new construction non conforming guardrail

check out this climable gem.
The guards are above 30 inches.




How else are they going to get to the lake?

How high is the deck?

Nice railing with a nice view. :):smiley:

The deck might not even be high enough to require a rail in the first place, so that rail that’s there isn’t really a rail. It’s a decorative piece that looks a lot like a rail.


The “ladder effect” was taken out of the requirements a few years back, as I recall. I is no longer necessary/required to have all infilled panels, ballusters, or patterns in guards/railings verticle only. There is still the 4" sphere rule but horizontal type infills are accepted in many jurisdictions.

I agree that a a guard rail on a deck lower than 30" is not required to meet the 4" rule. I do however call them out if they don’t meet the 200 lb load rule. When someone leans on a rail, it needs to be solid regardless of height off ground.

It’s on the balcony above the front door.

So a climbable railing above thirty inches is not a concern?
Ladder or no ladder effect, it’s still unsafe.
For the very same reason greater than 4" sphere is.

I personally don’t have a problem with it…“climbable”…people do all sorts of stupid things…trying to legislate those things out of existence become ridiculous…I suspect the deck is off the master bedroom, which if this is the case means access is restricted. If the rail is secure than I would let it be.

As both a licensed contractor and inspector, I find that there can be a happy medium between building a homes that is safe and aesthetically appealing, much of that has to do with using common sense.

I personally would not call it…
On a side note, you can always suggest that the occupant install a double cylinder dead bolt to control access to the balcony.



I would call it if they have young kids that do not know the consequences of climbing the rail.

Kids crawl out windows and fall too. If you try to make it idiot proof, they’ll come up with a better idiot.

I don’t have a problem with it unless there is a code about the “ladder effect” of which I am not aware.

I try not to write a report geared to the specifics circumstances of my clients. The test should be is it right or is it wrong.

Needs GFCI protection, how about a poll? :wink:


Not OK, at least in my area

[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2] Design to Prevent Climbing[/size][/FONT]

[size=2]FONT=Times New Roman **
[/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]Guards [/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]required by Article, except those in [/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]industrial occupancies [/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]and where it can be shown that the location[/size][/FONT]
[size=2][FONT=Times New Roman]and size of openings do not represent a hazard, shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening will facilitate
[FONT=Times New Roman]size=2

[/size][/FONT]**[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]Guards [/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]shall be deemed to comply with Sentence (1) where any elements protruding from the vertical and located[/size][/FONT]
[size=2][FONT=Times New Roman]within the area between 140 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface protected by the

[/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]guard[/size][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2],[/size][/FONT]
[size=2]FONT=Times New Roman are located more than 450 mm horizontally and vertically from each other,
(b) provide not more than 15 mm horizontal offset,
© do not provide a toe-space more than 45 mm horizontally and 20 mm vertically, or
(d) present more than a 1-in-2 slope on the offset.

If it’s unsafe, it goes in the report, regardless if there are children living there.
I always ask if the client has kids, or their friends have kids who will be visiting, and tell them to be careful, provide an additional barrier, and keep the furniture away from the railings. (Anyone mention that to your clients?)
Just like a missing anti-tip bracket is unsafe, a climable guardrail is unsafe too.