UN adopts disability convention

[xoxoxoBruce]

A slope between 1:10 and 1:12 is allowed for a maximum rise of 6 inches.
A slope between 1:8 and 1:10 is allowed for a maximum rise of 3 inches. A slope steeper than 1:8 is not allowed.

Controls and operating mechanisms in accessible spaces, along accessible routes, or as parts of accessible elements (for example, light switches and dispenser controls) shall comply with 4.27.

4.27.3* Height. The highest operable part of controls, dispensers, receptacles, and other operable equipment shall be placed within at least one of the reach ranges specified in 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. Electrical and communications system receptacles on walls shall be mounted no less than 15 in (380 mm) above the floor.

4.2.6 Side Reach. If the clear floor space allows parallel approach by a person in a wheelchair, the maximum high side reach allowed shall be 54 in (1370 mm) and the low side reach shall be no less than 9 in (230 mm) above the floor (Fig 6, Fig. 6(a) and Fig (b)). If the side reach is over an obstruction, the reach and clearances shall be as shown in Fig 6(c).

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

A slope between 1:10 and 1:12 is allowed for a maximum rise of 6 inches.
A slope between 1:8 and 1:10 is allowed for a maximum rise of 3 inches. A slope steeper than 1:8 is not allowed.

ADA requires more. Notice that I said "slope verses length" - because I already saw those missing numbers were not provided. Each rise also has a limit on length and other considerations. Also not mentioned is a foundation requirement.

Height of the switch is not 54 inches. That is above current switch height which is not ADA compliant. Top of a switch typically cannot be more than 44 inches due to considerations not listed.

Those west coast sites (back then) made it even easier - with diagrams instead of text for things like hot water pipe clearance beneath a sink.

Many ADA standards should be standard construction. And that is a point being obfuscated. Why should a switch at below 44 inches cost more? Standards that should be so routine as to even be available in libraries. I could repeatedly find references to how to sue - but not the numbers. I have not checked libraries in the past two years. No reason to do so. MaggieL says a book is easily obtained. She has provided book titles. Is it in any of your libraries?

Meanwhile, access-board.gov citation from orthodoc did not exist then (see its date) - or at least was not available via Google then. After reviewing a long list of sites that told me who to sue, I eventually found some numbers from some west coast government web sites. Obviously these sites would be well down the list (due to how Google prioritizes).

Having been through this ADA stuff when requirements were long established, I discovered numbers nearly impossible to find. That remains fact.

Go to an appliance store. Ask them about ADA compliant white appliances. I still do this from time to time. Same response every time. No one (yet) knew whether any appliances are ADA compliant nor how to find information defining ADA compliance. A common response was, "Nobody ever asked." Recently found appliances from Korea (LC?) that met ADA requirements. Where have the American manufacturers been this last decade when ADA compliance was long defined in America?

Want to see why some ADA requirements cost so much? Well imagine if these same people designed computers. We would still be using Windows 95. Some industries absolutely fear change. Terrain that is ripe for lawyers.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL says a book is easily obtained. She has provided book titles. Is it in any of your libraries?

It should be in yours, if you're doing construction. I maintain a reference library for my professional books, what's up with your contractor?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Those west coast sites (back then) made it even easier - with diagrams instead of text for things like hot water pipe clearance beneath a sink.

That's the nice thing about Architectural Graphic Standards. They're so...graphic.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

ADA requires more. Notice that I said "slope verses length" - because I already saw those missing numbers were not provided. Each rise also has a limit on length and other considerations. Also not mentioned is a foundation requirement.

I was showing information is there, do I have to do everything? sigh

4.3.7 Slope. An accessible route with a running slope greater than 1:20 is a ramp and shall comply with 4.8. Nowhere shall the cross slope of an accessible route exceed 1:50.

4.5 Ground and Floor Surfaces.
4.5.1* General. Ground and floor surfaces along accessible routes and in accessible rooms and spaces including floors, walks, ramps, stairs, and curb ramps, shall be stable, firm, slip-resistant, and shall comply with 4.5.
4.5.2 Changes in Level. Changes in level up to 1/4 in (6 mm) may be vertical and without edge treatment (see Fig. 7(c) ). Changes in level between 1/4 in and 1/2 in (6 mm and 13 mm) shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 (see Fig. 7(d) ). Changes in level greater than 1/2 in (13 mm) shall be accomplished by means of a ramp that complies with 4.7 or 4.8.
4.5.3* Carpet. If carpet or carpet tile is used on a ground or floor surface, then it shall be securely attached; have a firm cushion, pad, or backing, or no cushion or pad; and have a level loop, textured loop, level cut pile, or level cut/uncut pile texture. The maximum pile thickness shall be 1/2 in (13 mm) (see Fig. 8(f)). Exposed edges of carpet shall be fastened to floor surfaces and have trim along the entire length of the exposed edge. Carpet edge trim shall comply with 4.5.2.
4.5.4 Gratings. If gratings are located in walking surfaces, then they shall have spaces no greater than 1/2 in (13 mm) wide in one direction (see Fig. 8(g)). If gratings have elongated openings, then they shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel (see Fig. 8(h)).

4.8 Ramps.
4.8.1* General. Any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be considered a ramp and shall comply with 4.8.
4.8.2* Slope and Rise. The least possible slope shall be used for any ramp. The maximum slope of a ramp in new construction shall be 1:12. The maximum rise for any run shall be 30 in (760 mm) (see Fig. 16). Curb ramps and ramps to be constructed on existing sites or in existing buildings or facilities may have slopes and rises as allowed in 4.1.6(3)(a) if space limitations prohibit the use of a 1:12 slope or less.
4.8.3 Clear Width. The minimum clear width of a ramp shall be 36 in (915 mm).
4.8.4* Landings. Ramps shall have level landings at bottom and top of each ramp and each ramp run. Landings shall have the following features:
(1) The landing shall be at least as wide as the ramp run leading to it.
(2) The landing length shall be a minimum of 60 in (1525 mm) clear.
(3) If ramps change direction at landings, the minimum landing size shall be 60 in by 60 in (1525 mm by 1525 mm).
(4) If a doorway is located at a landing, then the area in front of the doorway shall comply with 4.13.6.

4.8.5* Handrails. If a ramp run has a rise greater than 6 in (150 mm) or a horizontal projection greater than 72 in (1830 mm), then it shall have handrails on both sides. Handrails are not required on curb ramps or adjacent to seating in assembly areas. Handrails shall comply with 4.26 and shall have the following features:
(1) Handrails shall be provided along both sides of ramp segments. The inside handrail on switchback or dogleg ramps shall always be continuous.
(2) If handrails are not continuous, they shall extend at least 12 in (305 mm) beyond the top and bottom of the ramp segment and shall be parallel with the floor or ground surface (see Fig. 17).
(3) The clear space between the handrail and the wall shall be 1 - 1/2 in (38 mm).
(4) Gripping surfaces shall be continuous.
(5) Top of handrail gripping surfaces shall be mounted between 34 in and 38 in (865 mm and 965 mm) above ramp surfaces.
(6) Ends of handrails shall be either rounded or returned smoothly to floor, wall, or post.
(7) Handrails shall not rotate within their fittings.
4.8.6 Cross Slope and Surfaces. The cross slope of ramp surfaces shall be no greater than 1:50. Ramp surfaces shall comply with 4.5.
4.8.7 Edge Protection. Ramps and landings with drop-offs shall have curbs, walls, railings, or projecting surfaces that prevent people from slipping off the ramp. Curbs shall be a minimum of 2 in (50 mm) high (see Fig. 17).
4.8.8 Outdoor Conditions. Outdoor ramps and their approaches shall be designed so that water will not accumulate on walking surfaces.

Height of the switch is not 54 inches. That is above current switch height which is not ADA compliant. Top of a switch typically cannot be more than 44 inches due to considerations not listed.

If they say "for example, light switches and dispenser controls shall comply with 4.27" and 4.27 says 48" for forward reach and 54" for side reach, why would you not believe them?

snip~ Terrain that is ripe for lawyers.

Maybe, maybe not.
Sec.36.507 Effect of unavailability of technical assistance.
A public accommodation or other private entity shall not be excused from compliance with the requirements of this part because of any failure to receive technical assistance, including any failure in the development or dissemination of any technical assistance manual authorized by the Act.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It should be in yours, if you're doing construction. I maintain a reference library for my professional books, what's up with your contractor?

I borrowed one to build my house. Any serious builder should have it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It should be in yours, if you're doing construction.

I only do it now on a volunteer basis. Construction work is fun when done intermittently - a pain especially in winter. But once the paid professional repeatedly could not get ADA right, then I went looking for facts. I got tired of teaching people how to rip out work and redo it.

Meanwhile, much of what is required for ADA should be standard. I recall a newspaper office where a front door was even awkward for regular traffic. The comments were disparagement about ADA laws rather then management who did not do it right the first time - cut costs.

Yes I was surprised the ramp required an expensive foundation. Some ADA requirements are expensive. However, does it really make sense to put stove controls where one must reach across hot cooking food? Forget ADA. That makes no sense anyway. There is much in ADA that really should be standard - not require special laws.

Notice how details the requirements are as xoxoxBruce posted. Yes, everything in the world is that complex. Even a light switch, so simply that anyone can by one and install, is actually chock full of complexity and a many page document. How do we eliminate such complexity? We make standards. ADA should not be so 'something special'. Much of it should be standard construction practice.

I don't know the text of that UN document. But one reason laws are made - mankind would not advance otherwise. The computer industry does not have reams of regulation because of the industry attitude. Construction had a long history of fearing change.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

But once the paid professional repeatedly could not get ADA right...

Being a "paid professional" is of course not a reliable assurance that someone isn't a clueless moron.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't know the text of that UN document. But one reason laws are made - mankind would not advance otherwise.

For some values of "advance".

*I* read the convention enough to know that it's drivel; unable or unwilling to define exactly what a "disability" is.

Fortunately it's not a law.

It is easy, TW, for many to forget how "simple" these things are.
There was a show on TLC, not too long ago where some motivational speakers (remember that, what they do for a living) lived other's lives for a month.
After a week in a wheelchair, just during the day, one of them said that they would kill them self.

I can honestly say that I can remember being on a ramp, as described above, twice, in the last three years, other than hospitals and my home.

I went to a dinner recently and was discussing the bathroom with my wife quietly (she wanted to make sure I was ok... it can be difficult for me sometimes and I was not feeling well), someone overheard and a discussion about facilities began.
I really did not participate. I don't get out much and wanted to focus on positive things... my wife told the story of how we were charged more for a smaller room with no view at a four-star hotel known for the view and how I had been told that this is common in a SCI forum.
Apparently, there was a hospitality major there and he said that he was not surprised. It upset him... he wanted to check his hotel (he was not completely sure about the pricing, he said) but he was not surprised, even though it is illegal. That much he did tell me.

Oh... the entire side of the restaurant had to be rearranged for me to get to my table. It was very strange and a bit embarrassing. I wonder if that is a fire hazard?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

How do we eliminate such complexity? We make standards. ADA should not be so 'something special'. Much of it should be standard construction practice.

Absolutely. Laws, especially Federal laws, should be incorporated into the building codes at their next publication.

That said, part of the reluctance for change is that in many areas, in order to do any alteration/remodeling/up grade on a part of the building, at least that part and sometimes the whole structure, must be brought up to code. That can be a very expensive proposition.
Imagine you want to replace the kitchen sink and add a dishwasher. But in order to hire a plumber and get a permit, you have to rewire the whole kitchen, widen the doorways, buy a new stove and install sprinklers.

I'm being ridiculously extreme in that example, but you get the idea, it's those code changes that bite you later.

Another problem is local building inspectors. They tend to work on trust with the contractors, and a new contractor will receive close scrutiny until the inspector is comfortable with their work. If they see anything that's not customary, it'll be sure to send up a red flag.

If you violate local code, or even what they are used to seeing, in order to comply with ADA, they could shut your job down until it's straightened out, and possibly fine you $1,000 a day, until it's fixed.
Straightening it out (convincing them) could be in a couple weeks...... at the next planning/appeals board meeting...... when you can document it for the inspector's boss...... if you can get documentation from the feds.
It'll cost you time, money and good will with the inspector.

The ADA is federal law and building code.

Nice.

Man Sorry for Taking Handicapped Spot
UNION, S.C. - A man who parked illegally in a space reserved for handicapped drivers was sentenced to stand outside the store with a sign telling everyone about his crime.

Ragheem Smith, 29, stood in front of a Bi-Lo grocery store Thursday with a handmade sign that read "I am not handicapped. I just parked there, sorry."

Magistrate Jeff Bailey imposed the sentence. "I figured he needed to apologize in a public way," Bailey said.

Smith told Bailey he didn't have the money and couldn't afford the time away from work that a jail sentence would require. He could have been sentenced to 30 days in jail or fined $325.

"That was better than having to pay a lot of money," Smith said of his punishment. "I know I won't do it no more."

A service of the Associated Press(AP)

[JayMcGee]

a neat idea, Rk.... I wish more magistrates over here would take up that idea.

Whilst not physically disabled (note how I left *that* door open) myself, I spent many years pushing my father around in a wheel-chair, and I was fairly amazed at how difficult some people/institutions/corporations make it for disabled persons. Not just the physical access ( though the UK and EU is probally ahead of the US in this respect) but the attitudes... loom over the guy in the chair and speak loudly.... maybe he'll understand... as if physical impairment equates to mental deficiency.... well, guess who the intellectually challenged are......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6160588.stm
Something I read recently.
Yeah, I get that a lot... many talk loudly (and slowly). It is funny if I am in a good mood, other-times, not.