The following article from the National Ornamental and Miscellaneous Metals Association regarding how the “Ladder Effect” codes came about. I understand why the true “Ladder Effect” of horizontal ladder rungs is bad, but I can also understand how everything gets muddled by the lawyers as they attempt to define it to include any aspect of the guardrail that one might use to climb upon. I shook my head in shame with the relating of the lawsuit from a homeowner who climbed his ornamental iron to change a light bulb and fell into the bushes. I am always left to wonder where the common sense is demonstrated in the legal world....

By Tony Leto

The 2000 International Residential Code (IRC) states: Required guards shall not be constructed with horizontal rails or other ornamental pattern that results in a ladder effect.

The so-called "ladder effect" has been a major issue for NOMMA for several years.  Its interpretation has led to the rejection of railings across the country based on the unsupported notion that guardrail climbing is a major contributor to child injury statistics.  The perception that children are climbing guardrails and "plummeting to their deaths" has somehow become a reality even though there is no factual support for this conclusion. The confusion even extends to our own membership, many of who have been lulled into a false sense of security by the belief that the ladder effect refers only to horizontal pipe or cable railing. In reality, a NOMMA member has been forced to defend a suit where a single decorative collar on a picket was considered a contributor to the ladder effect.

During the past year, the NOMMA Technical Committee has gathered the actual data relating to guard related injuries. These facts were submitted to the International Code Council (ICC) for review. This past April, the ICC met in Birmingham, AL to review proposed changes to the International Building Code (IBC) and the IRC. NOMMA was successful in obtaining committee approval to prevent the introduction of codes banning ornamental railings in the IBC as well as having the "ladder effect" wording removed from the IRC.  While an excellent start, these committee recommendations must now survive likely challenges at the fall meetings of the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), and the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO).

With the present lull before the next round of hearings in September, it seems like a good time to bring everyone up to speed as to why this issue is such a threat to our industry.

The "Ladder Effect" Emerges

The term "ladder effect" originally appeared in the BOCA codes. While the BOCA residential committee insists that the "ladder effect" refers to horizontal rails that create ladder-like rungs, this is not how the term is being interpreted. In fact, the term itself has never been defined. Nevertheless, it became a part of the IRC this past year and was published as part of the 2000 residential code. The IBC does not have any similar wording.

The major proponent for introducing climbing limitations into the building codes is Elliot O. Stephenson. He has attempted to introduce climbing limitations into the IBC over the past two years on behalf of "The Future Generations of Young Americans."

Stephenson’s support information was published in the May/June 1999 issue of Southern Building magazine. That issue included an article he authored titled, "Climbable Guards, An Unnecessary Hazard to Children." The article presented the results of Mr. Stephenson s "test" that consisted of setting a 42-inch high fixture with 1½ inch openings in a preschool playground. The two-year-old and three-year-old students were then "invited to climb." To no one’s surprise, the children were able to climb the assembly. According to Stephenson, the openings needed to be reduced to 1¼ inches before none of the children were able to climb. His conclusion: eliminate all ornamental guardrailings.

The flaws of the test are numerous. How many children do you know are "invited to climb" a guard? Would they have climbed without encouragement? Did they climb up and over or just half way? From what were the children being "guarded?" Would they have climbed if there were an obvious hazard on the other side?

The purpose of a guardrail is to prevent an accidental fall. Guardrails are located where there is a hazardous drop on one side. Without including some simulation of this hazard in a test, the proponent ignored the issue of the innate fear of sudden drops in height that emerges as early as the second six months of life. This fear has been measured by infants avoidance of heights, as shown on an apparatus called the "visual cliff," originally developed by Eleanor Gibson (Gibson & Walk, 1960) to assess early depth perception. An infant is placed on a narrow runway that rests on a large sheet of glass. On one side of the runway is a checkerboard pattern placed directly under the glass; on the other, the checkerboard pattern is placed 1 to 2 feet below the glass, giving the appearance of depth on that side  hence the term "visual cliff." Prior to seven months, and before the onset of anxiety, most infants do not avoid the deep side of the glass. If their mother calls them from the deep side, they will cross to her. However, after eight months, most infants avoid the side that has the appearance of a cliff and will cry if they are placed on that side.

Avoidance of the apparently deep side of the visual cliff is not due to a new ability to perceive depth. Younger infants perceive the difference between the deep and shallow sides, as evidenced by the fact that they show a distinct cardiac reaction when lowered face down on the deep side (Campos, Langer, & Kravitz, 1970). However, only when infants begin to crawl or creep, usually around eight months of age, do they begin to avoid the deep side of the visual cliff.

Stephenson accompanies his "test" results with statistical evidence to support his hypothesis that climbable railings are responsible for thousands of injuries per year. He reported that "... the number of accidental falls and intentional jumps from balconies and porches by children in the USA each year is truly substantial. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that there are 15,000 to 16,000 such injury incidents treated annually in the Emergency Facilities of the hospital (sic) of the United States."

Data was obtained from the CPSC for the categories, "Falls Involving Handrail Injuries"  1/1/91 to 6/2/99 and "Porch & Balcony Injuries"  1999. A request was originally made for information on guardrail related injuries. However, searches under this keyword only brought forward data on injuries related to roadside barriers and guards. The CPSC indicated that "Falls Involving Handrail Injuries" would be the best indicator of the needed information.

Falls Involving Handrail Injuries

The first sample, "Falls Involving Handrail Injuries," listed a total of 4,825 injuries over a period of 8½ years  1,371 of those injuries involved children under age 10. Of this total, 708 injuries were clearly not guard climbing related and are noted in Table 1 as "Fall Against a Railing" and "Not Applicable" (e.g. falls from bed rails, falling against a rail while running, railings falling on children, adults falling while holding children, falls from railings under 2 feet, etc.). Another 26 injuries were caused by structural failure, and 87 injuries were the result of children falling through railings  an inappropriate rail opening.

Additionally, 136 injuries were described as falls over a railing. While some may want to make the assumption that these falls were the result of climbing, this is not supported by the descriptions in the report. Most of these railings were not even considered guardrails. The report includes descriptions such as: "fell over rail at ice arena," "fell over a railing at Great Adventure," "pushed over banister at school," "fell off stairway over railing," "fell over rail she was sitting on," "fell over railing in restaurant," "fell over loose deck railing," "climbing over fence barbed wire, gate opened and she fell."

Of the remaining injuries which might be related to climbing, the report lists only 40 injuries where "climbing" is actually mentioned. Of these, 26 resulted in falls of less than 4 feet (many of these occurred in retail store queue lines where children climbed onto a railing and slipped or fell backwards). Only three falls of more than 4 feet were directly attributed to climbing.

Falls from/off a railing or sliding down a railing, accounted for 375 injuries. Again, many of the falls are noted as having occurred in queue lines and were not guardrails. Of these falls, the vast majority was onto the stairs or the same level. Only 26 of these falls resulted in drops greater than 4 feet.

While most of the reports simply state, "fell off railing", others mention children "walking," "sitting," or "swinging" on railings. It may be assumed that children climbed onto these railings but it cannot be assumed that the guardrails were the primary means of ascent. Why would a child climb a guardrailing when chairs, planters and patio furniture are more convenient?

These figures are "sample" counts over an 8½ -year time span. After making adjustments, we obtain the annual estimates shown in Table 1.

Table 2 shows that the total estimate for "Greater than 4 Fall While Climbing a Railing" is 0 while the total for "Greater than 4 Fall from a Railing" is 130 per year. Of these injuries, there is no information indicating what type of guards were involved (picket, panel, wood, ornamental, cable, etc.); or whether the children climbed the guardrailing, climbed furniture in the area of the guardrailing, fell off the side of the guardrailing, or simply pulled themselves up from the ground onto the guardrailing. To assume that the guards were climbed is unfounded and prejudicial.

The national census estimate for the United States as of August 1, 1999 indicated the national population for children under the age of 10 is 37,866,000  130 of which run the risk of falling greater than 4 feet while climbing a guard. Compare this to injuries related to other items as shown in Table 3.

There are significantly more injuries from children falling off of counter tops than there are involving guards and yet no code has been proposed limiting the "ladder effect" of drawer knobs and handles.

The proponent considered our data relating to handrail injuries as unconvincing and claimed that we ignored the 15,000 to 16,000 injuries that were the result of falls or intentional jumps from porches and balconies. However, if these injuries involved climbing of a guard, they would have appeared in the railing report. In fact, no mention is made as to the height of the guard, the type of guard, or whether a guard was in place at all.

The estimated number of injuries based on the sample data for 1999 is noted in Table 4. As you can see, our totals came up within the range noted in Stephenson s proposal, but the analysis of the incident reports provides a clearer picture of what this total means.

Many of the reported injuries in the subcategory "small jumps" involved children jumping off of porches or balconies onto the ground, mattresses, and trampolines. The "big jumps" subcategory includes jumps where a significant fall resulted. It is this group that is of the greatest concern. However, there were only 215 injuries estimated in this category and none involved children under the age of six. Six-year-olds were not represented in Stephenson s published "test." Does anyone really expect that any 42-inch high guard could stop a determined six-year-old from climbing?

Jumping is a willful act  not an accidental fall. Guards are not in place to stop determined individuals from jumping or climbing, they are in place to prevent accidental falls.

The other porch and balcony injuries included falls from balconies by children under the age of two that more likely were caused by falling through guards than climbing guards. The handrailing injury data shows that almost all of the fall injuries for children under the age of two were caused by falls "through" guard openings  not climbing the guards.

The balance of porch injuries does not specify how the child fell. No mention is made of guard climbing. Of the one case in recent years that refers to climbing, the report states that a 19-month old child "climbed over a wall"  not a horizontal rail, and not an ornamental pattern but a "wall."

It is clear from the data that there is no epidemic of guard climbing related injuries, and yet the proponents of the ladder effect claim that it is required to significantly reduce injuries to children. This is an emotional appeal with no observations, documentation, or evidence that ornamental railings are being climbed and are therefore the direct cause of a significant number of injuries.

Other objections to the ladder effect:

" The purpose of the original provision is to prevent children from climbing guards but it does not make allowances for private homes wherein the residents do not have children.

" It does nothing to retroactively address the larger hazard of falling "over" guardrailings and "through" guardrail-ings that are the result of existing guards of an improper height and with improper openings.

" It will eliminate a homeowner s right to aesthetic choice in their own home and severely limit a design professional s ability to do anything other than a simple picket railing. Home renovations and historical districts such as the New Orleans French Quarter will become sterile and predictable.

" Proponents of the ladder effect refer to other countries similar requirements but have never offered documentation that these countries have seen a reduction in the number of injuries to children related to climbing guards.

" When ornamental guardrailings are eliminated, the tendency will be to dress picket railings up with the placement of planters or furniture to cover the "jail-house" look. Once this happens, children will have additional items to climb, thus increasing the hazard.

" Parents are using balconies and porches as "playpens." The National SAFE KIDS Campaign has published a brochure that states, "Never let children play alone on fire escapes, high porches, or balconies." This would indicate that a lack of proper supervision is of greater concern than climbable guards. Parental supervision will do more to reduce guard-related injuries than the elimination of ornamental patterns.

" Horizontal railings are a necessary part of guardrail assembly. A bottom rail is required for attachment of vertical pickets. The proposed Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) actually recommends additional horizontal rails be used, stating, "When children are the principle users in a building or facility (e.g. elementary schools), a second set of handrails at an appropriate height can assist them and aid in preventing accidents. A maximum height of 28 inches (710mm) measured to the top of the gripping surface from the ramp surface or stair nosing is recommended for handrails designed for children." In standard application, this would result in an ADA compliant guardrailing with a bottom rail at 4 inches, a child handrail at 28 inches, an adult handrail at 37 inches, and a top rail at 42 inches  four horizontal rails. Yet, this guard would be in violation of any code that accepts the "ladder effect."

I was recently in a bookstore and approached the escalator to go down to the first floor. At the top of the escalator was a four-year-old girl. She hovered her right foot over the top tread as it moved away from her. Since she was at least 10 inches shy of reaching the handrail, her left hand pressed against the side of the escalator. As she dipped her toe onto the escalator treads, she looked over her shoulder and called out, "Mommy, I m going downstairs . . .Mommy, I m going downstairs." I stepped past her and began going down but stood sideways so that I could keep an eye on her. She eventually ventured out, stumbled, regained her balance, and made it to the bottom without mishap. Once she got to the bottom, she immediately went up, hand sliding along the escalator wall as it had for the trip down. Once she got to the top, she again went to the down side of the escalator. "Mommy, I m going downstairs . . .Mommy, I m going downstairs," she called. Her "mommy" never appeared but, thankfully, the little girl chose to go look for her instead of venturing down one more time.

A woman to my left was watching this whole drama along with me. Shaking her head, she said, "Where is that girl s mother?"

If the girl had fallen, who would be at fault? We certainly know who would be sued  the bookstore, the staff, the architect, the escalator manufacturer, possibly even me for not stopping her from taking that first step. The search for scapegoats had a tragedy taken place would have been fast and furious with the obvious question going unanswered  "Where was the girl s mother?"

Guards must meet structural, dimensional, and spacing requirements. The safety benefits of these requirements in preventing tragic accidents are acknowledged and beyond question. However, we should not be expected to accept the blame for willful acts  climbing and jumping  that result in serious injury. The "ladder effect" is an attempt to place blame on the guard rather than the individual. It s a "feel good" opportunity for proponents because of their unproven belief that children s lives will be saved. At one point in the 1999 code hearings, in response to my comment that children were climbing furniture to get over guards, a building official stepped up to the microphone and said, "Well, we can t control furniture but we can control the railings." This is the attitude that we must change.

The only way to deal with comments such as this is through education. Educating code officials, designers, and end users is our best option in negating the emotional rhetoric of "ladder effect" proponents.

The NOMMA Technical Committee is actively pursuing partnerships with the Artist-Blacksmith s Association of North America (ABANA) and the Stair Manufacturers Association (SMA) to properly deal with unfounded industry attacks.

The reduction of personal freedom of choice in a railing design, without a proven benefit to public safety, is not an option. Ornamental metalwork has been around for thousands of years and no one should take attempts at eliminating this art form lightly.

You can help the NOMMA Technical Committee in several ways:

" Stay educated  go to: www.nomma.org and follow the link to the Fabricator Support Area.

" Make direct contact with your local code officials and make sure they are aware of the facts regarding issues pertaining to our industry.

" If you are a NOMMA member, consider joining the Technical Committee. If interested, call Todd Daniel at (888) 516-8585, ext. 102.

We cannot escape the fact that we live in a litigious society. The need to place blame elsewhere has become the standard rather than the exception. As such, we must remain vigilant. Keeping the "ladder effect" out of the codes will keep fabricators out of the courtroom.

Reprinted from Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metal Fabricator, July/August 2000, p. 60.

 
Age-old casting designs, which are trademarks of our industry, may become illegal on the premise that a child could obtain a foothold in the horizontal spaces.

In late 1998, we received a letter from a past client informing us they were taking us to court. It seems the homeowner decided to use a 5/8-inch baluster collar and the top of the guardrail as footholds while attempting to change a light bulb. He proceeded to fall into the bushes below and was injured. Upon review by an attorney, they claimed that because he was able to climb the product, it did not meet building code since we had created a "ladder effect." 

Tom Zuzik
Artistic Railing, Garfield, NJ

Compliant?
While these vertically-based picket designs may seem compliant, a liberal interpretation of the "ladder effect" could mean rejection for three or maybe all four of these designs.

We need to cut down all the trees and bushes. Have you seen the ladder effect some of those limbs make? A kid could actually climb up. It appears to me that whoever designed the growth of trees did not consider that possibility nor offer suggestions as to how the hazard could be eliminated.

Dorothy Stiegler
ABANA member

Are Gates the Next Target?

It should be noted that Elliot Stephenson has not only targeted climbable railings but has recently turned his attention to other metal fabrications. In particular, he wrote a letter regarding a 1997 NOMMA Top Job award-winning driveway gate for the Crane Foundation -- a crane conservancy center in Wisconsin -- fabricated by Bob Bergman of Postville Blacksmith. Stephenson’s letter to the president of the Crane Foundation, which included a "donation," stated that the gate is a "... serious safety hazard to young children. If a child fell while attempting to climb it he or she could either be gravely wounded or even killed ... It appears to me that the NOMMA officials who decided to grant the gate their esteemed Top Job award did not consider that possibility nor offer suggestions as to how the hazard could be eliminated." If driveway gates are to now become a target, what is next? How soon before public sculpture joins the list of climbable structures to be eliminated? Clearly, the threat is not just to railing fabricators -- it is to our entire industry.