails are proper handrails and there are building inspectors / building control ( unlike here) to ensure same, they find that ( and I quote) : "Falls on steps and stairs are a leading cause of accidental death in the home, with at least 700 people dying as a result of falling on domestic stairs every year. Falls between levels tend to affect young children the most. Each year, they account for more than 80 deaths and more than 54,000 visits to A&E, 4,000 of which are likely to result in hospital admissions."

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676600#Comment_121676600

As you still claiming the stairs in Cashel met Irish regs, or are you still claiming they were not finished yet? You claimed both.

You seem to be accepting that Irish regs on handrails are not as safe as UK ones, and to hell with all the poor people who fall down stairs in Ireland each year?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676578#Comment_121676578

It can be safely and readily gripped. Never had a problem with mine and neither had my elderly mum and others who use it every day.

*I meant 'no different' in design.

It is not a 'traditional' handrail in other words.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676637#Comment_121676637

There's a reason why handrails are sized and shaped to fit a gripping hand. Your bit of wood does not meet these TGD requirements.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676633#Comment_121676633

Both scenarios are possible.

The programme never said that all that it shows is Reg compliant. Many houses are not fully finished when people move in.

You need, as stated by several posters now, to tell us how many people fall down the stairs in Ireland. And how many more fall down the type of stairs in Cashel to a more traditional one.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676642#Comment_121676642

That is your personal interpretation of the regs.

There is no stipulation there that a guarding needs to be gripped like a traditional handrail. None.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676633#Comment_121676633

No what's pathetic is you constantly misrepresenting statistics and being overly-dramatic because Dermot Bannon didn't put a handrail beside some steps even though it's fully compliant with Irish regulations. What's pathetic is you were previously claiming that UK and US regulations would have required a handrail, and then when it was pointed out that the US regs wouldn't require a handrail now you're just all about the UK regs and we should follow the UK regs. What's pathetic is that you have such a gripe against Bannon that when you could no longer prove there was an issue with the smaller steps, you resorted to calling into question the kitchen countertop, then the main staircase, and now you're citing a completely irrelevant bit of research from over 20 years ago and appealing to emotion.

We don't need to comply with the UK regulations. We need to comply with the Irish regulations. And while there can be differences between them, they are both based on a lot of research (likely more current than one 20 year old study centered on old people falling in care facilities), expert analysis, core design principles, and above all else provide a minimum baseline to be achieved for the purposes of creating a safe and secure building for the occupants.

You are free to exceed the minimum requirements. But even if Bannon or anyone else does just the bare f*cking minimum, your continuous appeals to emotion when it's pointed out there is no issue with what he's done are not just irrelevant, they're pathetic.

gormdubhgorm

I found some regulations on handrails 2014(last updated 2020)

-

Page 9 of this article -

https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/100533/6926c022-4a80-4a05-8a55-dda6347bdaca.pdf#page=null

Handrails

1.1.17

"Stairs should have a handrail on at least one side if it is 1000 mm wide or less. It should have a handrail on both sides if it is wider. The top surface of the handrail should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm measured ertically above the pitch line, and between 900 mm and 1100 mm above the landing,Handrails should give firm support. A handrail may form the top of the guarding if the height is suitable (refer to Diagram 6).The handrail should be so constructed and fitted as to be capable of being readily gripped by hand and safely used. Handrails may not be necessary beside the two bottom steps of private stairs."

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676653#Comment_121676653

That is a poor excuse. RTE showcase a house, which cost the poor owners €700,000 , and it does not even meet building regs? The show is supposed to show good design and build. You now admit "The programme never said that all that it shows is Reg compliant.". oh dear.

Not much help to the 280 people a year who die in falls in Ireland, or the thousands injured. Even if only one or two serious injuries from stairs a year could be prevented, would it not be worthwhile?

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676642#Comment_121676642

Correct. Francis Brady's bit of wood / the stairs in Cashel does not meet requirements, but he admits now "The programme never said that all that it shows is Reg compliant.".

I suggest maybe RTE shows a programme some time from the CRC hospital and interviews someone from there who fell down a stairs, and asks them what they think of safety design on stairs etc, if they think handrails are necessary, if they should be of a minimum design etc? And if a building show-cased on prime time tv as designed and built by "experts" should meet safety requirements / regs ?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676709#Comment_121676709

I said that they do not claim that the homes are compliant or fully finished. If they do, please show were. Also, at no point do the owners complain about being 'poor' or impoverished by their investment.

What we saw MAY not have been finished. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that under Irish regs, nothing was breached in their design. Pointed out to over and over again.

If they get an additional handrail, well and good, if they don't, also well and good.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676738#Comment_121676738

More emotional nonsense.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676662#Comment_121676662

Funny how you didn't feel the need to mention 'personal interpretation' when you stated definitively that these stairs comply with regs.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676870#Comment_121676870

At the end when they are having the party and bubbly they talk about the build in the past tense and the implication is that the build is complete.

As regaids "poor", I do not mean the financial circumstances of the couple who paid 700k for the house in Cashel ( 303k for the existing site plus the renovation / extension building work after that ), although many thought 700k was a lot for such a size house in Cashel. I was referring to paying that much and it not even meeting regs., and not having a handrail on the stairs,

It was pointed out to you the film of the stairs taken just before your photo above, from ground floor level, show there is no rail on the stairs and the top edge is not rounded and affords no grip underneath for finger tips and/or thumb, so is not a rail. You then admit the programme never said that "all that it shows is Reg compliant."

To make up for this oversight, what would you think of RTE showing programme some time from the CRC hospital and interviewing someone from there who fell down a stairs, and asking them what they think of safety design on stairs etc, if they think handrails are necessary, if they should be of a minimum design etc? And asking them if a building show-cased on prime time tv as designed and built by "experts" should meet safety requirements / regs ?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676695#Comment_121676695

Correct. And the UK regs - which are very similar to the Irish regs - show a cross section of the handrail, minimum and maximum dimensions, ( 40-45mm diameter if it was round section), the minimum rounding if it was to be oval, etc. See page 26.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121676922#Comment_121676922

Funny how you want to divert rather than address the point made.

You cannot show anywhere in the regs that supports your interpretation.

By all means, follow your interpretation and advise people. I can't see how your interpretation would be against the regs. That doesn't mean that somebody else's (D. Bannon's in this case) are against regs.