As a home inspector I tend to look at issues based on what I feel would be best for my own family. This means that I always error on the side of utmost safety. The climbable guard issue has been heavily debated by consumer advocates on one end of the pendulum swing and by manufacturers and the building industry on the other end. Rational thought lies somewhere in between. The following article is the building industry perspective defending the allowance for ladder effect climbable guards.

http://www.nomma.org/support/ladder%20effect/climbableguards.htm

The Industry's Response To "Climbable" Guards

"It's one thing to see our products cast in a negative light, but to call our rails an enemy to children is simply ridiculous."

Since 1988, Elliott O. Stephenson has published articles in model code magazines that advocate stricter guardrail requirements in the name of safety. 

While NOMMA embraces sensible guidelines for improving the safety and quality of our products, we are concerned with the recent offering from Mr. Stephenson — who advocates through inconclusive and misleading research — that there are only two types of guardrail designs suitable to protect children under the age of three from climbing.

By pulling on the emotional heartstrings of parents, presumably in an effort to remain in the eye of the code body committees, his plea is to disallow all but two designs for guardrails while ignoring the very obvious: 

• Children under the age of 5 require constant adult supervision. 

• By his own research, most children over the age of 3 can and will climb anything, including ALL types of guardrails. 

• The very livelihood of NOMMA members and our affiliates depends on the installation of safe guards in every configuration imaginable. In this litigious world we work in today, if the products we manufacture were unsafe, the industry would perish and or the products would change. 

• The number of accidents from falls from children climbing guards is not recorded as a separate incident by organizations that keep records on accidents, presumably because there are too few incidents to warrant a separate line item. Meanwhile, over 120,000 children a year are injured in falls from playground equipment and Mr. Stephenson has not once mentioned this as a concern of his for the safety of the world’s children.
In the September/October 2001 issue of Southern Building magazine, the committee was once again troubled to see yet another misleading article titled, “Climbable Guards — Special Enemy of the World’s Children.” It is one thing to see our products cast in a negative light, but to call our rails an enemy to children is simply ridiculous. 

To begin with, we find his article an affront to all past building code officials and inspectors. In the second paragraph of his article, Mr. Stephenson spares no tact by saying, “For many decades during the past century the needs of young children in buildings have been given inadequate consideration by our building codes with the results that there are literally millions of unsafe guards in our existing homes, apartments, motels, hotels, and schools.” He calls this situation “an unfortunate legacy that has been left by building code authorities.”

When misleading information is published about our trade, the Technical Committee feels compelled to respond. This is exactly what we did following the publication of Stephenson’s last article in May 1999 titled “Climbable Guards: An Unnecessary Hazard to Children.” Even before the 1999 article was published, the Technical Committee was conducting extensive research in this area, and our results were printed in the July/August 2000 issue of Fabricator. In the article, NOMMA’s research showed only 130 estimated annual injuries for children under age 10 that could linked to climbing.

With the 2003 International Code Council (ICC) hearings quickly approaching, we feel it’s essential to once again respond to Mr. Stephenson’s latest article. It’s important that the railing manufacturing industry and our friends in the design community receive all of the facts on this issue. The 2003 ICC hearings take place April 8-19, 2002 in Pittsburgh, PA, and we fully anticipate that the controversial “ladder effect” requirements will be reintroduced in an attempt to get the language re-written into the latest codes.

On the following pages, we’d like to address some points raised in Mr. Stephenson’s recent article. This information adds to our previous research, which is available for viewing at www.nomma.org (Fabricator Support area). 

Defining a Guardrail
A good starting point is to define the purpose of a guardrail. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a guardrail as follows:

• A protective rail, as on a footpath or highway.

• A device or apparatus that prevents injury, damage, or loss.
The Department of Energy OSH Technical Reference Chapter 8, titled “Walking and Working Surfaces Including Stairs, Platforms, and Fixed Ladders,” offers the following additional definitions:

• Railings protect personnel from inadvertently falling over the edge of a platform or through an opening in the floor or wall, as well as from contact with dangerous equipment. Railings can be made of wood, fiberglass, or metal.

• Protection between the top rail and floor equivalent to at least a standard intermediate rail.

Examining the Data
In the opening sections of his article, Stephenson cites research to justify the banning of various guardrail designs. His information comes from the National Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which records detailed injury reports at 101 participating hospitals. A centerpiece of his article is a chart that shows a list of injuries and the number of incidents, which he compiled from 195 pages of NEISS data. This information was taken during a 5.8 year period beginning January 1, 1994 and ending October 19, 1999. Once again, he uses extrapolated figures to give a distorted view of the numbers and causes of accidents. The chart lists TOTAL incidents, including injuries not related to climbable guards, up to age 10.

Included in the chart is data from “jumps or falls off a banister.” According to Webster’s dictionary, a “banister” is defined as: “a handrail with its supporting posts.” So, when Stephenson cites “falls and jumps from a banister,” there is no way to determine the design, and if horizontal members were present. In fact, nothing in his data specifically shows if a railing is creating a “ladder effect.” The bottom of the chart reads “Specific References to Climbing,” which he shows as 65 injuries. Since the data only comes from the 101 hospitals participating in the reporting program, he multiplies this figure by 40 to make it more representative of the 5,400 hospitals in the U.S. Thus, he estimates that there were 2,600 injuries (65 x 40) directly attributed to climbing during the 5.8 year period. Again, there is no specific information on what was climbed, and again the facts appear distorted and confused.

Even Solid Guards Climbable
In the next section of his article, Stephenson reports on a series of tests he performed to show the ability of children to climb guard assemblies. First, he takes on guardrails that have wood panels or vertical members up to 34 inches, with an open space between 34 and 42 inches. Stephenson says, “Many children ages two and three have enough arm and shoulder strength to hoist themselves over the bar having a height of 34 inches.” In fact, he even shows a little girl climbing through this space. Even wire mesh, with 11/4 inch openings, cannot stop children. He says, “Although a 42-inch high guard of woven wire with a 11/4 inch opening … provided toe holds, the toe holds were not essential for a child able to put his or her fingers through the opening and place his or her feet flat against the guard.” In short, Stephenson shows that even a solid guardrail can be climbed by a child. He summarizes by saying, “During the testing described, every guard type illustrated could be climbed by some four-year-olds. That includes solid guards 42 inches in height without openings, included in the test program but not illustrated in this report.”

Children and Climbing
When we think about children, we automatically think of them climbing trees, furniture, park monuments, and practically everything. As a parent of four children, I can attest to the fact that children will climb everything!

In an article titled “Keeping Your Climbing Toddler Safe,” author Alessia Cowee writes: “At any age, a child who climbs places him/herself in a dangerous, potentially fatal position. Parents of these pint-sized acrobats must remain vigilant, diligent, and resourceful: watchful of the climber in question, attentive in removing the child from heights, and creative in seeking solutions to frequent climbing hazards.”

A child’s obsession with climbing will not likely falter, even after an accident. On this note, Cowee states, “An injury such as a broken elbow may cause certain climbers to give up the habit; most climbers however will go right up the nearest tree, cast and all.”

Climbing Is Healthy
Climbing is even looked upon with approval by the medical community. Pediatricians check muscle development by a child’s ability to pull themselves up. Parents have encouraged the use of climbing walls at preschools to develop muscle skills and strength. 

During my research, I found numerous articles that discuss the cause of child injuries. One underlying cause is a child’s lack of judgment. A 1994 article from the National Pediatric Trauma Registry Fact Sheet, titled “Falls From Windows,” states that toddlers and preschoolers lack the judgment needed for risk assessment and safety precautions. Nolo’s Legal Encyclopedia states that “even a very small child is presumed by the law to understand some dangers - for example, falling from a height or touching fire.” Numerous medical reports show that child safety is an adult’s responsibility. Stephenson even states that the children in the two-year old group were possibly at their most dangerous age. They could climb some guards but did not yet have the knowledge to prevent injury. 

You wouldn’t leave a child alone next to a ladder that is leaning against a house because the child’s curiosity would possibly cause them to climb it. Should the manufacture of ladders be discontinued? No. A rubber ball could be kicked into a busy street where a child may be tempted to retrieve it. Should rubber balls be outlawed because of this potential threat? No.. The same principles should apply to the design of a guardrails.
Nolo’s Legal Encyclopedia also says that the law doesn’t require owners to childproof their properties. But it expects people to be alert to potential dangers to children and to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to those too young to understand the danger.

The Tennessee Board of Education has a program called SAFETY FIRST! According to information from the program, “The child needs supervision to prevent him or her from running out into unsafe areas such as driveways and streets … Children love to climb up trees and over fences. Your child needs protection from falls by learning how to get sure footholds and proper handholds. Continue to teach your child safety habits and provide limits (rules).”

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has established voluntary guidelines for playground equipment (CPSC, 1991) and surfacing (CPSC, 1990), but it is still the responsibility of parents and teachers to educate themselves about children and playground safety. 

Charlotte M. Hendricks has authored Safer Playgrounds for Young Children, a publication of the Educational Resources Information Center (1993). In the publication, she says, “Playgrounds can be exciting areas where children explore their environment while developing motor and social skills. Yet each year, almost 200,000 children are treated at hospital emergency rooms for injuries occurring on playgrounds (Frost, 1990). About 60 percent of all playground equipment-related injuries result from falls (CPSC, 1990).”

According to Stephenson’s logic, we should eliminate playgrounds since more children are hurt from falls there than allegedly from railings. No railing can stop children from climbing, and in the same vein, no playground where a child could fall is truly safe. 

Ms. Hendrick’s safety booklet goes on to list “lack of proper supervision” as one of the most common causes of playground accidents. Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin also stresses supervision in their guidelines. An item on their safety list reads, “Never leave a child alone on a balcony, fire escape, or high porch” while another sentence says, “Make sure railings are sturdy.” 

Product Design and Safety
When we look at the design of any product, safety is always a consideration. But sometimes the safety feature itself may cause an injury. For example, consider a vehicle airbag. Investigations have shown that it is unsafe for a small child to sit facing an airbag. Therefore, the adult driver either places the child in a rear seat, or if unable to do so, the driver may have the option to deactivate the air bag.

Some safety features are designed to prevent or decrease the severity of injury, but can not, obviously, guarantee complete protection from injury. For example a water heater is an appliance that has a device for setting limits. If small children are in a home, the owner can program the temperature to never exceed a certain degree in order to prevent scalding.
Yet another product designed for child safety that can help reduce injury but not completely prevent it is a bicycle safety helmet. The helmet does not prevent the fall, it simply protects the rider.

Please note that in each of the above instances, it is the responsibility of the adult to insure that the proper precautions have been taken and proper supervision is given to help prevent injury. This is also the case with children playing on or around guardrails, regardless of the design, children should never be left unattended on an open balcony where climbing may be attempted on the guard itself, or on adjacent furniture or other objects. 

Horizontal Rails Provide Benefits
In the ADAAG Manual, Section 4.8.7 on Edge Protection, horizontal rails are recommended to function like a curb to keep front wheelchair casters from getting caught on the vertical post. We’ve also been told that horizontal members can benefit the blind by providing a guide for their walking sticks. Another advantage of horizontal rails is that small children are able to use them as a handrail to assist them as they learn to walk and maneuver on stairs.

Summary 
In conclusion, as our findings illustrate, the way to keep children safe is by teaching appropriate behaviors and being vigilant in supervising the child. There are always going to be things that cause a person to have an accident. A child could fall off of a chair; do we eliminate chairs?

As Stephenson’s research shows, determined children in the age 2 plus group can climb virtually any rail design. Therefore, it seems more than unreasonable to mandate the entire industry to manufacture only “climb proof” guards (if there is such a thing) to protect a section of the population who are and should be under parental supervision at all times. Parents must assume responsibility to watch their children until they are old enough to act responsibly in guarded areas.

Our position is backed by hospitals and safety organizations that repeatedly stress the importance of watching children in their safety guidelines. NOMMA and members of the railing industry are very concerned about safety too, since the children we discuss in this article are the youngsters of our clients and even our own kids.

Under the current codes, our railings do a good job of protecting adults, children, the infirmed, the blind, emergency personnel, maintenance workers, and a long list of others. But even the best rail design in the world cannot compensate for a lack of parental supervision.

Reprinted from Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metal Fabricator, November/December 2001.