by aaronm on Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:45 am
Codeman:
My reading of IRC 311.1 leads me to understand that the continuous and unobstructed path of egress must be from “all portions of the dwelling”. I do not see where the authors specify habitable portions. I cannot agree with your equating “all portions” to “habitable”. Had the authors intended to exclude areas of the building they would not have used the all-inclusive term “all”. All means all per Webster’s: “the whole, entire, total amount, quantity or extent of.”
The IRC and IBC provide no definition of the term unobstructed. The common definition of the term means not obstructed. Obstructed, per Webster’s, is defined as (1) blocked so that things can not move through easily, and/or (2) where movement, progress, or action of someone or something is slowed or blocked.
As you mentioned, the IBC defines means of egress to include the exit access.
The exit access is the equivalent of the path of egress from its beginning in any given portion of the building to the exit and exit discharge. Along this path from anywhere within the building there may be doors, door hardware, floor elevation changes, etc. that could impede one’s progress along this path of egress.
Examples of these impediments might include:
(1) Door and passageway opening dimensions that are less than the egress door requirements.
(2) Door hardware that is not operable from the inside without a key or special knowledge.
The authors of the IRC have once again contradicted themselves. Why do you suppose that they can remain so conflicted for years over matters where common sense should prevail? I realize that content of each section is overseen by a different committee, but do they not communicate with one another? Is there no editor who pre-reads the entire volume prior to publication?
Cats, as you may know, have a deep understanding and prejudice toward doors. My cat has lots of time on his hands and would gladly (and certainly more effectively) do the job.