Tim Weller of Allegion sent me today’s Wordless Wednesday photo…if I had a nickel for every time I saw an egress door changed to “not an exit” by someone whose authority was based on their access to a printer or a Sharpie, I’d be rich! 😐
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
A better posting would be to indicate this is an Emergency Exit Only not used for regular egress. Surely there are some standard markings that could be used here and to a “sharpie sign”.
Unfortunately, some owners take the easy and cheap way out instead of pursuing a code compliant solution. In this example, it looks like the owner got tired of people pushing the alarmed exit device and having to go to that door and reset it, but the point of the alarmed device is to notify of a possible theft at a distant door. Switching this out to a delayed egress exit device with proper signage, should take care of this.
If they put batteries in the alarm kit they probably wouldn’t need to block the exit.
Also the closer doesn’t look like it has sufficient screws into the top rail
The closer guy
kind of goes with fix it Friday “”” Conflicting Signage “”””” I
Not sure how a code proposal can be worded to eliminate signage, as in today’s post??? Or similar signage.
Maybe one part would be No additional words shall be added to the word “Exit”, when located with in five feet of an exit door.
Seems you would need additional code language to cover signage as seen in Friday fix it “Conflicting Signage””
“” Do Not Enter”” ??????
Thanks Charles –
I’ll put it on my wish list and talk to BHMA about it during the next code development cycle.
The real code violation here is that a person standing inside a Starbucks @ Target can look out the glass door and see a real Starbucks across the street. Unless, of course, this picture was taken in a city that has yet to adopt the “Starbucks Line of Sight” amendment to the IBC.
Haha – YES!