d Div. 100

I 1

!

'

i L

BS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 108

afety on Stairs

S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The

Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and

facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote pubUc safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory,

and the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

Agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities^ — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical

services to users in the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems in the public interest; conducts research in engineering and applied science

in support of objectives in these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary

disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and

proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer

results of its research to the utlimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering^ — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology^ — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal Agencies in the selection,

acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal Agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following divisions:

Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234. ^Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, Colorado, 80303.

The National Bureau of Standards was reorganized, effective April 9, 1978.
NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 108

Safety on Stairs

D. H. Carsoni

J. C. Archea^

S. T. Margulis^

F. E. Carsoni

^Carson Consultants, Inc. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53701

^College of Architecture

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, Georgia 30332

^Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Sponsored by

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20207

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued November 1978
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 78-600036

National Bureau of Standards Building Series 108

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Bldg. Sci. Ser. 108, 122 pages (Nov. 1978) CODEN: BSSNBV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1978

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20234 SD Catalog Stock No. 003-003-02026-5 Price $3.00

(Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing)
ABSTRACT

Stairways are commonplace in U.S. homes. Stairway design and construction standards are based on custom, common sense, and experience. Stairways, however, are hazardous. A large number

of stairway accidents have been reported, raising questions about the adequacy of stairway design

and construction standards. This study is a first attempt to rationalize stairway standards by ap- plying well established statistical methods to a significant sample of stairways and people using

them. A pilot study on a sample of 253 residences in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was undertaken.

The study included a survey of stairway use and behavior and an inventory of residential stair- ways. This information was obtained from the total sample. In a subsample of 54 residences,

direct field observations and physical measurements of stairways were obtained. The results of

the pilot study include a description of existing stairways, inference about interactions that produce accidents, and guidelines which address reasons for accidents (hence should result in a reduction of accidents). The best strategy for making stairways safer, according to the study, is to re- move factors that influence accident rates. Specifically, by systematically reducing hazards, careless stairway habits, and frequency of use, patterns of factors responsible for accidents can be

broken and accident rates can be reduced.

Key words: Accidents; architectu'-al psychology; consumer products; environmental factors; home safety; occupant behavior; survey technique.

iii
CONVERSION FACTORS TO METRIC (SI) UNITS

Quantity To convert from To Multiply by

Length inch m (meter) 2.540x10-2

foot m 3.048x10-1

mile m 1.609x103

Area in2 m2 6.452x10-4

ft2 m2 9.290x10 2 Volume in^ m^ 1.639x10 5

ft3 m^ 2.832x10 2 gallon m^ 3.785x10 3 Temperature °F °C toe = (toF-32)/1.8

T. difference At=F K ATK=AtoF/1.8

Mass pound kg 4.536x10-1 ounce kg 2.835x10-2

Pressure psi Pa 6.895x103

in HjO Pa 2.488x102

in Hg Pa 3.386x103

mmHg Pa 1.333x102

Energy Btu J 1.055x103

MBtu J 1.055 xlO^

kWh J 3.600x10^

ft-lbf J 1.356x10"

kilocalorie J- 4.184x103

Power Btu/h W 2.931x10-1

hp W 7.457x102

Flow gal/min m^/s 6.309x10-5

ft^/min m^/s 4.719x10-*

Density lb/ft3 kg/m^ 1.602x101

lb/gal ke/m^ 1.198x102

Heat Capacity Btu/(lb-°F) J/(kg-K) 4.187x103

Btu/(ft3-°F) J/(m3-K) 6.707x10^

iv
CONTENTS

page

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x PREFATORY REMARKS xi

1. SUMMARY AND GUIDELINES 1

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background and Setting of the Study 2 1.3 Scope 3

1.4 Summary of Physical Inventory 3

1.5 Summary of User Survey 4

1.6 Summary of Influences on Frequency of Stairway Use 5

1.7 Summary of Accident Analysis 5

1.8 General Observations from Site Visits 10

1.9 Eighteen Guidelines for Improved Stair Safety 11

2. DESCRIPTION OF STAIRWAY STUDY 15

2.1 Introduction 15

2.2 Sampling Plan and Overall Study Design 17

2.3 Demographic Comparisons 17

2.4 Data Collection Methods 18

2.5 Survey Procedures 19

2.6 Types of Data Collected 19

2.6.1 Demographic and Background 19

2.6.2 Physical Inventory 19

2.6.3 Behavioral Survey 19

2.6.4 Site Measurements 20

2.7 Definitions and Restrictions 20

2.8 Definitions Relating to Accidents 20

2.8.1 Severity 20

2.9 Note on Data Analysis and Inferences 21

3. PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STAIRWAYS 23

3.1 Note on Terminology 23

3.2 Number of Stairways Studied and Their Structural Materials 24

3.3 Tread Material on Inside Stairways 24

3.4 Riser and Tread Measurements: Irregularities and Dimensions 27

3.5 Handrail Measurements: Height, Width, Variation and Rigidity 28

3.6 Stairway Length: Number of Risers by Stairway and Flight 29

3.7 Lighting Levels and Gradients: Light Switch Locations 30

V
3.8 Low Headroom and Orientation Edges 31

3.9 Stairway Configurations as Related to Age, Type of Structure 32

4. BEHAVIORAL SURVEY OF STAIRWAY USE 35

4.1 Intended Stairway Repairs 35

4.2 Respondents' Recommendations for Improving Stairway Safety 35

4.3 Stairway Habits Related to Accidents 38

4.4 Assessment of Safety: Percent Safe 39

4.5 Frequency of Stairway Use 39

4.6 Home Activities, Housing Preference and Potential Sources of Home Accidents ... 41

4.6.1 Home Activities 41

4.6.2 Housing Preferences 41

4.6.3 Potential Sources of Home Accidents 41

5. MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF STAIRWAY HAZARD 43

5.1 A Measure of Stairway Hazard 43

5.2 Stairway Use Related to Physical Variables 45

5.3 Stairway Use Related to Personal Variables 45

6. ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS AND CRITICAL INCIDENTS 47

6.1 Note on Accident Analysis 47

6.2 Comparison with NEISS Accident Data 49

6.2.1 Comparison with Other Survey Variables 50

6.3 Accidents and Demographic Variables 50

6.4 Accidents and Physical Variables: Features 50

6.4.1 Number of Risers 51

6.4.2 Riser-Tread Dimensions 51

6.4.3 Stairway Lighting 51

6.4.4 Tread Materials, Friction and Sequences 52

6.4.5 Handrails 52

6.5 Accidents and Physical Variables: Configuration 53

6.5.1 Configuration, Location, Riser-Tread Irregularity

and Winders 53

6.5.2 Configuration 53

6.5.3 Riser-Tread Irregularity 54

6.5.4 Winders 54

6.5.5 Low Headroom and Orientation Edge 54

6.5.6 Number of Stairways 55

6.5.7 Hazard Measure 55

6.5.8 Percent Safe 55

6.6 Accidents and Behavioral Variables 55

vi
6.6.1 Number of Uses Per Hour 55

6.6.2 Number of Uses Per Day 55

6.6.3 Stairway Habits 56

.

[ 6.7 Accident Analysis by Multiple Regressions 56

APPENDIX A: FIELD MEASUREMENTS 59

APPENDIX B: LIGHTING MEASURES 79

APPENDIX C: ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONS 83

APPENDIX D: RESPONDENTS' SUGGESTIONS FOR SAFETY 91

APPENDIX E: INTENDED STAIRWAY REPAIRS 99

APPENDIX F: SERIAL MATERIALS 103

APPENDIX G: SAMPLE SURVEY FORMS 107

APPENDIX H: COMPARISON OF METHODS 117

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

|! CHAPTER 1

Figure 1. Stairway Nomenclature 3

Figure 2. Photographs of Stairways with Objects 6

Figure 3. Photographs of Stairways with Accident Events 8

Table 1. Summary of Accident Data 10

Table 2. Eighteen Guidelines for Improved Stairway Safety 12

CHAPTER 2

Table 3. Distribution of Census Tracts by Original Stratification 17

Table 4. Distribution of Respondents by Census Tract of Origin 17

Table 5. Comparison of Survey Sample with Subsamples 18

CHAPTER 3

Table 6. Total Sample of Stairways Studied 24

Table 7. Distribution of Tread Materials 24

Table 8. Friction Measures of Major Materials 25

Table 9. Friction Measures of Minor Materials 25

Figure 4. Frequency Distribution of Friction Coefficients 26

Table 10. Dimensional Irregularity on Riser or Tread 27

Table 11. Summary of Mean Riser-Tread Dimensions 27

Table 12. Mean Riser-Tread Dimensions (Inside; Over 2 Risers) 27

Table 13. Mean Riser-Tread Dimensions (Outside; Over 2 Risers) 28

Table 14. Riser Heights of Thresholds and Singles 28

Table 15. Percentage Handrails Present and Missing 28

vii
Table 16. Handrail Rigidity 28

Table 17. Handrail Heights, Widths and Variations (Inside) 29

Table 18. Handrail Heights and Variations (Outside) 29

Table 19. Summary of Accident Rates (Inside and Outside) 29

Table 20. Number of Risers by Stairway and Flight 29

Table 21. Percentage of Stairways with Given Number of Risers 30

Table 22. Number of Risers by Age of Structure 30

Table 23. Access to Light Switches on Inside Stairways 31

Table 24. Number of Stairways with Low Headroom & Orientation Edge 31

Table 25. Number of Stairways with Low Headroom & Orientation Edge (Site Measures) 32

Table 26. Low Headroom and Orientation Edges (Site Measures) 32

Table 27. Percentage of Configurations by Stairways 32

Table 28. Percentage of Configurations by Age of Structure 33

Table 29. Percentage of Configurations by Type of Structure 33

CHAPTER 4

Table 30. Estimates of Costs for Repairs 36

Table 31. Suggestions for Improving Stairway Safety 37

Table 32. Percentage Respondents by Age and Type of Habit 38

Table 33. Percentage Respondents by Age and Number of Habits 39

Table 34. Respondents' Assessment of Their Stairways 39

Table 35. Hazard Measure and Percent Safe Measure 39

Figure 5. Mean Uses/Hour from Waking to Bedtime 40

Figure 6. Differences from Grand Mean in Uses/Hour 40

Table 36. Rate of Stairway Use by Age 40

Table 37. Common Activities Requiring Use of Stairways 41

Table 38. Housing Preferences 41

CHAPTER 5

Table 39. Percentage of Stairways Having Specific Hazard 44

Table 40. Hazard Measure for All Stairways of Structure 44

Table 41. Percentage Stairways Having Other Physical Measures 44

Table 42. Correlation Matrix: Use X Type X Hazard 45

Table 43. Correlation Matrix: Use X Subpopulation X Hazard 45

CHAPTER 6

Table 44. Accident Person by Sex, Resp-nonresp, Severity 48

Table 45. Accident Stairways, Singles and Doubles 49

Table 46. Comparison of Accident Events by Age Groups 49

Table 47. Comparison of Inside and Outside Stairway Samples 49

Figure 7. Age and Sex Differences 50

Table 48. Accident Analysis of Four Demographic Variables 50

Table 49. Recommended Combinations of Riser-Tread Dimensions 51

Table 50. Tread Materials and Accidents 52

Table 51. Number of Materials in Sequence and Accidents 52

Table 52. Handrail Presence and Accidents 52

Table 53. Handrail Presence; Accidents and Critical Incidents 53

Table 54. Configuration, Total Sample 53

Table 55. Configuration X Location, Total Sample 53

viii
Table 56. Location, Total Sample 53

Table 57. Irregularity, Total Sample 53

Table 58. Location, Site Sample 53

Table 59. Irregularity, Site Sample 53

Table 60. Location X Irregularity, Total Sample 53

Table 61. Location X Irregularity, Site Sample 53

Table 62. Winders, Total Sample 53

Table 63. Winders, Site Sample 53

Table 64. Location X Winders, Total Sample 53

Table 65. Location X Winders, Site Sample 53

Table 66. Summary Table of Tests 53

Table 67. Respondent Criteria; Orientation Edge, Low Headroom 54

Table 68. Comparison Test: Neither, Orientation Edge, Low Headroom, Together 54

Table 69. Investigator Criteria: Low Headroom, Orientation Edge 54

Table 70. Comparison Test: Neither, Low Headroom, Orientation Edge, Both 54

Table 71. Number of Stairways and Accidents 55

Table 72. Hazard Measure and Accidents 55

Table 73. Percent Safe and Accidents 55

Table 74. Uses/Hour and Accidents 56

Table 75. Uses/Day and Accidents 56

Table 76. Total Habits and Accidents 56

Table 77. Age of Respondent X Uses per Hour and Accidents 56

Table 78. Summary of Multiple Regressions 57

ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are indebted to Dr. Robert Brungraber, Professor, Bucknell University, and Dr.

Robert Glass, Research Psychologist, National Bureau of Standards, for their assistance in several

conceptual and technical areas and for their perceptive editing of the entire text. They are also

indebted to Dr. Robert Wehrli, Chief, Architectural Research Section, National Bureau of

Standards, whose help made this study possible. Finally, the authors thank the many respondents

who, while they remain anonymous, contributed time and information freely and graciously.

X
PREFATORY REMARKS

"You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen

the steps which lead up from the hall to this room." "Frequently." "How often?" "Well, some

hundreds of times." "Then how many are there?" "How many? I don't know." "Quite so. You

have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed."

Sherlock Holmes in A Scandal in Bohemia

xi

1. SUMMARY AND GUIDELINES

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Stairways are commonplace in U.S. homes.

Stairway design and construction standards are based on custom, common sense, and experience.

Stairways, however, are hazardous. A large

number of stairway accidents have been reported,

raising questions about the adequacy of stairway

design and construction standards. This study is a

first attempt to rationalize stairway standards by

applying well established statistical methods to a significant sample of stairways and people using

them. A pilot study on a sample of 253 residences

in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was undertaken.

The study included a survey of stairway use and

behavior and an inventory of residential stairways.

This information was obtained from the total sample. In a subsample of 54 residences, direct field observations and physical measurements of stairways were obtained. The results of the pilot

study include a description of existing stairways.

1
inference about interactions that produce accidents,

and guidelines which address reasons for accidents

(hence should result in a reduction of accidents).

The best strategy for making stairways safer, according to the study, is to remove factors that influence accident rates. Specifically, by

systematically reducing hazards, careless stairway

habits, and frequency of use, patterns of factors responsible for accidents can be broken and

accident rates can be reduced.

1.2 BACKGROUND AND SETTING OF

THE STUDY

Residential stairways are a fact of life for a large segment of people in the United States; they are commonplace. They are necessary as

efficient, economical and practical solutions

to space conservation in residential construction. Stairways are also hazardous.

From data collected by the National

Electronic Injury Surveillance System

(NEISS), the Consumer Product Safety

Commission has reported that 356,000

stairway injuries are treated annually. This

figure includes only those seen in hospital

emergency rooms. Many more are seen only

by private physicians and still more go

unreported.

There are numerous accepted building practices and

standards dealing with the features and dimensional characteristics of new or proposed stairways. Yet little is known about existing stairways, including their physical characteristics, their state of repair, alterations their owners have made, the way

people use them, and most important, the relation- ships between stairway accidents and physical and

behavioral factors. The need to develop standards

for new stairways and for retrofitting old stairways

required a study designed to address these very

topics.

The preliminary research reported here was aimed

at getting data for use in the development of standards, but it also served as a pilot test of pro- cedures and instruments for their usefulness as part of a future full scale study of stairways.

This report draws upon two sources of information: Reports by respondents and

direct field measurements by investigators.

Respondents described the physical nature of

their stairways, how they used them, and any

stairway accidents on them. The direct field measurement produced more detailed descriptions of stairways than could be

obtained from respondents, and also provided | some additional measurement data on

j stairways.

The pilot test of procedures and instruments

compared three data collection methods: Mail

survey, phone interview and personal

interview. In addition, the more precise field measures and the site visit sample of

^ respondents were used as a way of estimating

the accuracy of responses in the larger

sample. The detailed discussion comparing

procedures is in appendix H at the end of

this report.

All residences sampled were in Milwaukee

County, Wisconsin. A total sample of 253

residents was obtained, of which 54 were

selected for site visits to conduct the direct

field measurements. Data were submitted to standard quantitative and statistical procedures.

Limitations on the study imposed by size and

characteristics of sample are small. The

sample was 1:1400 units. It was taken in Milwaukee County, an area where half the housing was built before 1940 and where

basements are almost universal. The sample

does not contain innovative new housing or extremes of luxury and dilapidation. Major

residential stairways in the sample are full length; split level designs are uncommon.

The sample does reflect the high percentage

of older housing in the County, which is also common to many other large eastern and

midwestern cities. In terms of retrofitting

stairways, it was predicted that those that are older would show the ravages of time and

use, and as a result be more hazardous, thus

requiring more attention than stairways in newer housing.

Even with some qualifications, stairways

examined in this study have considerably more generality than might be expected.

Stairways are, after all, highly stylized structures. They are restricted in length by

conventional ceiling heights and are governed

by old, well established building practices.

Therefore, number of risers, configuration,

structural materials and tread materials fit into a small number of classes. Differences

which do appear are created by type of

building, age of structure and by residents

who both improve and degrade their stairways by a variety of practices.

2
I 1.3 SCOPE

Three basic classes of information were gathered

from all 253 respondents in the sample: physical measures, use rates and behavior, and accident

events. Topics covered under each of these are as

follows:

Number and structure of stairways

Configuration

Length of stairways

Tread materials

Riser irregularities

Handrail characteristics Lighting features Headroom and orientation edge

Stairway hazards

Reports on needed stairway repairs

Suggestions for improving stairway repairs

Personal habits on stairways

Frequency and rate of stairway use

Stairway accidents and critical incidents

In addition to all of the above measures, the site visits also included measures on the following

items: lengths of flights, friction on treads, riser- tread dimensions, handrail dimensions, light levels and gradients, home activities requiring stairway

use, housing preferences, and hazard ratings.

::TOTAL NUMBER OF RISERS

LANDING 9 11 y ':^.^OPEN RISERS U

a RISER is the height of one step

a TREAD is the part you step on

a LANDING is a platform larger than a TREAD

a NOSING is the front overhanging edge

an OPEN RISER is one you can see through

a WINDER is a TREAD, wider on one side than the other

TOTAL NUMBER OF STEPS is TOTAL NUMBER OF RISERS BETWEEN TWO LEVELS

Figure l. Stairway nomenclature

Figure 1 is presented to assist in the interpretation

of stairway nomenclature used in the section that

follows. Other technical terms used in this study

are explained in section 2.8.

Floor of origin or Floors Abbreof destination connected viation Basement Basement and first floor B-1 Second First and second floor 1-2 Third Second and third floor 2-3

1.4 SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY

Nearly 1500 changes of level were

encountered in a sample of 253 residences in Milwaukee County. About half of them had

three or more steps and quahfied as stairways. (A stairway refers to a series of three or more steps between two floor levels and may

include two or more flights with intermediate

landings.) They included both private and

shared stairways in apartments, duplexes and

single family homes.

To designate which indoor stairway in a multistory house is the focus of discussion,

stairways are labelled by floor of origin or

floor of destination, or by the floors connected.

The average residence had two inside stairways, one of which was a basement (B-1)

stairway, and two outside entrances with one

or more risers. Ninety-eight percent of the

inside stairways were wood. Eighty percent of the outside stairways were concrete, with the remaining 20 percent being painted wood or some combination of wood and concrete. Configuration of basement stairways was

divided between straight stairways and those

with one landing and a turn. Two-thirds of second floor stairways had some type of turn. Buildings constructed before 1940 and

multifamily buildings had more stairways

with turns than did newer and single family

buildings. Winders were found on thirty

percent of the stairways in the sample:

virtually all were on inside stairways.

3
Average length of basement (B-1) stairways was 12

risers and of second floor (1-2) stairways, 14 risers. Average length of outside stairways was considerably shorter: 60 percent had between three and five

risers. More single risers and two-riser sets were

found on outside stairways than on inside stairways.

Major tread materials on inside stairways

followed a distinct pattern: Basement

stairways used linoleum with metal nosings as the preferred covering; stairways to the second floor were covered with full or part

width carpeting; second to third floor stairways had painted or varnished surfaces. These three classes of materials accounted for nearly 80 percent of all inside stairway

surfaces. Because of the frequent use of throw rugs, different materials on landings,

and combinations of materials on a single

tread, a person could encounter many changes

in materials using a single stairways (see sec.

3.3). The average stairway exhibited four

different materials from the bottom to the top landings.

Nearly half of all inside stairways measured in the

field had some combination of 7-1/2 to 8 in. risers with 10 to 10-1/2 in. treads. Considering the recommended combination of 7 in. risers with 11

in. treads made by Archea, 1975 (citation in footnote, page 27) 70 percent of the sample

stairways did not meet this standard. Using this same standard, fewer that 5 percent of outside

stairways failed to qualify.

Field measurements showed a minimum of 46

percent of all stairways to have riser or tread

irregularities of at least one inch from the average

length or height of treads or risers, respectively, of

a given stairway. Some stairways had more than one flight, and even within a single flight, 28

percent had such irregularities. Respondents in the

site sample noticed only one-third of these measured irregularities.

Full length handrails were reported on 82 percent

of second floor stairways. By comparison, outside

stairways had fewer full length handrails. Only 36

percent of the front outside stairways had

handrails and only 39 percent of back outside

stairways had them.

Almost half of all basement (B-1) stairways were

reported to need artifical light during daylight hours. With the greater number of windows near second floor (1-2) stairways, only 15 percent were

reported in need of daytime lighting. Respondents

reported glare on fewer than 5 percent of their stairways, but field measures suggested that the number is closer to 26 percent. About 95 percent

of the light levels measured fell below 20

footcandles (fc), the recommended standard for stairways.! Differences in light levels on each

stairway were recorded. Nearly 25 percent of all stairways had differences of 15 fc from one end

to the other. These variations were caused by

having only one natural or artificial source

available. Still, major stairway features were easy

to see after 5 minutes in any residence.

Respondents reported headroom low enough to bump the user on 22 percent of basement and 8 percent of second floor stairways. Using the

criterion of 78 in. or less, field measurements

added stairways where headroom could be visually

distracting to those where the user could actually

bump his head. Under this criterion, 67 percent of the basement and 48 percent of the second floor stairways in the site sample had low headroom.

Orientation edges, edges which allow the user a view of a room before reaching the bottom step, provide a different kind of distraction. Forty three percent of basement and second floor stairways were reported to have such an orientation edge (50

percent in field measures). Field measures also show that these distracting features occurred

together on about 40 percent of all inside stairways. On 20 percent of inside stairways in the

field, they occurred at the same step.

1.5 SUMMARY OF USER SURVEY

Twenty-one percent of all 253 respondents {n - 52)

reported a total of 87 repairs needed to make their stairways safe. Small repairs accounted for 22

percent and full replacements for 78 percent of the

needs. Of the 68 full replacements, structural changes, handrails and tread materials are mentioned most often. The need for improved

lighting accounted for only 5 of the 87 intended

repairs (6%).

Forty-eight percent of all respondents {n - 121)

provided 258 recommendations for improving

stairway safety. Most of these dealt with the

physical stairway and very few with stairway

behavior. Handrails were mentioned most

frequently, followed by carpeting. As in the repairs section above, little attention was paid to lighting.

Many of the 65 comments on needed changes in

^Kaufman, John and Jack Christensen, Editors. (1972) lES

lighting handbook. New York: Illuminating Engineering

Society, page 9-99.

4
jjj configuration, style and dimensions of stairways

I were in substantial agreement with the kinds of recommendations coming from experts in stairways design.

A set of nine user habits was presented to each

! respondent to obtain information about behavior

on stairways potentially related to accidents. The

three most frequently reported habits pertain to footwear: wearing slippers or clogs, using

stairways with bare feet, and using stairways with

i stocking feet. Over half of all respondents say these

I behaviors occur at least a few times a week,

j Hurrying, failing to use the handrail and leaving

I objects on stairways were each reported by a

I substantial group (38%, 39% and 37% respectively).

' Of the 54 respondents making up the site sample,

' 70 percent utilized at least one stairway for temporary storage. Site respondents were often

II unaware of the extent to which they had used

I stairways for storage until it was called to their

attention.

The photographs in figure 2 illustrate the use of stairways for a variety of different household

articles. Photographs are explained in the captions.

; Respondents were asked to give an overall safety

I rating of their stairways. Renters rated theirs as

j less safe than did owners. However, renters'

ratings were not consistent with their assessments

' of the physical quality of their stairways. Owners'

j safety ratings more directly matched their

^ descriptions of the physical quality of their

I stairways.

I An analysis of self reports giving rates of use over

' a one-day period shows that highest rates of use

occur before 10 AM and that evening use averages

less than half the rate of early morning use. Average hourly use for people at home all day is not higher than average hourly use for those away

for 8 or 9 hours. [Average hourly use was computed

by dividing all reported uses—the absolute number

of uses—by the reported hours spent at home (less hours asleep, which was estimated at 8 hours).]

However, absolute number of uses, or daily rate,

is larger for those who spend more of their day

^1 at home.

7 Most respondents plan many common activites in their homes in ways to reduce stairway use. Access to basements and the usual location of large

j and fixed appliances determines that certain

activities, such as washing and drying clothes,

require stairway use to perform.

Given a choice of different types of dwelling units,

a large number of respondents in the site sample

preferred homes with fewer stairways than they now have, but they did not reject stairways

altogether. Eighty percent preferred housing with

at least one stairway, and expressed the need to separate activities by stairways.

1.6 SUMMARY OF INFLUENCES ON

FREQUENCY OF STAIRWAY USE

Demographic factors of age and type of building

and age and sex of users appear to influence

frequency of stairway use. To determine these

influences, several other important factors were

controlled in the analysis, among which were number of stairways, safety ratings, user habits and stairway hazards.

Among physical factors, building type and age do

not exert a major influence on hourly rate of stairway use. Whether stairways belong to single

family homes, duplexes or apartment units, rate of use is determined far more by the sheer number of stairways than by type and age of building.

Among personal factors, age and sex have a limited

effect on rate of stairway use. Whether the adult is old or young, female or male, rate of use is more

highly related to sheer number of habits the stairway user has, a kind of stairway style.

In general, residential stairways are used at rates that are necessary to accommodate household

activities and are little influenced by various

structural features and their state of repair (see chapter 5 for an analysis of hazards).

1.7 SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

Distributions of accident events by age in this study are very close to the data produced by

NEISS. The four demographic variables of age and

type of structures and age and sex of respondents

are not individually related to accident events, but

their interactions bring out trends. Residents in older single family dwellings have somewhat

higher rates, as do females 25-34 years old. The

underlying influence for older single family

dwellings is the increased hazard rating of their stairways. Higher exposures to residential
FIGURE 2. CAPTIONS FOR PHOTOS OF STAIRWAYS WITH OBJECTS*

352**

Temporary storage at top and permanent storage at bottom; orderliness permits resident to ignore use (denying

storage on stairways): loose throw at top; truncated rails.

309

Unobtrusive metal cabinets with sharp

edges neatly placed on all landings here; rubber treads are missing from steps 2, 4, 5, and 6; nails are still exposed on some steps.

335

Intensive use of landing (and steps not visible

at lower right) for storage of objects used

daily by second floor tenant; no handrails:

cracked linoleum on top landing can catch

shoes.

3 13 Crowded flat encourages risky use of stairway for storage (a second refrigerator

is stored on a large winder out of picture to right—top of lower flight).

320

One of numerous cases of shoes stored on

stairways, in this case shoes are on an incursion into the stairwell at top step: loose throw

on polished and varnished wood; handrails

are missing.

324

Clothes storage hooks on 2nd to 3rd floor

flight used by young children: fall could

result in gouging injury; no handrails: boots stored on lower steps of flight.

316" Summer storage of toy vehicles on landing between 1st and 2nd floor; throw rug is pushed up on baseboard and does not appea

to offer any advantage for use.

331

Careful, planned and decorative use of middle landing: sharp corners on cabinet provide two opportunities to incur a gouging

injury.

322

Middle landing from 1st to 2nd floor dis- appears from intensive use for storage:

clothes hooks (out of picture at top) are at shoulder height; bannister on this flight shows large variation in height (forced per- spective in picture) of 4 Vi in; no handrail on lower flight.

These stairways have been selected primarily to show the range of objects that are stored on steps more or less permanently and not merely

to be picked up and carried up or down for redistribution. However, they are typical of all the stairways with objects in the sample (61%).

Features other than objects that are noted are not unique to these stairways, being present in more than one additional case.

*captions keyed to photos by response numbers on each.

''*nccident stairway

6
7
FIGURE 3. CAPTIONS FOR PHOTOS OF STAIRWAYS WITH ACCIDENT EVENTS'

330 ICR)

Loose runner on lower steps; dark on upper

part of flight even with light on; stairwall

to right opens at kitchen ceiling, providing an orientation edge at the point of the loose runner and high contrast.

305 (CR, M)

Apartment-townhouse is used to display artwork; header above mezzanine flight (far

side of white block in upper right of picture) has a changing display at eye level, distract- ing the person at the top step.

307 (M)

Fanning of porch risers due to settling: riser heights irregular at all points; concrete steps at sidewalk have recently been put in and

contrast with much older porch steps.

331 (CR)

Very unobtrusive riser with incursion, radiator and door; an interesting chair beyond door takes attention away from step.

339 (M)

Lower right stairwall open (orientation

edge); low headroom not shown fully in pic- ture; box is easy to step into.

316 (S, M)

Screen door sweeps over entire landing; handrails missing; edges are sharp on

treads; warped and worn surfaces; brick landing is an irregular surface.

^47 (M) 322 (S) Prefab home on slab with concrete entry step settled and tilted: the nosing on threshold Extreme tilt in this long concrete flight is due overhangs step 3V2 in, shortening useable tread in descent: riser overgrown and hidden. to settling; handrail was installed after accident; grass at break between steps and

top landing is visible in picture.

i

These stairways having accidents or critical incidents have been selected for their range of types; however, they are not atypical of stairways

at the sites visited. These stairways also do not appear particularly unusual or hazardous to the casual user.

*For severity: (S> = severe; (M) - moderate: and (CR) = critical incident.

8
9
stairways underlie the results for young adult

females. (For a summary of all accident data, see

table 1).

separately to significantly increase accident events on first to second floor (1-2) stairways. This result

is interpreted as an indictment primarily of winders(see fig. 3).

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT DATA

HAS EFFECT SHOWS EFFECT OR TREND

NAME OF VARIABLE ALONE? BY INTERACTION WITH*

DWELLING UNIT: AGE OF STRUCTURE NO TYPE, HAZARDS

TYPE OF STRUCTURE NO # STWY5, HAZARDS, AGE STR.

RENTER/OWNER STATUS NO PERCENT SAFE

wAi iir nr hamf vMLUt ur nurit NO MONTHLY RENT NO NUMBER OF STAIRWAYS YES HAZARDS, TYPE OF STRUCT.

PERCENT SAFE YES HAZARDS, RENTER/OWNER

HAZARD MEASURE YES AGE, TYPE, # STWYS, % SAFE

PERSONAL; RESPONDENT AGE NO SEX, USES/HR, STWY HABITS

RESPONDENT SEX NO RESP. AGE

USES PER HOUR NO STAIRWAY HABITS, R. AGE

USES PER DAY YES STAIRWAY HABITS YES R. AGE, USES PER HOUR

STAIRWAY: NUMBER OF RISERS NO RISER-TREAD DIMENSIONS TREND

LIGHT LEVEL NO LIGHT GRADIENT

LIGHT GRADIENT NO LIGHT LEVEL

TREAD MATERIALS/FRICTION NO NUMBER OF MATERIALS NO HANDRAIL PRESENCE NO SEVERITY OF ACCIDENT

LOCATION (B-1, 1-2, etc.) TREND CONFIG, IRREG, WINDERS DIMENSIONAL IRREGULARITY TREND LOCATION CONFIGURATION TREND LOCATION

PRESENCE OF WINDERS NO LOCATION

LOW HEADROOM TREND ORIENTATION EDGE ORIENTATION EDGE TREND LOW HEADROOM

*For comoleteness, variables are repeated for each interaction.

Among behavioral variables, higher hourly rates of use are not related to more accident events, but

rate interacts with age of user. The people most

prone are those under 45 years of age who average more than two uses per hour. Total daily use is directly related to accident events. It is as though

after a certain number of uses, the probability of an event rises sharply, no matter how frequently

those uses are made.

Having a larger number of careless or casual habits increases one's accident proneness. Age groups

below 45 have more careless habits and also higher

rates of use. The need to use stairways and care- lessness both contribute to accident events in these groups.

A multiple regression analysis was run separately on physical and behavioral factors to assess the total influence of each set on accidents. Data were limited

to respondents' own accident events. Both types of

factors contribute significantly when combined this way. No individual factors are singled out. Rather,

the pattern of factors is the most important influ- ence on accident rates. This analysis suggests a practical strategy. Bv systemnticnllif reducing hazards,

careless stairwaij liahits, and frequency of use, these patterns can he hroken and accident events can he reduced.

Of thirteen physical factors considered, none show

significant relationships to accident events. However, six of these show trends, and four

interactions show definite relationships.

The half dozen showing trends may be summarized

as follows: (1) riser-tread dimensions giving steeper

stairways are associated with highest accident

rates; (2) stairways from first to second floors have

highest accident rates; (3) larger dimensional

irregularities show more accident events; (4) more

turns on stairways are associated with more

accident events; both (5) low headroom and (6) orientation edges show increased accident rates. Handrail presence alone does not show a significant

relationship to accident events, but having one

reduces the severity of the event.

Interaction between low headroom and orientation

edge shows that when both are present there is a significant increase in accident events. Location of stairway—basement to first floor (B-1), first to second floor (1-2) —interacts with configuration,

dimensional irregularity and presence of v.'inders

1.8 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS FROM

SITE VISITS

Residential stairways in the site sample were

ordinary. They were clean and generally free of

debris, although objects did abound in neat or somewhat organized arrays. Except for a few

isolated instances, they were not dilapidated, loose or broken. But many accidents occur on stairways

with no obvious hazards.

People do not spend much time thinking about

stairways unless there is an obvious defect in the

physical structure, there has been a recent accident

of some severity or a household member has a special problem. Small accidents quickly fade into the background. Factors an expert would consider

hazardous are sometimes not even noticed by a resident.

Respondents frequently wondered why anyone

would spend time and money to study stairways. In due course, they took serious interest and offered

10
relevant information as the stairway measurements

and interview proceeded. Many ultimately asked

'for an "expert" evaluation of the safety of their stairways and for further advice on how to improve them.

People lack awareness of hazards created by using

, stairways for temporary and permanent storage.

Landings and top or bottom steps are favorite

places, but any part of the stairway may be in- volved. Objects are placed there briefly, as in the

case of shoes, laundry or other items to be trans- ported. Stairways are used for longer term storage

of items such as bottles, bicycles, cleaning materials

and food. Shelves are built and hooks are inserted

in stairway walls for storage purposes.

j Stairways are such large structural and spatial units that they are included in most redecorating

plans. But they are frequently not treated as a unit

in those plans. Fashions, appearance and aesthetic considerations predominate over safety factors. Safety becomes important only for minor changes

or additions or for single features, and even here, appearance often wins out. Furniture on landings

and wall adornments "fill space," conserve space or

decorate the stairway. Finishes on walls and tread surfaces are selected to reduce contrast and to camouflage the stairway rather than announce its presence. Loose rugs are used both for protection

and decoration. Well intentioned improvements,

therefore, often make stairways more hazardous.

Stairway features are unevenly thrust into people's

minds. Lighting is one extreme. Unless it is entirely

inoperative, few people are conscious of stairway

lighting. A substantial number of people have a habit of using stairways in the dark as a regular

practice. Basement stairways with no light switch

at the bottom are accepted as normal, and sometimes a switch only at the fixture is tolerated. Glare sources, such as bare bulbs on basement

stairways, appear in otherwise well appointed

homes. Of all stairway features, lighting is probably the last thing that comes to people's minds.

People can identify major problems of stairway

structure or configuration. They often mention

steepness, narrowness and winders as hazards. But

they are generally less aware of subtle hazards

such as orientation edges, handrails that are

difficult to grasp, or dimensional irregularities.

When they do identify a problem, they do not

know simple, inexpensive ways to compensate for the defect or to warn users about it. A small number of people appear to have

knowledge about safety features of stairway

coverings. But most express their strong

preferences for or against an entire class of

materials, such as carpeting, linoleum, rubber

treads or varnished wood. They fail to see how

variations within a class of materials alter stairway

dimensions. Further, they overlook the contribution to continuing stairway safety made by

proper installation and maintenance, without

which a safe material can be rendered hazardous.

Young and middle-aged active adults do not see themselves as potential victims of stairway

accidents. They shrug off minor slips or trips.

Concern is expressed for people with handicaps or

for the very young and the very old. On the other

hand, older people stress the care with which they

use stairways because they recognize their vulnerability.

Explicit reasons for an accident are not always

given. The word "slipped" is a case in point. As a reason, it pops up often, but it serves to conceal more adequate factors, such as catching the foot where friction is actually excessive, or tripping on

a nosing, or even missing a step. Tread friction or shoe materials may be singled out while other

physical or personal factors go unexamined. These

other factors emerge only after some probing.

"Slipped" is often shorthand for "an accident

happened," and should be the signal for more

complete questioning.

1.9 EIGHTEEN GUIDELINES FOR

IMPROVED STAIRWAY SAFETY

Stairways are integrated sets of factors; and

stairway behavior is a function of all of these

factors together. {Factors refer to features and

hazards of stairways.) This integration provides

the primary structure of the guidelines in table 2. Furthermore, the guidelines in table 2 treat important factors separately, insofar as possible.

In three cases, guidelines are grouped by a com- mon factor. Guidelines 1, 2, and 3 focus on the

physical unity of stairways as used; guidelines 7 and 8 focus on risers and treads; and guidelines 9 and 10 focus on lighting. After each guideline

(or set of related guidelines) in table 2, there is a summary of relevant findings from the study.

11
TABLE 2. EIGHTEEN GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVED STAIRWAY SAFETY

1 EMPHASIZE EACH STAIRWAY AS A UNIT OF INTERACTING FEATURES OR HAZARDS

2 COROLLARY: GIVE FIRST PRIORITY TO STANDARDS FOR FEATURES OF FIRST TO

SECOND FLOOR STAIRWAYS

3 RECOMMEND COMPENSATORY MEASURES IN CASES OF INABILITY TO MODIFY STRUCTURES

1-3: First to second floor stairways have higher accident rates than other stairways. Con- figurations, Irregularities and winders

Interact on these stairways. More fashion

and style attention Is given first to second floor stairways. People most often degrade them by their intended Improvements.

4 CONTROL COMBINATIONS OF FEATURES THAT DIVERT USERS' ATTENTION FROM STAIRWAY

4: Orientation edges and distracting headroom

heights significantly Increase accident

events, especially when they occur together

on the same stairway or at the same step.

5 TABULATE AND RECOMMEND DESIGNS ELIMINATING FEATURES THAT DISTRACT THE USER

5: Standard residential stairway construction combines distracting headroom heights and orientation edges on the same stairways iO%

of the time, and at the same step of the stairway 20? of the time.

6 INTEGRATE ALL DETAILS OF HANDRAILS TO MAKE THEM FUNCTIONAL UNITS

6: People recognize the need for handrails

but are less aware of functional details. Accident events take place equally often

on stairways with or without full length handrails. But handrails are necessary

to reduce severity of accident events.

7 EMPHASIZE COMBINATIONS OF RISER-TREAD DIMENSIONS THAT HAVE SHALLOWER SLOPES

8 STUDY EFFECTS OF RISER-TREAD COMBINATIONS ON CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN THE FIELD

7-8: Least recommended combinations of risei

tread dimensions show a trend of Increased accident rates. Recommended combinations

produce stairways with shallower slopes.

9 MAKE STAIRWAY LIGHTING A FUNCTIONAL UNIT BY INTEGRATING ALL ASPECTS

10 STUDY DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS OF GRADIENTS AND LEVELS TO CRITICAL

INCIDENTS

9-10: Stairway I ightlng gets I I tt I e attention

until It Is Inoperative. Levels are low and gradients high on most stairways. These conditions show a trend relating to accident events. People do not understand

the potential hazards of glare and contrast

on their stairways and usually do not

control them. Switches are not equally

accessible, which may encourage habits of using stairways in the dark.

II REDUCE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL STAIRWAYS; ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY STAIRWAYS

II: Increased number of accident events Is associated with Increased number of stairways. The probability of hazards

Increases with an increase in number of stairways. Hazard patterns on different stairways are not the same and may require

significant adjustment In use patterns In the same dwelling unit.

12
TABLE 2. CONTINUED

12 DRAW ATTENTION TO INDOOR PLANNING THAT CAN REDUCE NUMBER OF STAIRWAY USES

12: Increased number of stairway uses Is associated with higher accident rates.

For younger age groups, rate of use Is associated with accident rate. Structure

and fixed locations of large appliances

can demand Increased stairway use. Use

Is greatest for those at home all day and who work In the home.

13 MAKE YOUNG AND MIDDLE AGED ADULTS AWARE OF THEIR CARELESS STAIRWAY HABITS

13: No single careless stairway habit may be worse than another, but people with more

of these habits have more accidents events

than those with fewer. Younger age groups

have significantly more careless stairway habits than older age groups.

14 DEVELOP AN EASY-TO-USE CHECK LIST TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF EACH STAIRWAY

14: If a check list Is attractive and clear, residents can and will use It to evaluate

their stairways. Evaluations may be used

by owners to plan repairs, by renters to

Inform owners and by builders as a guide.

15 PROVIDE A SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR SELECTION, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE

OF STAIRWAY PARTS AND MATERIALS THAT COMBINE SAFETY WITH ATTRACTIVENESS

15: People lack the Information to compare and evaluate alternatives. Items aimed to Improve wear, utility or appearance often

reduce safety. Improper Installation of safety features, such as leaving a second

handrail loose, add hazards.

16 INFORM PEOPLE OF SIMPLE, INEXPENSIVE METHODS OR DEVICES TO ALTER, REMOVE

OR COMPENSATE FOR HAZARDS OR TO WARN USERS OF HAZARDS

16: Renters hold owners responsible for hazards

but cannot give the uninformed owner some Inexpensive methods. Owners often cannot

come up with inexpensive solutions even when they are aware of the hazard. Warning

or compensatory measures are either never thought of or add to the hazard. Cost estimates vary widely for the same job.

17 INSTRUCT PEOPLE TO BE AWARE OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS AND LEARN TO ANALYZE THEM

17: After an accident, only curative measures

are available. The attitude that critical Incidents are minor events causes them to

be forgotten rapidly and their Information

to be lost. Generally Inadequate reasons

are given for Incidents that are recalled. Ability to analyze critical Incidents can develop preventive measures.

18 ESTABLISH A STRATEGY OF BREAKING PATTERNS OF HAZARDS, HABITS AND USE

18: Instead of a single prepotent "cause". It

I s more I I kel y that patterns of physical,

personal and situational factors lead to

an accident. Breaking up patterns, or at

least reducing their probability by trying

to modify as many factors as feasible. Is more productive than concentrating on a single

factor.

I

I

13

2. DESCRIPTION OF

STAIRWAY STUDY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Despite their bland ubiquity, or probably because

of it, stairways are the second most hazardous

item studied by the Consumer Product Safety

Commission. Of the many parts of the residence,

stairways are the single most hazardous part. The

Commission estimates that each year on stairways

there are about 356,000 injuries of sufficient magnitude to be reported to hospital emergency

wards or to require some kind of first aid or medical attention.

Stairway accidents causing these injuries are not

distributed evenly throughout the population.

Female adults incur many more injuri'es on

stairways than male adults. Male children in-'ur more injuries than female children. Injuries treated

in emergency wards vary widely in severity and

include lesser insults such as sprains, abrasions,

contusions and small lacerations along with more

15
damaging insults such as punctures, large

contusions or lacerations, concussions and

fractures. Some 2,000 stairway accidents are fatal each year.

Saying accidents that cause the injuries are themselves caused in turn by stairways is not the same thing as saying that the cause of the accident

is known. Accident events are almost always a consequence of multiple causes, one of which may

be a precipitating factor. The epidemiological model

groups causal factors into three broad classes: (1) the physical objects, (2) the user, and (3) the environmental situation. Accident events may have

causal factors from one, two, or all three classes.

A substantial amount of formal and informal

information exists that describes and analyzes

physical features of stairways and the behavior of

users. Some of this information explicity deals with

stairway safety, but in most cases the relationship

is implicit. A surprisingly small amount of information, however, relates the physical

performance of stairways, conditions surrounding

their use, and human performance on stairways.

In order to address this complex research problem,

the Consumer Product Safety Commission has

contracted with the National Bureau of Standards

to design and implement a study of factors crucial for stairway safety that are instructive for improving stairway performance. Among these

factors are physical information on numbers,

descriptions and conditions of stairways, behavioral

information on the use of stairways by specific

subpopulations and relationships between the two.

This report describes the results of a preliminary

study organized to collect and analyze data on

physical and behavioral variables related to stair- way use and stairway accidents. There are three

parts to the study:

• A physical inventory of a sample of

residential stairways.

• A survey of stairway users' behavior,

including a record of frequency of use.

• An analysis of all accidents on stairways in the sample, relating physical and behavioral

variables.

The specific aims of the study are:

ATo develop and pilot test survey and inventory

instruments in the field. ATo collect physical data on structure and condition of stairways relevant to the evaluation

of standards. ' ATo collect behavioral data on stairway use and

accidents. ;

Many commonly held beliefs about stairways and

stairway user's behavior may be used to establish causes of stairway accidents, such as poor

^ workmanship, disrepair, "slipperiness," dim i lighting, objects or animals on stairways,

"dangerous" clothing or footwear, and even the wastebasket categories of carelessness, inattention or poor judgement. These beliefs are sometimes

elevated to a mystique that leans too far in one or another direction. In one case, all stairway

accidents are due to user carelessness. In another

case, a certain building material is a panacea; a different material, anathema. In yet another,

stairways are to be avoided at all costs. The overall attitude taken in this study is to consider a number

of interacting factors and to attempt to assess their

relative importance for stairway safety.

The substantive material of this report is organized

into independent chapters. In addition to this chapter, which contains an overview of the study, the overall design, and a glossary of terms and

chapter 1, which presents a overall summary of

findings and a set of guidelines and

recommendations, there are four other chapters.

Chapter 3 describes and discusses the physical measures of stairways. Chapter 4 examines the data on stairway behavior and the frequency of stairway use. Chapter 5 discusses the influences of

physical and behavioral variables on frequency of

use. Chapter 6 presents an analysis of accidents and

critical incidents on stairways in the sample.

In the case of chapter 6 dealing with accidents, relevant data are also presented in other chapters,

which are referenced as the need arises.

Some supplementary data, raw measures, and

other information, including direct quotations from

respondents in the sample, are presented in appendixes A through F. Copies of the survey instruments are in appendix G. A critique of the study is presented in appendix H.

In all data tables and often in the text discussing

them, the appropriate total numbers and subclass numbers of cases are given. When corresponding

numbers do not agree in separate analyses, it is because one or more respondents did not fill in an

item.

16
2.2 SAMPLING PLAN AND OVERALL

STUDY DESIGN

The study was limited to Milwaukee County, one

of four abutting counties in the Milwaukee

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).

Milwaukee County contains 73.7 percent of the population and 77.8 percent of all housing units in the SMSA and reflects all classes of these

variables. Its diversity of housing types makes it a suitable area for a pilot study on stairway safety.

In fact, national firms test products in Milwaukee

because it is considered an "average city" in a number of respects.

The census tract was the primary sampling unit

for this study. Five stratifying variables were used

to insure that households selected within census

tracts came from different levels of variables relevant to stairways and to frequency of their use. The variables were: Owner/renter status, age of

structure, type of structure, family income, and

age of female population (survey was aimed at adult females). Number of levels were,

respectively, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 3, giving a total of 72

strata.

Because of correlations among the stratifying

variables, the 274 census tracts in Milwaukee

County occupied only 62 of the 72 strata. Ten

tracts were then selected randomly, one from each

of the 10 strata with the largest number of tracts.

From each of the 72 sample tracts, 7 addresses were selected by systematic random sampling of addresses, using a different sampling fraction based on population in each tract. This procedure yielded

a total of 504 households by addresses. Another

set of 504 nearest neighbors was selected as the

alternative group to the primary sample.

The Wisconsin Bell Telephone System Address

Directory was used to obtain addresses. This

Directory had been updated one month before its use in this study, and contained 90 percent of all occupied housing units in the County. The

remaining 10 percent of the occupied housing units consisted of those without telephones and those

with unlisted numbers.

In addition to getting data relevant for the devel- opment of standards, this study was designed to

^Levels: Owner, renter; before 1940, 1940 to present; single

family, multifamily; under $10,980, $10,980-$11,338, under 27.0 years, 27.0-33.8 years, over 33.8 years.

compare different methods of collecting data. The

total sample of 504 households was divided into two subsamples in a 4:3 ratio yielding samples of 288 and 216, respectively. The larger sample

received the mail form and the smaller sample

received the phone interview, from which was drawn the site sample. A detailed discussion of this method is presented under Survey Procedures in section 2.5. Two sample sizes were used to obtain about the same number of responses in mail and phone

surveys, predicated on expected response rates with each method. Some alternates were used

from nearest neighbors as noted in section 2.5. There were 91 responses to the 288 mail forms

(31.6 percent response rate) and 162 responses to the 216 phone contacts, of which 54 were in the

site sample (75 percent response rate together).

Overall response rate in the study was 253/504 or

50.2 percent. This response rate is acceptable;

different methods are compared in appendix H.

2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS

The actual census tract numbers appear in the cells of table 3 and show how these tracts are

distributed according to the original stratifying

variables. The tracts selected show a good

geographic distribution over Milwaukee County.

Table 4 presents a distribution of respondents

according to census tract of origin.

TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CENSUS TRACTS BY ORIGINAL STRATIFICATION

(cell entries are census tract numbers; "45" means census tract #45)

RESPON. AGE YOUNG MIDDLE OLD

FAM INCOME LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH OWN 45 130 74 161 914 182 189 205 803

SFD' RENT

63

69 183 1003

164 177 188 1004 162 60 61

NEW OWN 1501 1601 1203

1301

127 1014

:'oi 901 21138 20332

57 RENT 101 5 1702 28 36 50 190 OWN 171 126 125

MFD'

OLD RENT 97

138

133

179 186 1802 111 62

124 802

NEW

OWN 1803 13

6 1402 212 29 197 206 1018 56 RENT 77 16 17 21 1009 1 201 24 191 *SFD = single family dwelling; MFD = multiple family dwelling

TABLE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY CENSUS TRACT OF ORIGIN

RESPON. AGE YOUNG MIDDLE OLD

FAM. INCOME LOW MED HIGH LOW MED HIGH LOW flED HIGH OLD IZ SFD ^^^^

3 6

3 2 1

5 4 4

2 3 4

2 2 3

5 4 9 NEW OWN RENT

4 4 10

1 8 5

4 5 11 3 4 6

3 3 5 OLD

OWf RENT 4 3 8 2 4 5 1 3 3 5 WPU OWN RENT

3 2 10

3 4 4

5 4 5 4 5 7 4 4 4

2 1 6

17
Information on each of the stratifying variables was obtained from all respondents. Comparisons

between this information and data on Milwaukee

County are contained in tables 5a through 5g.

Comparisons are made for each of the three methods

of data collection as well as for the total sample. The

methods are described below.

TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF SURVEY SAMPLE WITH SUBSAHPLES AND WITH UPDATED

CENSUS DATA FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY, 1975

All data are presented as percentages; number of cases at top of column.

P values derive from the Kolmogorov-Smi rnoff tests of cumulative frequency

distributions MAIL/PHONE/SITE compared with SAMPLE and SAMPLE compared

with MILWAUKEE COUNTY.

5a. RESP AGE MAIL + PHONE + SITE = SAMPLE MILW CO.

N

= 90 107 54 251 681,400

20-34 21.1 26 .

44.4 28.4 32.5

35-44 23.4 22.4 18.5 21.9 17.8 45-54 20.0 17.8 16.7 18.3 18.4 55-64 22.2 15.0 11.1 16.7 15.8

65 up 13.3 18.7 9.3 14.7 15.5

P value

5b. INCOME MAIL + PHONE + SITE = SAMPLE MTi u rn

N

= 82 97 —54 233 —273,050

under $5000 4.9 11.3 7.4 8.2 10.0 $5000-$9999 23.2 18.5 20.4 20.6 24.9 $10000-$15000 23.1 37.2 38.8 32.6 32.5 over $15000 48.8 33.0 33.4 38.6 32.6

P values — -- --

5c. VALUE OF HOME

N

= 68 77 38 183 150,8/0 under $10000 1.5 -0- -0- 0.5 3.9 $10000-$19999 5.9 18.2 10.5 12.0 34.1 $20000-$35000 52.9 45.4 50.0 49.2 42.7 over $35000 39.7 36.4 39.5 38.3 19.3

P values -- .01

5d. MONTHLY RENT

N

= 15 21 16 55 159,740

under $100 -0- -0- -0- -0- 24.0 $100-$199 73.4 91.7 75.1 81.9 54.7 $200-$250 10.0 2.7 12.5 7.3 18.9 over $250 16.6 6.2 12.4 10.8 2.4

P values .01

5e. TYPE OF UNIT

N

= 91 108 54 253 360,530 Single family 76.9 76.9 63.0 73.9 48.0 Duplex 13.2 18.5 25.9 18.2 27,0 Apartment 9.9 4.6 11.1 7.9 25.0

P values .01

5f. YEAR BUILT

N

= 84 104 54 241 360,530

1965-present 11.9 10.5 9.5 10.7 8.6 1940-1964 50.0 40.4 39.6 43.6 42.2 before 1940 38.1 49.1 50.9 45.7 49.2

P values

5q. OCCUPIED BY:

N

= 91 108 54 253 352,150 Owner 83.5 77.8 68.5 77.9 54.4 Renter 16.5 22.2 31.5 22.1 45.6

P values .01

The comparison tables treat the five stratifying variables as well as Value of Home and Monthly

Rent. The mail, phone and site subsamples did not

differ significantly from the total sample on any

one of the seven variables.

The total sample differed significantly from the Milwaukee County population on four of the seven

variables. The first two are Value of Home and

Monthly Rent. In general, the study sample

obtained homes that cost more to buy or rent than

medians for Milwaukee County. Neither poor nor

affluent areas are adequately represented in the

study sample because people in those tracts were

not responsive. However, neither Value nor Rent

show relationships with any stairway use or

physical variables for the sample in this study. Thil

result is probably true for stairways and stairway ? use in general, except for the extremes of dilapidation or specially designed stairways found

in inner city or on affluent estates.

I

t

I The other two variables. Type of Dwelling Unit

and Renter/Owner Status, do have relevance. Because of the differences of building structure, stairways are distributed differently among single

family, duplex and apartment units. Fewer

apartments and more single family dwellings and

duplexes turned up in the total sample than the corresponding proportions in Milwaukee County.

Results of this study, therefore, are generalizable more to single family and duplex units than to apartments.

Differences in the representation of renters and owners bear primarily on the subject of

responsibility for care and maintenance of stairways and to a small degree on stairway use, as" discussed in detail in following sections. Data

collected in the study, however, are rich enough or both of these aspects that the results may still generalize to both types of tenure.

2.4 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

The most reliable and valid methods for obtaining

the data basic to this study are the personal

interview, direct observation and field measurement, but they are expensive and time

consuming. Only a small number could be treated by these methods, and they form the site sample.

Two other methods, the phone interview and the

mail survey, were used to extend the data base. They compose the phone and mail samples.

Comparing these methods with the more precise

site sample data permitted assessing the feasibility

^ of using mail and phone samples for this kind of study.

The mail sample received the basic instrument, the ; mail survey form, shown in appendix G. In phone

interviews and personal interviews of the site sample, some of the questions on the mail form were cast into an interview format but remained

substantively the same for all three samples. The

phone sample received a short mail survey form to handle questions on physical features of stairways

which could not feasibly be collected by phone.

Details are given on page 107.

18
llil!

The phone sample was given two additional tasks. At the end of the interview, respondents were

asked for suggestions and recommendations for improving stairway safety. They were also asked if they would be willing to keep a record of their own stairway use for 3 days instead of 1 day (cf. pages 108 and 116, sec. K).

The site sample was given everything the phone

sample received. In addition, they were asked a short set of questions on household hazards,

housing preferences, and home activities requiring

the use of stairways. Accidents and critical incidents received additional probing during the

interview. Finally, 16 physical measures and several photos were taken on each of their inside and

outside stairways (see sec. 2.6).

2.5 SURVEY PROCEDURES

PFor all subsamples, the responsible female adult was sought as respondent, but allowances were made to include single males, unrelated males or

females sharing a residence, and communal living

modes. In some cases where the female adult could

have been the respondent, the male head of the household chose the respondent role.

The mail sample was sent an introductory letter explaining the study and providing some

definitions of stairway terms (pages 111 to 112), the

mail survey form (pages 113 to 116) and a stamped,

self-addressed envelope for returning the form. A

postcard was included that permitted respondents

to receive results of the study if they returned it.

If no response was received after one week, a

I follow-up letter was sent, urging them to complete

I the form. If there was no response after two

i weeks, a second letter was sent out. After the

ji third week they were dropped from the study.

I Alternates were selected in 26 cases where the

: original survey form was returned by the post

[office as undeliverable. The phone sample was sent an introductory letter three to five days prior to the first phone contact

(see pages 109 and 110) so that the respondents could

become familiar with the purposes of the study

'jand would expect the interview. Up to five

I attempts were made to contact a household, spaced

over times of day and days of the week. After five failures to contact the household, the nearest neighbor alternate was substituted for the original address. This happened in 38 cases. In cases of outright refusal, reasons for refusal were asked,

but no alternate was used.

At the very beginning of the study, a preliminary

test of the site visit instruments was conducted. It was found that the fairly extensive set of stairway

measurements, requiring access to many parts of the home, concerned most of these respondents.

Some were fearful, others puzzled, and still others

regarded the study as an invasion of privacy.

Therefore, in order to obtain access to a sample of homes for purposes of personal interviews and

field measurements, all phone respondents were

asked to volunteer for this part of the study. This

request was delayed until after the interviewer had an opportunity to establish rapport and to explain

the basic purposes of the study. Where permission was granted, the phone interview was terminated

and the remaining information was gathered in the home. All other phone respondents finished the phone interview questions and were mailed the short mail form (see page 107). By this method, 108

completed phone interviews and 54 site visits were

obtained. An additional 47 respondents finished the phone interview but did not return the short mail

form. Seven people who were contacted refused to give any information. Alternates were used in 38

cases where five attempts to make a phone contact

failed.

2.6 TYPES OF DATA COLLECTED

Three general kinds of data were collected on all subsamples:

2.6.1 Demographic and Background

This included the five stratifying variables of respondent's age, family income, owner/ renter

status, age of structure and type of building. In addition, background information included value of home or monthly rent, length of residence,

occupation of household head and spouse, and ages and sexes of all household members.

2.6.2 Physical Inventory

Data included here were general configuration of

all inside and outside stairways, number or risers, structural materials, covering materials, number of

floors or levels, descriptions and conditions of

specific stairway features, problems, upkeep, wear

and intended repairs, when applicable.

2.6.3 Behavioral Survey

This group included information about stairway

habits of the respondents, safety ratings of home

stairways, accidents of the respondents and others

19
on their stairways, and a record of the respondent's own use of the home stairways.

Some respondents completed a three-day record of

use; the form given them is on page 108. The

complete survey form is on pages 113 to 116.

2.6.4 Site Measurements.

In addition to photographs of each inside and

outside stairway belonging to the site sample

residences, the following were determined for every stairway and, in many cases, for each change

of level involving only one or two risers: location,

number of risers, closed/open risers, structural

materials, type of finish on treads and landings, tread wear, orientation edge, riser, tread, nosing

and landing dimensions to the nearest Vi in., light

levels, coefficients of friction on treads, throw rugs on landings, handrail heights, width between

handrails, lowest headroom and location of light switches. Further detail on these measures is found

in appendixes A, B, and F, where some raw data

are given. Summary tables are presented in chapter 3.

2.7 DEFINITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

The following definitions and restrictions are used

in this report. Definitions given as instructions to respondents are displayed on pages 110 and 112 (see

also fig. 1). STAIRWAY refers to a series of three or more steps

between two floor levels and may include two

or more flights with intermediate landings.

SINGLE refers to one riser between two levels or landings.

DOUBLE refers to two risers between two levels or landings.

FLIGHT refers to one or more steps between two

nearest landings and is always all or part of a stair- way.

LANDING refers to a platform between flights, at

least 24 in. long and the width of the stairway.

TOP LANDING refers to the floor at the top of the stairway.

BOTTOM LANDING refers to the floor at the bottom of the stairway.

LEVEL is used synonymously with floor, referring

to commonly understood living levels of a resi- dence. It also refers to a change of level within a floor or outside surface if one or more steps

separates two such levels. THRESHOLD refers to a single step at any entry

to a building and always has an associated door.

Stairways studied in this report include only those

that belong to the respondent's residence and

that are used by the respondent and other members of the household. These include inside and

outside stairways and private and shared stair- ways. These restrictions also apply to singles and

doubles, except that curbs at the street are not

included in this report.

Certain behavioral questions were limited to the respondent and other questions included all members of the household. One accident question

referred to anyone who had an accident on

stairways belonging to the residence.

2.8 DEFINITIONS RELATING TO

ACCIDENTS

Several definitions and classifications useful in the

analysis are described in detail below, along with

interview procedures. Limited descriptions of accident events were obtained from the mail

subsample. However, more information was

obtained from respondents in the phone and site visit groups. These two groups were asked to suggest the cause of the accident and whether

physical or personal factors or both were involved. Physical factors include such things as a loose

handrail, poor lighting, wetness, or steepness.

Personal factors include a handicap such as

arthritis, the use of a prosthesis such as braces or

bifocal glasses, wearing special shoes or clothing,

and special activity such as running or carrying an

object. When respondents in the phone and

personal interviews attributed cause to "inattention" or "carelessness," more specific causes were sought by probing.

2.8.1 Severity

Three levels of severity of accident events are distinguished in this study:

SERIOUS ACCIDENTS refer to true falls that

result in limited activities for at least a day and

require medical attention or first aid at home.

Accidents falling in this class are comparable to the accidents collected by NEISS.

20
MODERATE ACCIDENTS refer to falls, bumps

or wrenching slips resulting in an injury that

did not require medical attention. Respondents

I in this class reported lacerations, contusions,

swollen or twisted limbs or soreness that lasted

a week or more, even though activities were not

interrupted.

CRITICAL INCIDENTS refer to slips, missteps,

abruptly catching oneself in time to avoid

serious injury, or falling down steps without

injury. Respondents reported that the person was shaken up and may have required a short recovery period before resuming normal activities.

In addition to the location of the accident event by

j stairways or other steps, three levels of recency of

I the event are distinguished in the study:

RECENT events occurred less than 30 days before

the survey and include the day of the survey. YEAR refers to events occurring more than 30

' days but less than one year before the survey.

J OLDER events are those that are more than one

; year old; most events are less than 5 years old.

I Accident events are divided into three different

i kinds of dependent variables for purposes of

analysis; in each case, the total sample of persons,

i stairways or dwelling units is used: ACCIDENT PERSON refers to any individual involved in at least one event on any step or

II steps (see table 44).

I ACCIDENT STAIRWAY refers to any step or

steps belonging to any dwelling unit where any

accident event occurred (see table 45).

ACCIDENT UNIT refers to a dwelling unit where

any accident event occurred.

2.9 NOTE ON DATA ANALYSIS

AND INFERENCES

The general approach to data analysis is direct and

simple for the most part. Descriptions are most

often stated in percentages, and in a few cases by mean (m) and standard deviation (SD). Where an

inference is based on the comparison of two

percentages, a standard test for the difference between independent proportions was used. In most cases of inference, however, the distributionfree Chi square test was employed.

Chi square is particularly appropriate when the data are only frequencies in categories of a nonmetric variable and the shape of the theoretical distribution is not known. It also makes intuitive sense for field data that are usually not distributed equally among all categories of a variable. If the

distribution of an effect exhibits a systematic

relationship only to the frequencies in the

categories of a variable, and not to the categories

themselves, the variable is probably not critical in producing the effect. In this case, a Chi square test would not show a significant difference between

the two distributions.

In several cases, another nonparametric test was

used. This test is the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff

cumulative frequency test. Its power is equivalent

to Chi square.

Data in only a few cases permitted parametric

tests, and when they occurred, the F test (in multiple regression and variance analysis) was

used.

21

I 3. PHYSICAL INVENTORY

OF STAIRWAYS

3.1 NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

Two distinct types of data are discussed in this chapter. Data gathered from all respondents in the

mail, phone and site samples are pooled and are

treated as data from the total sample. Data

obtained by the investigators from physical

measurements are the site measures and are

limited to the site sample.

When the two types of measures deal with the same subject matter, they are compared and

differences are discussed. However, most of the

physical measures extend or elaborate the information given by the respondents, even though

they cover the same subject matter. In general, site measures go well beyond anything obtained from

the respondents, both in detail and precision,

because they use more specific criteria.

Many of the site measurements are presented in appendix A. Lighting measurements taken at the

sites are presented in appendix B.

23
3.2 NUMBER OF STAIRWAYS STUDIED

AND THEIR STRUCTURAL MATERIALS

All changes of level that belong to each of the 253

dwelling units and to which household members

had access are included in the sample. They total 1469. Of these, 691 have three or more risers, qualifying as a stairway proper, and the rest of the

level changes consist of one riser (singles), two

risers (doubles), and thresholds. They are

distributed in table 6.

TABLE 6. TOTAL SAMPLE OF STAIRWAYS STUDIED

INSIDE LEVEL CHANGES _ OUTSID E LEVEL CHANGES

3 or more ri sers

3 or more risers:

B-1 249 Front 138

1-2 186 Back 66 2-3 39 Other inside 13 One riser 26 One riser 153 Two risers 10 Two risers 99 Thresholds 490

Taking into account the different kinds of configurations in the sample, such as straight

stairways and turning stairways with intermediate

landings, there is a minimum of 977 flights among

the 691 stairways, making a total of 1755 flights

with one or more risers. Clearly, stairways are a

fact of life for Milwaukeans.

Among large cities in the nation, Milwaukee ranks

high in the proportion of residences with

basements; 96.2 percent have them. Not only are basements almost universal in single family

buildings, they exist and are ordinarily made

available to residents in multifamily buildings. In the present sample, all but four dwellings have an

available basement (98%). Of these, one is a prefab

metal home on a concrete slab and the other three households have no access to the basements in their buildings.

Only one unit has no thresholds or outside risers; walks are ramplike. Eight other units have

thresholds but no outside changes of level of one

or more risers. The rest have some change of level accommodated by a stairway, single or double, or some combination of these, and 32 percent have

two outside stairways with three risers or more.

Over 98 percent of all inside stairways in the sample are made of wood. The exceptions are: five B-1 stairways combining wood and concrete in separate flights; one B-1 stairway consisting of wood and brick; and one apartment building with

three floors having modular steel stairways

between all floors. If the sample had included a

larger number of multifamily walkup buildings, tl proportion of nonwood stairways would have bee

higher.

Outside stairways are predominantly exposed

concrete with a broom finish (Front: 78% and Bac

74%). Wood is used on 12 percent of the front outside stairways and on 22 percent of the outsid« back stairways. The remaining 10 percent of the front and 4 percent of the back are built of wood

in combination with concrete and other materials t on separate flights.

3.3 TREAD MATERIALS ON INSIDE

STAIRWAYS

Data in table 7 are based on the total sample

of 473 inside stairways where respondents were

able to describe the primary material on the

surface of all or most of the treads. The distributic exhibits certain regularities.

Three general classes of materials predominate:

Linoleum or tile, paint or varnish, and carpeting. Underscoring in the table points to another simple rela- tionship. Preferred material on B-1 is linoleum or

tile; on 1-2, carpeting; and on 2-3, paint or varnish (see table 7).

TABLE 7. DISTRIBUTION OF TREAD MATERIALS ON INSIDE STAIRWAYS

All data are percentages; number of cases at tops of columns.

STAIRWAY LOCATION

MATERIALS N

= B-1 1-2 2-3 TOT

248 186 39 473

Carpet full width of stairway 12.1 40.3 15.4 23.5 Carpet runner down middle 2.4 14.5 -0- 7.0 Painted or varnished wood 23.4 22.6 56.4 25.8 Rubber treads 16.5 5.4 12.8 11.8 Tile or Linoleum w/Metal nosing 42.0 17.2 7.7 29.4

Bare wood 3.2 -0- 7.7 2.3 Concrete (unfin. structure) 0.4 -0- -0- 0.2

Each of these classes, however, includes a variety of surfaces. For example, carpeting materials

themselves fall into at least three major types: Loose pile (shaglike rugs), tight pile, and smooth

surfaced carpet, and there are further variations within each type. The simple pattern above quickly

proliferates into many different surfaces with

different features.

To reduce the many possible types of materials to

a common measure, over 3000 friction coefficients j

' were measured on the site visit sample of 112 '

stairways. The NBS-Brungraber Portable SlipResistance Tester was used to measure static coefficient of friction between a representative

24
material of shoe sole leather and the tread

surface. 3 It operates by applying a predetermined,

fixed vertical force and simultaneously an

increasing horizontal force through a vertical splined shaft with an articulated shaft to the sensor shoe. When this shoe slips on the surface, the ratio between the horizontal and vertical forces

is automatically recorded. This is the static coefficient of friction. Tables 8 and 9 summarize

these measurements, and they are graphed for eight materials in figure 4. Raw data appear in appendix A.

TABLE 8. FRICTION MEASURES OF MAJOR MATERIALS

N MEAN 50 AmVA RESULTS Group I GROUP I Linoleum tile 108 .597 077 F = 1.09 Varnished wood 280 .629 089 df 3, 1208 Linoleum 528 .641 094 P => .05 Painted wood 296 .692 115

Group II GROUP II Pile carpet 352 .768 104 F = 2.19 Smooth carpet 244 .807 113 df 3, 1616 Rubber/Vinyl treads 136 .809 121 P => .05 Concrete 888 .864 096

Group III ALL THREE GROUPS

F = 11.15 Fiber top rubber mats 120 .910 .123 df 2, 2949

subtotal 2952 (mean .761 (mean) .141 P -= .001

TABLE 9. FRICTION MEASURES ON MINOR MATERIALS

N MEAN

Cork tile with wax 4 .52 Ceramic tile 8 .57 Hemp mat 4 .77 Painted concrets 20 .77 Throw rugs (loose) 40 .77 Asphalt 8 .89 Lannon stone 5 .93 Rug faced brick 12 .97 subtotal 101 TOTAL N: 3053

The intent of the field measures was to examine

the treads under conditions of normal use where more variability is introduced than might be found on comparable materials tested under laboratory

conditions. Variable amounts of surface wear, dirt, dust, grease and particulates can be found from one

tread to the next, and even on the same tread. The

machine is so large that it must be placed on the

tread at right angles to the direction of a person's

foot in ascent or descent. As a consequence, certain materials critical for using the stairways, notably

nosings of metal and other materials, are missed

entirely.

The nine major materials found on the stairways

are sorted in terms of average friction into three groups and are shown in table 8. The first group has

the lowest average friction (overall mean - 0.647,

SD = 0.104) and contains tile, varnish, linoleum and

^Brungraber, Robert ]., A New Portable Tester for the Evaluation of the blip-Resistance of Walking Surfaces. Nat.

Bur. of Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 953, 51 pages Quly 1977).

paint. The second group has a medium average

friction (overall mean = 0.830, SD = 0.109) and

consists of pile carpet, smooth carpet, rubber treads and concrete. The third group has the single

material of fiber-topped mats with nonskid rubber

backing that show the highest average friction (overall mean = 0.910, SD = 0.123).

In a simple randomized analysis of variance design

(ANOVA), the four materials in Group I do not show significant differences from one another in their average friction. A separate analysis of the four materials in Group II shows them not to be

different from one another. In an overall analysis of variance design, the three groups are shown to be reliably different (see table 8).

Measures taken on the very small number of minor

tread materials are summarized in table 9. They

cover a wide range of friction, but they are not

included in the analysis.

Since "slipperiness" is a term often applied to judge

friction, respondents were asked to tell which of

their stairways is "sometimes slippery." This gross measure is unreliable when correlated with measures of friction (Point biserial r = 0.11,

r>0.2301). Shape of treads and nosings, customary

footwear and other factors dilute the usefulness of

this simple judgment. Overall, outside stairways are judged "slipperier" than inside stairways (67% vs. 13%). From personal interviews with the site sample, it was determined that weather conditions

(wetness, snow, ice) account for virtually all the

difference. Dry friction on the majority of outside

stairways is of course greater than on inside stairways. "Slipperiness" is therefore associated

with factors other than dry friction alone.

Another condition that introduces variability in friction is the large number of different materials

encountered on a single stairway as the user proceeds up or down. On the stairways in the site sample there is an average of four different materials from bottom to top, and on some

stairways there are nine. In one extreme case where some rubber treads are missing from

varnished wood treads (some with nails still protruding), the 17 treads and landings have 13

changes or alternations of materials (see fig. 2 #309). A display of these striking data is presented

in appendix F. A five-point scale of wear was developed for use with the site sample, where one end meant no

visible wear and the other end meant extreme wear

with damage to surfaces. This scale shows no

25
relationship to friction measures either within or between materials, and is not reliable partly

because of variability of judgment and partly

because of variable field measurements.

Judgments on an obvious kind of wear, "dishing'

(curving) of treads, were obtained for the total

sample and are incorporated into the Hazard

Measure discussed in chapter 5. No truly

dilapidated dwellings appeared in the total sample,

so it is understandable that few stairways (8.6%)

would be described as having this extreme degree

of wear.

FRICTION MEASURES ON ALL STAIRWAYS ACCIDENT STAIRWAY MEASURES ONLY

1 SD MEAN +1 SD PAINTED WOOD

> z4 1

200 -

\ 1 1 RUBBER

TREADS

J L

1.0 1.2 .60 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION

Figure 4. Distributions of friction coefficients on eight tread materials.

26
3.4 RISER AND TREAD MEASUREMENTS:

IRREGULARITIES AND DIMENSIONS

Dimensions of all risers or all treads in the same

stairway or flight are not identical, and the

variation will be different in different situations. If the full range of dimensional irregularity is very

large within a flight, the user may have to make

significant adjustments while using the stairway. If the range is small within a flight, but large

between flights, adjustment is less because the intermediate landing allows the user to change gait. Finally, a few winders in an otherwise straight

stairway introduce large tread irregularities and map

result in large adjustments, depending on where

the user choose to step. Winders will be treated under stairway configuration on section 3.9.

For site measurements, three degrees of

irregularity are used: Less than 1 in. difference

between the shortest and longest riser or trend

dimension; about 1 in (±'4 in) difference; and more

than 1= difference. Only the last two are classified as true irregularities. The flight is used as the un

within which irregularity occurs. When comparing

data with responses from the total sample, the unit

is the stairway, irrespective of the number of

flights.

Both the site visit team and the residents noticed

that riser height irregularities of less than one inch

are difficult to observe directly. Even after measuring the irregularity on a particular step, the observer often had to view it from a specific angle

in order to detect it. Noticed or not, such

irregularities cause the user to make adjustments.

Respondents in the total sample were asked which

stairways have noticeable irregularities in riser heights. They report that about 15 percent of all inside and outside stairways have irregularities

(13% inside and 20% outside). Site measures, using

the criteria above on both risers and treads, show

46 percent of the site sample stairways to have

irregularities. Even doubling the 15 percent in the

total sample to account for tread irregularities,

measurements produce 50 percent more than are commonly detected. Irregularity data from the site sample are shown in table 10. About 28 percent of

all flights in the site sample have irregularities of

I in or more. Recommended riser height is 7 in and tread depth is II in. 4 Mean riser height for the site sample is 7.7 in and mean tread depth is 10.3 in. These dimensions

'Archea, John. (Aug. 1975) Summary of Special Stairway

Conference, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,

MD.

are not influenced by different locations of the inside stairway, by building type or by age of structure. Data are summarized in table 11.

TABLE 10. DIMENSIONAL IRREGULARITY ON EITHER RISER OR TREAD

INSIDE AMOUNT OF IRREGULARITY

FLIGHTS under 1" VHk) over 1" TOT ACC. RATE

B-1 59(12) 10 15(3) 84(15) 17 9%

1-2 45 12) 14(6) 8(5) 67(23) 34 3i 2-3 20(2) 22(2) 9 1%

N = 1J4|J6) 25(6) 24(fi) 173(40)

ACC. RATE 21. 0^ 24.0% 33.3% 23 1%

TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF MEAN RISER AND TREAD DIMENSIONS (INCHES) LOCATION

B-1 1-2 2-3 BUILDING TYPE

SFD DUP APT

AGE OF STRUCTURE

65-75 40-64 B. 40 RISERS

TREADS

7.7 7.8 1.1

10.2 10.4 10.3

7.7 7.5 7.6

10.2 10.1 11.1 8.1 7.8 7.5 10.8 10.2 10.2

Steepness of a stairway depends on the particular

combination of riser height and tread depth, of which there are many. For inside stairways in the

site sample, measurement data in table 12 show

that in practice the combinations are concentrated

in a narrow range of dimensions. Nearly half (48%)

of all inside stairways in the sample are one of the four combinations of 71/2 or 8 in risers and 10 or 10 '/2 in treads.

These data may be compared with recommended

riser and tread combinations found in the recent

literature. Grandjean (1973)5 recommends design

by the equation of twice the riser height plus the

tread depth equalling 25 in. A graph of this equation

is shown in table 12, as a dashed line, sloping down

toward the lower left. Riser-tread combinations

recommended by Templer (1974)" are all in the upper right quadrant of the table (as indicated by

the solid lines).

[TABLES 12-14: Numbers of accident eases in parentheses.! TABLE 12. MEAN RISER-TREAD DIMENSIONS (INSIDE; 3 OR MORE RISERS) RISER

HT. 8 8!s

TREAD DEPTH

9 9>a 10 10>s 11 11>5 12 12>s 13 TOT 6H

7 1(1) 11 1(1) 4 5(21

2 .2(1) 3 1 4(1) 17(4) 7%

88H

9

1

1_,

1(1) 7 .U(.6H3

.i|l-y-9f?f 30(10)26(4)

5(3) 3 3

1 1

7(2) 7(2) 4(2) 1 6(2) 3 2 55(12)

83 19) 12(4)

N

= 2(1) 1 15(6)21(3) 48(15)48(6)15(5)13(2) 6(2) 3 1 173(407

(S missing)

In general, least recommended combinations are in the lower left quadrant, most recommended

combinations are in the upper right quadrant, and

combinations in the other two quadrants fall between the least and most recommended. These

three sets of riser-tread combinations correspond

respectively to steeper stairways, shallower

stairways, and stairways of intermediate slope.

^Grandjean, Etienne. (1973) Ergonomics of the home. New

York: John Wiley and Sons. "Templer, John A. (1974) Stair shape and human movement.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New York; Columbia

Univ.

27
If quadrants in table 12 are defined by mean riser and tread dimensions obtained in the site sample

(7.7 and 10.3 in), the percentages falling into the above classes are: 33 percent least recommended,

27 percent most recommended, and 40 percent in the intermediate class. Using recommended

combinations of 7 in risers and 11 in treads to define the quadrants as shown by the solid lines in table 12 gives percentages of 70 percent least recommended, 5 percent most recommended and

25 percent intermediate. Comparing these two sets of percentages indicates how far the site sample

deviates from the recommended dimensions.

Outside stairways in the site sample have riser heights and tread depths more in the recommended

direction: Mean riser height is 6.9 in and mean tread depth is 12.3 in (table 13). Combinations are concentrated also, with 33 percent of them using

either 7 or '7y^ in risers and either IIV2 or 12 in treads. Proportions of recommended combinations are: 4 percent least recommended, 58 percent most

recommended, and 38 percent intermediate.

TABLE 13. MEAN RISER-TREAD DIMENSIONS (OUTSIDE; 3 OR MORE RISERS) RISER TREAD DEPTH

HT. 8^ 10 10^ 11 \\h 12 12H 13 14 15 16 17 18 19% TOT

1 5(1)2(1)7(1)10(1)37(2) 5 6 2 2 12 2 1(1) 83(7)

Data discussed above are for all flights having two

or more risers. Table 14 summarizes riser heights

for thresholds and singles. Clearly, the single riser

is used as an "adjuster" between different levels, and the range of heights is very wide, especially

for outside singles. Some of the range of outside

singles may be due to settling of porches and steps

and of the earth around homes. Given the wide

variation in riser heights of both inside and outside

singles, they may be considered as irregularities in an otherwise flat surface.

TABLE 14. RISER HEIGHTS OF THRESHOLDS AND SINGLES (SITE SAMPLE) RISER SINGLES RISER SINGLES

HT. THR OUT IN* TOT HT. THR OUT IN* TOT \h 1 1 2 6H 8 1 1 10

1 1 1 7 8 5 7(1) 20(1) 2h 2 2 4 7H 9 3 1 13 3 1 1 8 17 2 1 20 34 6 2 1 9 BH 11 1 1 13 4 3 2 5 9 4(1) 3 7(1)

45s 7(1 1 8(1) 9h 1 2 3 5 4 2 6 10 5(1) 3 8(1) Sh 2 1(1) 2 5(1) lOh 1 1 6 5 1 2(1) 9(1) 11 1 1 (table continued at right)

Respondents in the site sample almost universally

j omitted thresholds in their data; their commonness,

escaped notice. When not explicitly noted on the

^ forms, number of thresholds was estimated by the,, investigators for the total sample from other

information given on the survey forms.

3.5 HANDRAIL MEASUREMENTS: HEIGHT

WIDTH, VARIATION AND RIGIDITY

Information on the presence and location of handraik

for the total sample of stairways shows that the

1- 2 stairway is most likely to have a full length

handrail (82%), followed by B-1 (72%), and last by

2-3 (53%). Full length handrails on outside

stairways are significantly fewer. Only 36 percent

of the front stairways and 39 percent of the back

stairways have them. Percentages for the site sample are only slightly different (table 15).

TABLE 15. PERCENTAGE OF HANDRAILS PRESENT AND MISSING (SITE MEAS.) INSIDE HANDRAILS OUTSIDE HANDRAILS

B -1 1-2 2-3 AVG. FRONT BACK AVG. PRESENT 63 1 85.1 63.6 71.7 38.5 23.1 34.6 MISSING 36 9 14.9 36.4 28.3 61.5 76.9 65.4

Coupled with the effect of weather on unprotected

outside stairways, the absence of handrails on twothirds of all outside stairways adds to the hazard

and makes special demands on the user.

The general condition of handrails as reported by

respondents in the total sample is good. Only about

3 percent report loose, splintered or broken

handrails. Because the sample did not contain

dilapidated dwellings, this result is expected.

However, site visit criteria produced significantly more loose handrails in the site samples (z = 10.7, P<.0001; table 16). Open handrail supports through

which a child can get his body appear on fewer

than 7 percent of all handrails in the sample.

TABLE 16. HANDRAIL RIGIDITY

RIGID FIRM LOOSE

INSIDE STAIRWAYS ONLY; SITE MEAS. TOTAL NO HR B-1 29(6) 6(2) 18(2) 53(10) 31(5) (number of accident

1-2 27(11) 8(4) 22(5) 57(20) 10(3) cases in parentheses)

2-3 10(2) 2 14(2) 8 TOTAL N 66(19) 16(6) 42(7) 124(32) 49(8)

% TOTAL 53.2% 13. OX 33.8% 100%

*10 are isolated singles; 7 are in stairways with other flights.

Additional information on handrails was obtained

from the site visit sample. Measures of handrail

height, variations in height, width between

handrails and handrail rigidity constitute these

additional measures. A summary of accident rates on the site sample is shown in table 19.

28
Mean inside handrail height is 32 in. (SD = 5.0 in.) and mean width between handrails is 35 in. (SD - 3.1 in.) (see table 17). As a group, stairways in apartment

buildings are two SD wider than the rest of the sample, and this difference may be significant, but

the number of cases is too small for a meaningful

test. Handrails are found equally on the right and

left side and 13 flights have handrails on both

sides.

Approximately one-third of all handrail heights

measured (30%) show a within-flight variation of

2 in. or more (tables 17 and 18). Only six handrails

continued across the landing from one flight to the next and these were treated as though they had

separate full handrails for each flight. In one case, the variation is over 4 in. from top to bottom and

is visible on the picture of the handrail because of the forced perspective (see photo, case #322, in fig. 3).

TABLE 17. HANDRAIL HEIGHTS, WIDTHS, AND VARIATIONS (SITE MEAS.) INSIDE HEIGHT IN INCHES

21_-li.24-i6_ 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 39-41 TOT MEAN

36(6)

1-2

2

7 15(1) 12(3) 4(4) 16(3) 6(1)

4 1

2(2)

3(1)

N

=

B-]

-2" 1-2

2-;

35(4) 19(4) 5(3) 2 2(1)

2(1)

2(1)

3(3)

N = 3

8(2) 9(4)

2

28(2)

1

12(1)

2 ~4T2l 5(4) 19(6) 11(2) STl] T

31(9)

74(17) 31.9" 2.7"

17(4) 26(11)

7 50(15) 31.5" 4.3" (number of accident cases

in parentheses)

OVERALL INSIDE 124(32) 31.7" 5.0" MEAN WIDTH OF INSIDE FLIGHTS: 35.3" 3.1"

TABLE 18. HANDRAIL HEIGHTS AND VARIATIONS (SITE MEAS. OUTSIDE HEIGHT IN INCHES 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 39-41 TOT «2" 1 4(1) 5 3(1) 2 15(2)

=-2" 2 3(1)

N = 1 4(1) 7 3(1) 3I1] 18(3) (number of accident cases in parentheses)

MEAN

31.0"

33.0"

31.3"

TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT RATES;

INSIDE RATE OUTS. RATE

INSIDE AND OUTSIDE STAIRWAYS (SITE H.) INSIDE RATE OUTS. RATE

NO HR 49(8) 16.3% 34(2) 5.9« S2" 74(15) 23.0% 15(2) 13.3%

HR 124(32) 25.8% 18(3) 16.7% »2" 50(17) 30.0% 3(1) 33.0%

N = 173(40) 52(5) N = 124(32) (number of accident cases in parentheses)

A three-point scale of rigidity used categories of

loose, firm or rigid. Of all inside handrails tested,

34 percent were found to be loose, 13 percent firm

and 53 percent rigid (table 16).

The most inclusive range of recommended handrail heights sets limits of 30 to 34 in. In addition, a full length railing at 24 in. for children is also recom- mended. Compared with these standards, site measurements show that 68 percent of the

handrails in the sample are adequate for adults but

not suitable for children, 20 percent are appropriate

for children but are too low for adults, and 12

percent are too high for both adults and children. Therefore, 80 percent are not suited for children and 32 percent are not suited for adults in the site sample.

3.6 STAIRWAY LENGTH: NUMBER OF

RISERS BY STAIRWAY AND FLIGHT

Counts of the number of risers were obtained for all stairways in the site sample and for all but 23

stairways in the mail and phone samples. Table 20

summarizes site visit data.

TABLE 20. NUMBER OF RISERS BY STAIRWAY AND FLIGHT (SITE MEAS.)

NUMBER RISERS PER STAIRWAY RISERS PER FLIGHT

RISERS TOTAL INSIDE OUTSIDE TOTAL INSIDE OUTSIDE

1 30(3)* 10(2) 20(1) 37(3)* 17(2) 20(1)

2 35(2) 4 31(2) 43(2) 12 31(2)

3 14 1 13 22(1) 6(1) 16

4 8(1) 1 7(1) 22(4) 8(2) 14(2)

5 3 3 21(3) 14(1) 7(2)

6 2(1) 1(1) 1 28(2) 17(2) 11

7 3(1) 2(1) 35(5) 32(5) 3 8 ^1^1 2(1) 23(8) 23(8)

9 4(1) 4(1) 6(3) 6(3)

10 2 2 10(1) 10(1)

11 9(3) 8(2) 1(1) 7(1) 7(1)

12 30(l2) 28(l2) 2 16(8) 15(7) 1(1)

13 21(3) 20(3) 2 13(3) 13(3)

14 26(7) 26(7) 9(5) 9(5)

15 11(5) 11(5) 4(2) 4(2)

16 7(1) 5 2(1)

17 3(2) 3(2)

18

19 2 2 1 1

31 1 1 1 1 TOTALS 215(44)* 126(36)* * 89(8) 298(51)* 195(43) "103(8)

MEANS 9.6 12.3 3.6 6.2 7.9 3.1 *excludes 95 thresholds on which there were 3 accident events

**both flights of seven stairways had accident events number of accident events in parentheses

Breakdown of the stairways into their constituent

flights was possible for the site sample only. Instead of being concentrated into a few classes of length, numbers of risers on inside flights spread over many classes with only a nominal peaking.

Outside flights are more concentrated than outside

stairways.

If flights with loose handrails are added to flights

with no handrails, 52 percent of the total flights

in the site sample present a handrail hazard. Correcting for the overlap in the two distributions,

and adding those handrails with more than 2 in. variation in height, 78 percent of the flights in the sample presented one or more hazards.

Table 21 summarizes data from all respondents. If we compare the three major inside stairways, B-1,

1- 2, and 2-3, basement stairways have the lowest mean number of risers and the least variability

(m = 11.8, SD = 1.4), 1-2 stairways have the highest mean number of risers (m = 14.0, SD = 2.0) and

2- 3 stairways fall in the middle (m = 13.1, SD = 2.0).

29
TABLE 21. PERCENTAGE OF STAIRWAYS WITH GIVEN NUMBER OF RISERS (RESPONDENT DATA)*

NUMBER INSIDE STAIRWAYS OUTSIDE STAIRWAYS

RISERS B-1 1-2 2-3 OTH I's 2's THR FRNT BACK I's 2's

N 242 182 39 13 26 10

0.4 0.8 0.8

0.8

14.0

7.7 15.4

15.4

7.7 7.7

21 5 35 6 17 4

2.7 2.2

14.9

14.9

32.4 15.5

5. 1 17. 9

10. 3 28. 2

12. 8 7.1 10.3 3.8

1.6 2.2

1.1 0.5

MEAN 11.8 14.0 13.1 10.7 T

SD 1.4 2.0 2.0 7.6 —

132 60 153 99

26 4 30.0

15 2 31.7

15 2 13.3

8 3 10.0

8 3 8.3

6 1 5 3 3.3

6 1 1.7

*l's = singles; 2's = doubles; THR = thresholds

6.0 4.7 1 3.1 1.9 —

There is no relationship between age of structure and number of risers on B-1. However, as shown in table 22, there is a small but stable relationship

between age of structure and number of risers on

1-2 stairways. Older structures, particularly those

built before 1940, probably had higher ceilings

above the first floor, but basement ceilings were

not correspondingly higher.

TABLE 22. NUMBER OF RISERS BY AGE OF STRUCTURE, FIRST TO SECOND* NUMBER OF RISERS

AGE OF STRUCTURE 8-12 13-16 17-21 N 1965 to present 25.0% 68.8% 6 3% 16 1940-1964 24.9% 74.9 -0- 52 before 1940 19.4% 66.0% 14.6% 103 39.5; P *No relationship for basement to first floor stairways.

Length of each type of stairway is concentrated

into a narrow range: about three-quarters of the

respective stairways fall into the boxed categories

in table 21

Isolated inside single steps are infrequent (26) and

in only two instances are there more than one in a single residence.

Examples of isolated sets of two steps are even more infrequent; eight residences have one such

set and one residence has two sets. In no site visit case did these risers receive any special marking. In combination with flights of more than three risers, there are seven singles and eight doubles that are part

of the whole stairway in each case.

Ninety-one percent of the dwelling units sampled

have the standard two entry arrangement with two

thresholds. Some duplexes have one threshold since they are set up so that each residence uses only one of the available entrances. Only four units have more than two thresholds.

Whereas inside stairways usually adjust to fairly

standardized ceiling heights, outside riser patterns

must adjust to more variable ground levels. There

are many outside single and double risers. These

are found alone or in combination to form outside

stoops or patios. They are also combined with three

or more riser stairways to form a variety of sequences. For example, the outside front riser arrangement for case #325 consists of two risers, a 35 ft walk, followed by a three riser stairway, a concrete porch, two risers and a threshold. As a general rule, outside stairways are shorter than inside stairways. About 60 percent of these have between

three and five risers.

3.7 LIGHTING LEVELS AND GRADIENTS;

LIGHT SWITCH LOCATIONS

Two major aspects of stairway lighting are the

total amount of light available and its distribution

(or gradient) along the pathway. If enough natural

light is not available from windows on or near the

stairway, artificial light will be needed during some

daylight hours. Two other factors that affect adequacy of stairway lighting are glare on treads and contrast of treads and stairway walls, since they alter either the amount of light or its dis- tribution. Respondents were asked to report on

four of these topics: needed light during the day,

windows near stairways, relative lightness of walls and treads, and glare on treads. Two topics were

measured in the field on the site sample of stairways; incident light in foot candles (fc) and

gradient of light along the stairways.

Respondents report that different stairways have

different needs for artificial light during the daylight hours. Nearly half of all B-1 stairways

(45%), 15 percent of 1-2 stairways, and 21 percent

of 2-3 stairways need artificial light during some

daylight hours every day. That some of this difference is accounted for by access to natural sources is seen in their report that 17 percent of B-1 stairways, 24 percent of 1-2 stairways and 21 percent of 2-3 stairways have windows directly

facing the walker on the stairway. The figures for natural sources do not, of course, include other

windows that may be near the stairway, so they

underestimate effective natural sources of light on

inside stairways.

Respondents report that contrast (relative lightness of walls and tread) occurred on 44 percent of all inside stairways: B-1, 43 percent; 1-2, 48 percent;

2-3, 23 percent. Precise field measurement of

30
contrast was not made, but judging from

observations on the site visits, it is probable that

'I respondents overestimated effective brightness

contrast and reported on color differences instead.

Simultaneous glare (a small bright area in the

visual field) was reported on under 5 percent of all

j mside stairways: B-1, 4 percent; 1-2, 4 percent; 2-3,

{ 3 percent. Using a criterion of a 20 fc difference in

I light levels between treads, field measures indicate

glare on at least 17 percent of stairways (another 9 percent have glare between walls and treads). This

criterion is twice as much light as measured on 84

percent of the site sample stairways, and is enough

to cause marked simultaneous glare in the narrow

field of vision that is used on most stairways.^

Considering negative feelings about glare, it is probable that respondents underestimated glare on

their stairways, except for the site sample, who

were observed by the investigators (cf. line 3, table

41).

Field measures of incident light in footcandles were

taken on each stairway in the site sample. Only

tread lighting is reported here (see appendix B

for further details). On a single stairway,

readings taken on top, middle and bottom treads often showed great variability, and were therefore

averaged to obtain a measure of illumination. Of the 112 average light levels, 106, or 95 percent, fell below

the recommended 20 fc for stairways (see Note 1, page 4). The gradient of light, or changes in light

level, can also influence the dynamic task of using

a stairway. Sample gradients both increased and

decreased on the same stairway because levels were

often higher on middle treads than on either top or bottom treads. To account for this condition, an

average gradient was calculated by taking the mean of the two differences without regard to sign. Average

differences without regard to sign. Average

gradient increased with increasing light levels

(r = .98, P< .001), however, variability increased

for middle levels of illumination more than for high and low levels.

If special effort is needed to find or use a light

switch, it is apt not to be used. The consequence is higher incidence of stairway use in the dark. Access differs between stairways from B-1 and 1-2, as shown by the locations of switches or chains in table 23. While the stairways from 1-2 commonly

have double-throw switches at both ends of the

stairway, stairways from B-1 typically have them

at the top only. Data in the table show that there

is a significant difference in distribution of location among the three different stairways, and it also remains significant when only stairways B-1 and

1-2 are compared.

TABLE 23. ACCESS TO LIGHT SWITCHES ON INSIDE STAIRWAYS

LOCATIONS OF SWITCHES OR CHAINS

SWITCH CHAIN AUTO- NO STAIRWAY TOP BOT BOTH TOP BOT BOTH MATIC LIGHT TOT

B-1 32 1 9 2 1 1* 2 7 55

1-2 2 8 29 1 3 1 44 2-3 2 6 2 1 3 13

39 3 1 1 6 11 IT?

(Chi square = 22.56; P -= .0001) •long flat string, top to bottom; light fixture at top.

3.8 LOW HEADROOM AND ORIENTATION EDGES

Sufficiently low headroom offers a bumping

hazard, but even if it is not low enough for bumping, it can cause descending users to avert

their heads and redirect their attention. Orientation edges are wall and ceiling edges that permit the descending user to get a clear view into

a room before reaching the bottom step. The

effects of these two variables are greatest on inside stairways because the openness of outside

stairways precludes their appearance in most cases.

These variables are treated together because both

provide distractions that are potentially hazardous.

If they occur together on the same stairway, a frequent occurrence in standard residential stairway construction, they are doubly hazardous.

Respondents were asked if either of these

conditions appeared on their inside stairways.

Their data appear in table 24.

TABLE 24. NUMBER OF STAIRWAYS WITH LOW HEADROOM, ORIENTATION

EDGE, OR BOTH; B-1, 1-2, and 2-3 (RESPONDENT DATA)

LOW HEAD- ROOM

NO YES

0 R I E N T A T I 0 N E D G E

B-1

NO

1-2 2-3

YES B-1 1-2 2-3 SUBTOTALS

B-1 1-2 2-3

ALL DATA

NO YES TOT

99 98 27 94 173 er 193 171 33 224 173 397

|34 8h 3 122 7r 3 156 15|* 6 45 32 77

'Chapanis, A., W. Garner, and C. Morgan. (1948) Applied

Experimental Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pages 107-108.

ITS 133 106 30 116 180 9 1* 249 186 39 269 205 474 *pairs of numbers in small boxes are significantly different;

P -=.05 (difference between independent proportions)

Stable differences between pairs are shown in the

small boxes in the table. In general, B-1 stairways

present a greater hazard than 1-2 stairways,

although the two do not differ with respect to occurrence of orientation edges. The 2-3 stairways

have significantly fewer orientation edges than

either B-1 or 1-2 stairways, reflecting their use as access to less used spaces (frequently attics), with

doors to shut out the view.

31
Rates of occurrence of orientation edges may be assumed to be about right, judging from the correspondence between field measures and by site sample respondents' estimates. Many more

stairways, however, have distracting headroom not low enough to bump the user (field criterion) than

have headroom that can bump the user (criterion

respondents were asked to use). Rates for low

headroom are therefore underestimated. Rates for occurrence of the two variables on the same

stairway are correspondingly low. Attitudes toward

the two variables are not the same. Low headroom

is perceived immediately as hazardous, but open

stairways that permit views into rooms are perceived as an advantage, even though both

distractions can be hazardous.

Data from site measurements alone are presented

in table 25 and may be compared with table 24. The data have the same general pattern that shows

B-1 more hazardous than 1-2 stairways. However,

small numbers of cases do not allow the larger differences to reach significance.

TABLE 25. NUMBER OF STAIRWAYS WITH LOW HEADROOM, ORIENTATION

EDGE, OR BOTH; B-1, 1-2, and 2-3 (SITE MEASURES)*

0 R I E N T A T I 0 N E D G E

B-1

NO

1-2 2-3

YES B-1 1-2 2-3 SUBTOTALS

B-1 1-2 2-3

ALL DATA

NO YES TOT

14 16 3 3 6 1 17 22 4 33 10 43

12 6 3 23 14 5 35 20 8 21 42 63

N = 26 22 6 26 20 6 52 42 12 54 52 106 *no significant differences among corresponding pairs (by a test of difference between independent proportions)

From the standpoint of distracting structures on

the stairway, the rates for the site measures are

accurate. If the item on low headroom had not asked about bumping, but instead had asked if the

ceiling was low enough to reach while standing on

one of the lower steps, respondents' data would

have more nearly reflected the site measurements,

and would be relevant to the specific hazard of distractions.

For site measurements, the field team determined

the specific tread up from the bottom of each

stairway at which the orientation edge occurred. The measurement of low headroom employed a relaxed standard that included the distracting

effects as well as the bumping potentials. Any

header lower than 78" directly above a tread was

treated as low headroom. Eight cases had

headroom lower that 72" and one case had a headroom of 62". Data in table 26, show on which

step the variables occur alone and together,

counting up from the bottom step.

Low headroom, using the above criterion, and

orientation edges occur together on the same

stairway 40 percent of the time. Standard

residential stairway construction insures that they occur together. Moreover, low headroom and

orientation edges occur together on the same step

nearly 20 percent of the time in standard

construction.

TABLE 26. LOW HEADROOM (LHR) AND ORIENTATION EDGES (OE) AT GIVEN STEP NUMBER (SITE MEASURES ONLY)*

OE AT STEP NUMBER

none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 none 4 2 3 1 10

1 13 10 7 3 33

LHR AT ^ 5 3 5 1 14 STEP 3 1 1 1 4 1 8 NUMBER

^ 1 2 2 1 6

5 1 1 2 21 18 15 7 6 4 1 1 73 cases with neither OE nor LHR =33

N = 106 stairways *10 cases in upper row have orientation edges only; 21 cases

in left column have low headroom only; 21 cases that are underscored have orientation edges and low headroom at the same step; rest have both, but at different steps on stairway.

3.9 STAIRWAY CONFIGURATIONS AS

RELATED TO AGE AND TYPE OF

STRUCTURE

Four general types of stairway configurations were

presented to respondents in the total sample.

Drawings of these types are shown on the mail survey form on page 113. Although they do not exhaust all possible configurations of stairways,

data from the total sample suggest for all practical purposes they are sufficient to examine the

variable of stairway configuration. Only two

respondents modified the survey form by noting

that they had full winding stairways.

Data in table 27 show the distributions of the four

configurations for inside and outside stairways. For each stairway, comparing the percentages in the boxes brings out a simple description: More

B-1 stairways are straight and utilitarian than are 1-2 stairways.

TABLE 27. PERCENTAGE OF CONFIGURATIONS BY STAIRWAYS (RESPONDENT DATA)

INSIDE STAIRWAYS

B-1 1-2 2-3 OUTSIDE

Front STAIRWAYSBack CONFIGURATION N = 248 184 37 132 60 Straight fSOl [33721 [32741 92.6 89.8

1 landing, 90° turn 25.4 33.7 16.2 5.8 8.8

1 landing, 180° turn 19.4 25.5 43.2 0.5 0.7

2 landings, 180° turn 1.6 7.6 8.1 0.5 0.7

(Chi square = 22.49; P -=.0001)

About half of the B-1 stairways are straight (54%)

and the rest (46%) have a turn and landings. But two thirds (67%) of the 1-2 stairways have turns

of some kind. The difference is reliable, as shown

32
the Chi square. The pattern of 2-3 stairways is

like the one for 1-2 stairways.

ata in table 28 show a significant relationship etween age of structure and configuration of tairways. In residences built before 1940, nnore of he B-1 stairways have a turn and a landing than

in residences built after 1940. Recent building

(since 1965) is similar to older building (before

1940) on 1-2 stairways, and both differ from 1940-

1964 housing.

In table 29, the data show a significant relationship

between type of structure and configuration. If the

residence is a duplex or apartment, there are

typically fewer stairways that are straight than in a single family residence. For B-1, the figures are 22

and 28 percent and for 1-2, they are 16 and 21

percent, respectively. Correspondingly, single

family residences have 64 percent of the B-1 and

41 percent of the 1-2 stairways without turns.

-Apartment buildings favor stairways with 180

degree turns, and about the only place that stairways with two turns can be found is in older

duplexes.

Winders make a definite modification of stairway

configuration and they do not appear uniformly in

all types and ages of dwelling units. Nearly one

third of the total sample of stairways had one or more winders (30%). Winders are more likely to appear in buildings built before 1940, in duplexes.

TABLE 28. PERCENTAGE OF CONFIGURATIONS BY AGE OF STRUCTURE (RESP. DATA)

AGE OF STRUCTURE

1965 to present

1940-1964 before 1940

CONFIGURATION: BASEMENT TO FIRST

Straight 90° turn 180° turn 2 turns

1965 to present

1940-1964 before 1940

72.0

74.0

33.3

8.0

17.3

20.0

8.7

|35.2 28. 7|

-0- -0- 2.8

(Chi square = 42. 1; P .0001) CONFIGURATION: FIRST TO SECOND

25

104 108

33.3

50.0

24.3

33.3

31.5

33.3

13.0

. -. - [34.0 31. ll (Chi square = 14.5; P -= .0241)

-0- 5.6

10.7

1554 103

TABLE 29. PERCENTAGE OF CONFIGURATIONS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE (RESP.

TYPE OF STRUCTURE

DATA) CONFIGURATION: BASEMENT TO FIRST

90° turn 180° turn 2 turns Single family 22.7 13 0 0.5 185 Duplex 22.2 37.8 33 3 6.7 45 Apartment 27.8 22.2 50 0 -0- 18

( ;hi square = 43.3; P

-- 0001) 248 CONFIGURATION: FIRST TO SECOND

Single family [4131 34.7 19 8 4.1 121 Duplex 15.9 38.6 27 3 18.2 44 Apartment 21.1 15.8 57 9 5.3 19 (Chi square = 27.3; P -=.0001)

and on stairways from 1-2. Sixty-five percent of stairways in old duplexes have winders, and on 1-2 stairways in old duplexes, 88 percent are found

with winders.

The following percentages summarize the data on

winders: In homes built before 1940, 48 percent;

1940-1964, 19 percent; 1965-1975, 0 percent. In duplexes, 63 percent; apartment buildings, 22

percent; and single family dwellings, 22 percent.

On 1-2 stairways, 40 percent; 2-3 stairways, 35

percent; and B-1 stairways, 22 percent.

33

4. BEHAVIORAL SURVEY OF

STAIRWAY USE

4.1 INTENDED STAIRWAY REPAIRS

Respondents were asked what work was needed to improve the safety of their stairways, to estimate

the cost of these repairs and to indicate who would

pay the bill. Verbatim responses are in appendix D.

Fifty two respondents (21%) suggested 87 different

repairs or replacements on their stairways. Small

repairs account for 22 percent and full replacements for 78 percent of the needs. Altering,

repairing or replacing some part of the stairway

structure accounts for 34 percent of the suggestions, covering or refinishing for 40 percent, handrails for 20 percent, and lighting for 6 percent.

Many of the comments pertaining to structure

point out obvious needs such as to repair broken

concrete, replace missing or broken steps, or even

to build a complete stairway replacement. Some

35
respondents would like to change steep or narrow

stairways and shallow winders, but they are neither able to define precisely what needs to be done nor estimate cost.

Concurring with recommendations for improving

stairway safety (see sec. 4.2), respondents

emphasized the value of handrails. They omitted

any reference to handrail quality and design, and

only one respondent suggested tightening existing

handrails. In contrast, loose handrails were

frequently observed in the site sample homes.

Little reference (5%) was made to the value of outside handrails where the absence is clearly the

greater, and the hazard higher, at least during wet

or icy weather.

Respondents expressed an interest in a wide

variety of tread materials. In general, obvious wear

on treads is the stimulus.

In this section on intended stairway repairs as well

as in all other parts of the study, respondents

exhibit a lack of concern about lighting on their stairways. In view of the low levels of lighting

observed and measured on the site sample, this discrepancy suggests a need for user education.

Respondents' estimates of cost vary widely for what appear to be similar types of repairs. Their

variability may be related to such factors as quality

of materials, lack of information about the exact nature of the job and about current prices, and

whether or not professional labor is utilized. All of these factors may affect the data presented in table 30, but it is clear that low (below $25) or no cost

repairs do not appear with high frequency.

TABLE 30. ESTIMATES OF COSTS FOR REPAIRS (RESPONDENT DATA)

No cost 1 $50-$99 7 Below $25 8 $100-$199 3 $25-$49 12 $200 up 11 Don't know 10

In all cases, owners said they would bear the cost

of repairs and renters referred costs to an owner

or manager. Significantly more renters than owners mentioned needed repairs (34% vs. 17%; P < .005) and they estimated higher costs. The

possibhty suggests itself that renters, in not

accepting any responsiblity for repairs, may

overlook low or no cost repairs which would

reduce hazards. For example, one renter in the site sample (see photo #330, fig. 3) deplored the condition of loose carpeting on her 1-2 stairway

but neither she nor her husband considered

securing it with nails.

One would expect that older residences would

need more repairs and that such repairs might be more extensive. The data are consistent with this expectation. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents in residencies built before 1940 as compared with 17 percent of post-1940 residences

mentioned the need for repairs (P < .05). There was also a difference in median estimated cost of

repairs for these two groups. Median cost for older residences was $75 and for newer residences it was

$37.50.

4.2 RESPONDENTS' RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR IMPROVING STAIRWAY SAFETY

Respondents to the phone and site interviews were

asked for suggestions and recommendations about

ways to improve stairway safety. Ninety eight of the 162 respondents answered this question. In addition, there were 6 unsolicited comments from

the mail sample and 17 responses drawn from

phone interviewees who did not return their short

mail form and whose protocols are used for data only here and in the accident analysis.

The 258 different recommendations provided by

these 121 respondents appear in a verbatim

account in appendix D and are summarized in table 31. They fall into five groups: coverings;

location, configuration and style; handrails; maintenance and repair; and behavior. The

suggesions cover a wide range of topics within

each of the groups.

Handrails are mentioned in 60 comments (23%). Of

these, 58 deal with the general importance of having handrails; only 2 are concerned with design

features and repair. In sharp contrast, the field measurements found one-third of the homes

visited had loose handrails that were potentially

hazardous. These results are in agreement with

the findings in section 4.1.

There are 48 comments (19%) for or against

carpeting as a suitable stairway covering, its installation, maintenance and repair. Respondents

differed in their evaluation of carpeting in general

and in the relative values of different types of carpeting. With the advent of a large variety of new and inexpensive carpeting in recent years, the

difficulty of assessing the characteristics of these

fabrics has increased. It is clear that respondents

do not possess a common or useful set of guidelines for making a choice.

36
(/) •Po

<uo

- - >-

OJ

^-

>» c

"O ro

•1—

<i) ?t SQ *+- •r- fc ro > -»-> QJ

4-* OJ irt +-* OJ CL ro

C/> c i- o

m dj E

> o

>i OJ o

to >> (J ?

4— *0 ? o ^ o

to to -M

4-* (O 0) —

*-> "O

•1— U1 "O

(/> r— OJ > >> "O o >. -C ro

Lk +-> t- o

Q. > O "O >

0) -Q C ro <o c C JZ OJ

•4-> o O XI

to (U

JSZ Wl t/) 1

o +J 1— _o +J

•I- <o

(/> ro CO x: l/> L. U

c

£= C 4J

ro ro 0) J— = n: o 1—

ro LT) 1—

1

LT)

•1- O

JC

<U -r- ^ 1— --^ O. O I—I 13 S- . —

.

-Q -— x;

r->. o) u O -1-3

1/1 -fJ XI

<U Q) -r- +J > O- IT3 O

<U t. Q. C

cu T3

OI OI

<4- OJ

x; o DC QJ !- ro Q. -o QJ

+-> c o S_ QJ c

>> OJ 1— x: S- S- o a. o s- > x: f- to >i cn o CL E

u> ro QJ S3 o to ro X) m 3: s- >,x: H- c > QJ to >) c c LlI >> " -o s- •»-> ro ro S- >> S- rc) o CO rO ^ C Q) ct o _c o ro CL c o o QJ QJ ro 1

to yi >- 1- c X= O. QJ ej U X3 CM +-> </)>>«) <: - x: LU l/l to e I—

1

O

>> lO OJ 3 TO 1— 1- OJ r- s 1— cn c: ro >) -!-> 4- t- a: «— to < c o c ro E

cn il O to S- +-> XI c ro QJ 3 O t-

(/l c s~ <: QJ lO - QJ s_ t-j S- +J i. s- O +J 4/1 r- n3 Ql 1— >4- C c 1— to i- >- QJ ro •o C M-

(U Q. 4-" IB -!-> 00 M- QJ o 1- 1— -o CQ > U ro a. OI +-> lO to o ts -o ro QJ >— o o ro ro !-> 00 1—1

s- 4J >> _1 1 > QJ OO o x: E to 4-> «*

ta LO OJ ro <c to ro x: x: 1— c

u OJ cc +J . . o c c c X X) -r- LlI (_> .— QJ x: LU o o o o o !-> c r- CO 0) 3 to CJl QJ E o in 4-> LU oi- 3 -f- to to to to to t/1 o Q) o o C 3 +J e) XI QJ x: •!- O +j 4-J +-> +-> !-> o "O -o i-J OI •r- O O V- t/> to > O c C c C o z. (O >> >)-o 1. QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ o

tz a. CL OJ o Q. U a (O •.- cu U- E E E ro Q- > QJ 0) > QJ 3 3 o ci. o E E E 4-> to o <U QJ oo QJ QJ 1— > 3 O O o o O O OJ Q :^ 3r 1— CO CC ct =t OO >- <_J <J CJ (_) o 1— s- on

MFnt MA E. s: 00 <X) CM CM -( o LD <^ «d- Cd I—

1

ZD IT) o n CO

<_) 00 to to to «a- CM tD

u

0)a.

r- -r- C ST3

S--

13 C\J

!-> QJ c IT) a. S- 1— T3 TD 3 "i Ll. 3-1- to ro -(-> o o <J Ji^ >> OI O. o

to to rO S_ to QJ LU

+J CL JO _J o QJ to >- —~ o ••- c ^ to 4-J CD) E 1—

>) o to c o OO >i +j ^ +J o ro i. )-> (U « tn to e QJ to TD 4- CO QJ f- ^ +-> ro ro -!-> C z: 4-

(O +J CM (0 OJ e i-H I—

1

S- ro TD ro

to O ^ E T3 to o O >— to QJ to O •!- E >i O) +J >->4-> E O S- trt o ro E ro QJ o 00 E ro O o >1

t/> •!- O +-> 1- O 3 QJ ro 3 •4-> 3 l-J QJ l-> TD !-> s_ <-> (—

i- " trt to O o Q. to O =t

ro OI ^ ro O ro O ro S_ d: n i-H 1— :3 c -•-> C CD JO (-> CL :o ro

4-> i-H Q. S- O trt CM CL c to •M

to o f—

1

•>- TD 4-> to - 3 -•-> tD TD TD C TD O Ll. F— ^ O C +-> QJ 1- 0) TD <0 01 c QJ > ro <£) S_ -1- QJ JZ o TD ro x: ro ro x: O > o S XT ro Q. l/l i- +J Q. Q. to cn O O

s- OJ +-> Q. s_ oo O QJ o O c s- 00 C S- ro C i- > C o s- S- +J c a.

CJ3 E 0) Q) +-> T3 u O ro Q) E QJ O S- -(-> E

t3 C CU ro to tS to JD +-> ro QJ o t—

r

^ ro i- > o QJ OI JO +-> ro > Q.

q: 4-> o o c 0) S- 1— +J

LlJ (O • • d: Irt -l-> q: O. to S. ro <: ro > .c O) •!- X JZ o 4-> O in o> S- CD1 o u x: o +J C tn QJ +-> 4-> O c ro 3 E o -t-J o •1- •• QJ +J TD QJ C -r- O i- rj TD QJ _l

to 4-> 00 S- QJ QJ S- to +-> to QJ QJ TD to OI QJ -o x: +J QJ CTl I— QJ TD >) QJ +-> Ol o c Q. ro -O OI JO t- e ro Q. ro > to O to o S- QJ •!- 3 4- -!-> i. QJ ro O +J oo x: ro 4- O o ro ^ QJ ro i~ QJ O ro 00 x:

1— h- o 1— OO o: Q Q. Q 1— s: o 1— ^ _J _J a. O 1— hLU LU

e: s:

z: e: o ro o CO oo f—

1

I—

1

f—

1

ro 00 •d- ro CO CM 1—1 •—o o I—1 I—

1

t—

1

o

to JC >>

+J -—. )-> -—^ TD to QJ >, C 4- •!-> 3 S_ ro Q) 3 to 4- >> -l-J ro

ro to I/) S- - O TD to

lO l/l •!- TD

+-> to oix: I—

to C O -1-

•1- 00 ro T3 S- U

ds 3 C O

ro 4- S- to>>

to ro S- .— ^ O ro

to QJ to o 4- 3

QJ i. S- QJ 1_

-|J O to +-> ro CL o ro 3 >) OO ro

QJ 1- 5- ro CD)+J

QJ to ro TD •.- 3 C 00

!-> J- s- QJ ro OO QJ TD E *-> -r- TD ito OJ C S- to ro ro

00 -r- OO SQJ

OJ JO

QJ 4- E O

QJ E S- o o

^—

toc

I.3

•-> o

toO)c

T5C

ro

to

0) ^

+* O

(0 o 5 4^

QJE c

S- QJ >> OJ QJ

ro +^ 3

C +J

•1- QJ JO i/> ro O -!-> 4J c to

ro CD-I-' —- ro O O O "O to CD O)

to C QJ JO -M JO QJ c •1- JO to -t-J TD O 01 QJ o" QJ TD ^ >l C o T3 CD >,TD

r-H E C ro O JO C •!- O c ro c

ro lo 3 ro OI > 3 ro s- 00 TD .— >, S- ^ s_ QJ ro S- QJ TD

to ro •!- U o 0-T3 OI to TD TD QJ 3 ro O O QJ 00 E e ro QJ O

ro QJ l-J S- -t-> f— Q. -t-> 3 JO to CL o -l-> -M Z. x:

QJ tsl ro -r- to O O s_ QJ o c t/l (O to

S- •1- ro x: QJ TD O QJ l-> s- Q) i. QJ

-t-J TD TD -(-> -l-> -!-> CD C -l-J to to TD CL -M TD ro iS- QJ 00 •!- -l-> S- <- to •!- ro O XI OJ J=

i. ro E OI 3 ro <o 3 00 S- S- QJ QJ OI E !-> QJ X> S- S- -1- CD QJ x: 00 S- CD

Q. C Qj QJ ro S- OJ T T3 TJ C CD s_ ro QJ QJ QJ ro -!-> TD i- O -t-J QJ O C QJ c 3 o i. -!-> S- CD

QJ +-> C -1- -!-> O ro > O x: •.- £0- o o -l-> £Z s- Q OO >— 3 l/l O C3 O tD 1— 3 O OO _l Q OO rc

CO Lf> 'Si- ro ro CM CM -H t—

1

CM CM t—

1

r-H

37
Respondents reported a high incidence of linoleum

and metal nosing coverings, expecially on basement

stairways. Thirteen comments pointed out that when the metal nosings loosen, shoes catch on

them, with a consequent stairway hazard. Plastic or rubber treads also loosen, posing a safety

problem. Ten respondents recommended these

types of treads because of their nonskid

characteristics, and four criticized them because of

their tendency to become loose.

In 65 (25%) comments on location, configuration

and style, respondents very effectively covered

items often mentioned by experts on stairway

safety, although the emphasis given various items

is not the same. Nine additional comments dealt with the need to keep the stairway structure in good repair.

Little attention (four comments) was given to stairway lighting as an element of importance to

safety.

The small number of comments on behavior as a factor in stairway safety (23) is undoubtedly a result of the emphasis in preceding questions on

physical characteristics of stairways. Comments

were little more than obvious rules.

Respondents are clearly aware of some of the

factors contributing to stairway accidents but their information is, at best, incomplete. Similarly, their knowledge of ways to improve the safety of their stairways is limited and not always accurate. A

short, readable document containing principles

based on research and standards as well as practical

and inexpensive suggestions for improving safety

conditions in the home would be of interest and

value to many people.

using stairways with stocking feet. Each of these items was chosen by at least half of the respondents. The remaining items were chosen in per- centages ranging from 39 percent (failing to use

handrail) to 20 percent (wearing long clothing

which can catch on heels).

TABLE 32. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE CLAIMING GIVEN TYPE OF STAIRWAY HABIT

STAIRWAY HABITS AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS* TOTAL

Slippers, clogs on stairways 31 .6 39 9 14 6 13 9 62 9 Use bare feet on stairways 43.8 38 4 11 0 6 8 58.2 Use stocking feet on stairs 35.8 39 6 14 2 10 4 53 4 Available handrail not used 44.9 37 8 8 2 9 2 39 0 Hurry on stairways 43.2 36 8 14 7 5 3 37 8 Leave objects on stairways 35.9 41 3 13 0 9 8 36 7 Use stairways in the dark 41.2 41 2 11 8 5 9 27 1 Talk on stairways 47.8 35 8 10.4 6 0 26 7 Wear long clothing on stairs 42.9 40 8 12 2 4 1 19 5 N = 71 101 percentages in each row sum to 100%

42 37 (251)

Site visit respondents contributed information

relevant to this set of items. They pointed out that walking on stairways is so routine that they are

scarcely aware of their own habits. Even when

they tried to remember their behavior, they were

not certain about the accuracy of their responses. Respondent #352 looked directly at her basement

stairway and did not notice a collection of pop

bottles on the top and bottom landings as well as a folding lawn chair on the top landing. They were

neatly stacked and had become part of the background. A male respondent said that he never

leaves objects on stairs but that his wife makes a practice of storing things on the landings. His

young daughter reminded him that at that very moment he had a collection of tools and building

supplies on the basement stairs. He dismissed this as something temporary, but he had been building

a garage over a period of several months.

4.3 STAIRWAY HABITS RELATED TO

ACCIDENTS

A group of nine habits selected from the literature on stairway safety was described to all respondents. All are considered possible

contributors to accidents. The purpose of these items was to get self-reports about habits and to see what relationships exist between them and

reported accidents and critical incidents. Respondents were asked to indicate which habits describe their own behavior (see sec. I, page 116).

Table 32 shows that the three most frequently

chosen habits pertain to footwear: wearing slippers

and clogs, using stairways with bare feet, and

Photographs in figure 2 illustrate some typical scenes of objects on stairs. All but #331 contain

temporarily placed items as well as some permanent

items. Perhaps the most remarkable assortment of

objects was found on the stairway of #313. In addition to a large bag of potatoes, hardware,

cleaning equipment and materials and other

miscellaneous items, a full size refrigerator was

stored on the pie shaped landing between two

flights of stairs. The carpeting was completely

loose from the stairway on one of these flights.

Respondent #324 provides another example. In addition to using his step for storage, he places

coathooks on the stair wall.

In addition to the nine habits discussed above,

respondents were asked about the use of a baby

38
walker or stroller in the house (5% answered

"yes"), and whether children regularly play on the

stairv/ays (16% said "yes"). As in other habit

questions, this type of activity was difficult for respondents to recall, particularly if children were

beyond the toddler stage. More precise data

require a monitoring or record keeping procedure.

Table 33 examines the relationship between age

and habits. The largest number of habits was

chosen by the "under 35" age group and the

smallest number by the "over 65" group. Younger

respondents chose all but two of the items more

frequently than did older respondents. These two

exceptions are "wearing slippers or clogs" and

"leave objects on stairs," where there was no

influence of age.

TABLE 33.

NUMBER OF

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE CLAIMING GIVEN

NUMBER OF STAIRWAY HABITS AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENT*

under 35 35-54 55-54

0 9.5 23.8 23.8 42.9 21

1 3.2 51.6 22.6 22.6 31

2 16.2 35.1 32.4 16.2 37

3 22.2 50.0 11.1 16.7 36

4 26.8 43.9 17.1 1.2 41

5 41.9 41.9 9.7 6.5 31

5 47.8 34.8 8.7 8.7 23

7 50.0 43.8 6.3 -0- 16

8 60.0 30.0 10.0 -0- 10

9 100.0 -0- -0- -0- 5 N = 71 101 42 37 251 *percentage5 in each row sum to 100%

Table 34. RESPONDENTS' ASSESSMENT OF THEIR STAIRWAYS

UNSAFE - OJ! 25% 50% 75X lOOX - SAFE

1 N

= T

PERCENT 1.6 ~^—n55—nr

9.3 42.3 46.4

248

lOOX

TABLE 35. HAZARD MEASURE AND PERCENT SAFE MEASURE (PERCENTAGES)

RENTERS OWNERS HAZARDS

FEW MANY MEANS HAZARDSFEW MANY MEANS

PERCENT 100%

^^""^ 0-75%

N

=

.39 .28 .33 100% .66 .29 .51

.61 .72 .67 0-75% .34 .71 .49 23 32 N

= 117 76

Two things may be concluded from table 35: First, renters were more prone to rate stairways less safe than owners, and second, they did not appear to take into take into account the physical hazards

that they had previously selected. Owners were more realistic in their assessments and were more

cognizant of the physical factors on their stairways. Renters agreed closely with owners on

low quality stairways, but they were assessing high

quality stairways on grounds other than physical

factors.

Overall, Percent Safe correlates significantly with

Hazards, r = -0.40; P<.0005, but Percent Safe accounts for only 16 percent of the variation in number of hazards (square of the correlation).

4.5 FREQUENCY OF STAIRWAY USE

4.4 ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY: PERCENT

SAFE

Respondents were asked to rate their stairways for

safety, using a five point scale from unsafe (0%) to

safe (100%). Since respondents are assessing all of

their stairways and criteria for judging are not

specified, the question provides only a rough

measure of their attitudes toward these stairways.

I It is interesting to note that almost half (46%) gave

I their stairways the highest rating, as shown in table 34.

The relationship between the Hazard Measure (see

j sec. 5.1) and respondents' overall assessment of

safety of their stairways (Percent Safe Measure) is shown in table 35. Respondents were divided into

I Renter/Owner and below and above the mean on

' number of hazards (called Few and Many Hazards).

Safety ratings are divided at 100 percent safe and

less than 100 percent safe.

The amount of use made of stairways in the home

depends on how many waking hours are in the day

(week day vs. week end) and how many of those hours are spent in the home (full time at home,

part time away, full time job). Of the total sample,

231 respondents recorded the number of stairway

uses for one day, from waking to retiring. They

also recorded the number of hours they were away

from home. A small group maintained a record for three consecutive days but there were not enough

of these to use in the analysis, therefore, the descriptions below are limited to a single day of use (see sec. K, page 116).

For purposes of the analysis, a sixteen wakinghour day was assumed, and a measure of uses per hour was calculated. Three groups of stairway

users were developed to account for those (a) home all day, (b) away part time, and (c) with full time jobs. In terms of hours at home, these three groups have respectively, 12 to 16, 7 to 12, and

under 7 waking hours during which they can use

stairways. Data from the analysis are shown below

39
in figure 5 where the average number of uses per

time period throughout the day is plotted for each

of the three groups. Differences of the means for each group from the overall mean are plotted in figure 6. The two time periods from 2-6 PM and

from 6-10 PM are plotted as two 2-hour periods

each by the simple expedient of dividing the total

trips in each period in half.

Three things appear in figure 5. First, highest rates of use for all three groups were in the morning,

before 10 AM. Second, the group staying at home

all day tended to drop off in rate from waking to bedtime, but the other two groups increased their rates of use in the late afternoon and early

evening. Third, rate of use for the group at home

all day was higher than either of the other groups

except in the afternoon and evening when all groups had the same rate of use.

The same data are plotted as deviations from the

overall mean rate of use in figure 6. From the

indications of the mean ± 1 SD, it is clear that the three groups had different rates only for the two

time periods from 10 AM to 2 PM; at all other

times their rates were not significantly different. The only thing that differentiates the groups.

AM PM

Figure 5. Mean uses/hour from waking to bedtime

(respondent data).

when they are defined by amount of time at home,]

is the sheer opportunity to use their stairways at a

' given time of day. Total use, of course, is a i function of total hours at home, and this varied for' different groups: housewives, retirees, part-time

workers and full-time workers. However, rate of i use is a function of time of day.

I

(. Two other variables, age and sex, were examined

with respect to rate of stairway use. Although

rates of stairway use are a function of time of day J and the number of hours at home, age is not

significantly related to rate of use (table 36). Male

and female differences in rate of use are also not

significant (data not presented). It might be

expected that age and sex would influence time at home and therefore give differential opportunity

for stairway use. However, frequency of using

stairways was highly variable within age and sex groups. Stairway use is idiosyncratic and depends on many other factors (see sec. 6.6).

I TABLE 36. RATE OF STAIRWAY USE BY AGE (RESPONDENT DATA) AGE GROUPS

20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 up MEANS USES/HR 1.57 2.04 1.27 1.55 1.44 0.79 1.36 1.42 HRS/DAV 10.4 12.6 14.3 12.4 13.4 13.4 13.9 13.6 USES/DAY 16.8 25.8 18.2 19.2 19.3 10.6 18.9 19.3

N = 15 54 43 44 38 28 7 229

-1.5L_i I I > ' t I W-10 12 2 4 6 8 10-B

AM PM

Figure 6. Differences from grand mean in uses/hour

(respondent data).

40
*!i|4.6 HOME ACTIVITIES, HOUSING PREFERENCE AND POTENTIAL SOURCES OF

HOME ACCIDENTS

4.6.1 Home Activities.

It might be expected that people will try to locate

their activities to minimize overall stairway use. Of

course, the structure of the ordinary home and

fixed locations of large appliances may require the

use of stairways. Trash removal and clothes washing are two activities that may require

stairway use because of structure or location. Depending on location or structure, activities such

as getting the mail or using the bathroom may or may not require stairway use.

To explore the relationship between home

activities and stairway use, part of the site interview presented a selected group of common

household activities, and respondents were asked

which activities involved the use of stairways in

their homes. To provide a common locus from

which respondents would start to engage in the

activity, the living room was chosen.

Table 37 shows the responses of the respondents

in the site sample. As expected, washing clothes and trash removal almost universally required

I respondents to use stairways to perform these

activities. Getting mail is equivocal because some

mailboxes are accessible while others are at a distance. For this group of respondents, however,

very few required stairways in order to use their bathrooms. Other activities listed are primarily a function of locating them in covenient places. That

this is done by respondents is evidenced by the

sharp drop in the need to use stairways for these

activities.

TABLE 37. COMMON ACTIVITIES REQUIRING THE USE OF STAIRWAYS

IF YOU ARE IN YOUR LIVING ROOM,

DO YOU NEED TO USE STEPS TO: do the fami ly wash?

take out the trash?

get the mail?

do the ironing?

check on children during the day? vacuum the living room?

use a bathroom?

get linen for this floor? watch TV?

NUMBER

OF YESES* %YES

52 96%

51 94%

28 52%

16 30%

11 20%

6 11%

5 9%

4 7%

2 3% *total N = 54

The relationship between these activities and

number of stairways around the home was

1 examined. Number of stairways connected to a building is a weak predictor of how many activities require stairway use (r = 0.18). Planning and

structure account for the variation.

4.6.2 Housing Preferences.

Respondents in the site sample were asked to give

their housing preferences for seven different types

of dwelling units presented to them. The

preferences expressed by the respondents are presented in table 38.

TABLE 38. HOUSING PREFERENCES (RESPONDENT DATA)

PRESENT HOUSING TYPE: PREFERRED* ABC

A. House all on one floor 1 1 2%

B. House with two floors 3 7 1 11 22%

C. House with three or more floors 7 7 17 31 62%

D. Split level with short stairways 1 1 2%

E. First floor apartment 2 2 4%

F. Walkup apartment building 1 2 3 6%

G. Elevator building, upper floor 1 1 2%

N = 10 19 21 50

% 20% 38% 42%

*no preferences given for the other housing types

Respondents lived in all seven types but preferred

only three: a house all on one floor (A), a house

with one floor plus a basement (B), and a house

with three or more floors (C).

Forty-eight percent (24) of the respondents

preferred their present residential type. At least 42

percent preferred buildings with fewer stairways

than their present homes. Residents living in first floor apartments and elevator buildings had fewer

stairways than their preferred choice. The

remaining 10 percent preferred housing with more

stairways than their present homes. This

distribution represents a significant shift of the sample toward fewer stairways (KolmogorovSmirnoff cumulative frequency test, P < .001). Although 20 percent preferred housing with no

stairways, the other 80 percent still preferred

housing with at least one stairway. Many

respondents described the value of separating

activities by stairways.

4.6.3 Potential Sources of Home Accidents.

Stairways, doors, tubs and/or showers, and

windows have been studied and reported in the

literature on home accidents. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Age

Adjusted Frequency-Severity Index for 1973, the ranking in order of decreasing hazard is: stairs, doors, windows, tubs/showers.*

Respondents' opinions on the potential for accidents presented by these four parts of the home were studied. A standard pair comparison

sConsumer Product Hazard Index. (1973) Washington, DC. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

41
technique used the six possible pairs of four items

The respondents ranked them as follows: Stairs and tubs/showers equally hazardous, followed by

doors and then windows. The actual scale values

are: Stairways, +2.62; tubs/showers, +2.58; doors,

-2.06; and windows, -3.14.

Although respondents in the site sample were

consistent in their judgments, their rankings are

clearly different from those made on the basis of actual accidents by the Consumer Product Safety

Commission. This difference between subjective

hazard and actual hazard deserves further study.

42
5. MEASUREMENT AND

ANALYSIS OF

STAIRWAY HAZARD

5.1 A MEASURE OF STAIRWAY HAZARD

Nineteen statements designed to get respondents' assessments of specific physical aspects of each

inside and outside stairway were given to the total sample (see Survey Forms, sees. E and F, pp. 114-115).

Several criteria were used in their selection: (1) they represent a broad coverage of stairway

features that have some relationship to stairway

safety, (2) they can be answered by respondents

with reasonable accuracy without recourse to actual measurements, (3) they deal with the same

general topics covered by measurements taken in homes of the site sample, and (4) they are easy to understand and no technical knowledge is required

for answering.

From the original 19 items, nine were selected for use as an overall measure of stairway hazards. Only data on major inside stairways were used in

43
the measure. The criterion for selection was a simple measure of consistency: The largest

percentage difference among responses from the

mail, phone and site samples was tested. If no

significant difference could be shown at the .05

level, the item was considered stable and was

retained for the Hazard Measure. The nine items

are listed in table 39, with responses for each major

stairway. The remaining 10 items are listed in table

41. They are treated as individual measures in the appropriate places in the physical inventory. Table 40

reports the number of hazards.

TABLE 39. PERCENTAGE CF STAIRWAYS WITH THE STATED HAZARD

in the sample were not free of hazards entirely anc the hazards were not particularly unusual.

INSIDE OUTSIDE

B-1 1-2 2-3 FRONT BACK

HAZARD MEASURES N = 249 186 39 138 66

Full handrail missing* 28 18 47 64 61 Handrails loose/broken 3 3 ** 2 3 Open handrail supports 6 2 4 11 Light needed during day 45 15 21 Low headroom 22 8 16 Orientation edge 47 43 24 Stairway has winders 22 40 35 3 6 Steps curved from wear 11 5 8 5 18 Steps loose or broken 5 1 3 12 14 Reversed for inclusion '-'*Less than h of 1?

The response format provided only an indication of presence or absence of the stairway characteristics. Since there is no adequate way to weight relative importance in this study, they were given a weight

of 1 and summed across stairways for each

dwelling unit. This procedure forces a relationship

between the magnitude of the Hazard Measure and

the number of stairways (r = .41, P < .0001, table

42). Adding stairways increases the probability of more hazards. (Note: The handrail measure was

reversed to show absence).

The Hazard Measure is distributed at the bottom

of table 40. If all nine hazards had been

checked for all stairways in all sample dwelling

units, the average of this maximum would have

been 17.32 hazards per unit (number of stairways

per unit is distributed in table 71, page 55). The

TABLE 40. NUMBER OF HAZARDS (HAZARD MEASURE) BY AGE OF STRUCTURE

AGE OF STRUCTURE 0 1 2 3 NUMBER OF

4 5 HAZARDS

6 7 8 9 10 11 TOT

26 1965 to present 3 6 9 7 1 1940-1964 18 31 30 17 6 2 1 105 Before 1940 9 15 16 17 23 12 8 2 4 2 1 1 110

N

= 241 TOTAL FREOUENCY* 32 54 58 45 31 14 9 2 4 2 1 1 253

*12 respondents d id not know the age of their structures

maximum in the sample, however, is only 11 hazards per unit, and the mean of this highly

skewed distribution is only 2.52 hazards (SD = 1.98). There were 32 units with no stairway

hazards at all (13%). This indicates that stairways

Roughly half of the hazards are related to age of

structure, which is also related to number of stairways (see table 42). A partial correlation

between hazards and age, computed by holding

number of stairways constant, gives a gross check on the validity of the Hazard Measure. The r of 0.42 i^ reduced to a partial r of 0.32, but it is still significant (P<. 0001).

Using number of hazards as a measure of stairway

quality, two general questions relating to quality

may now be considered:

How is stairway use affected by type of structure and quality of stairways?

How does stairway use vary among different people using stairways of different quality?

In terms of analysis of variance, these questions

might be approached by assessing the following

2-way interactions: Use: Type X Quality and

Use: Subpopulation X Quality, adding control

variables for precision as needed. Field data

in this study, however, are not adequately balanced' and do not permit an orthogonal statistical design.

Another strategy is used to address the questions

without directly assessing the interactions. Frequency of use, m.easured by number of uses per hour, is used as the dependent variable in two

multiple regressions, one using physical factors an

the other using personal factors as predictors.

The multiple regression approach permits the contribution of each variable alone and all variables combined to be assessed. Each correlation may be

tested for statistical significance. In addition, the square of the multiple correlation is the equivalent

of a percentage of the variance accounted for by

the several independent variables, and therefore

may be viewed as a way of assessing the practical

significance.

TABLE 41. PERCENTAGE OF STAIRWAYS WITH OTHER PHYSICAL MEASURES

OTHER MEASURES

INSIDE STAIRWAYS

B-1 1-2 _2-3 OUTSIDE STAIRWAYS

FRONT BACK

N*= 197 52 143 43 27 12 Covering worn or torn Irregular riser heights Lighting causes glare

Wall lighter than steps Window/mirror faces path Mud easily tracked in Stairway is slippery

Rug or furniture near Open risers Outside protected

3 17 4 23

5 48 8 26 11 25

1 15 19 * 8

50 17 57 19 30 8

10 42 15 51 15 33 22 50 19 7 ** **

8 44 5 21 ** 17

28 52 21 44 4 33

25 8 21 5 ** 8

in left column of pair

11 68 11 46

46 88 53

41 24 50

and N in right column is for site sample- **Less than >5 of 1%

44

i

1
5.2 STAIRWAY USE RELATED TO

PHYSICAL VARIABLES

For the analysis of Use/Type/Quality, building type

is supplemented by age of structure to help account

for period styles. The correlation matrix used for

analysis is in table 42. Number of stairways

is used to help account for variations within

building type that might reduce the relationship. It

is a suppressor variable and when it is partialled

out, building type correlates with uses, r = .17, which is significantly different from the zero

correlation in table 42. As a control variable that

correlates with many of the other variables, Percent Safe is added to the analysis.

limitations of the data in this study, only a very

small amount of stairway use is related to the broad classes of physical variables that were

measured.

5.3 STAIRWAY USE RELATED TO

PERSONAL VARIABLES

For the Use/Subpopulation/Quality analysis, both

demographic and behavioral variables are used to relate personal measures to stairway use. The

first-order correlations are presented in the matrix

shown in table 43.

TABLE 42. CORRELATION MATRIX FOR USE X TYPE X QUALITY ANALYSIS

TABLE 43. CORRELATION MATRIX FOR USE X SUBPOP X QUALITY ANALYSIS

N = 194 NUMBER OF STAIRWAYS

PERCENT SAFE HAZARD MEASURE

DWELLING UNIT TYPE

DWELLING UNIT AGE

USES/ HOUR NUMBER OF STAIRWAYS

PERCENT HAZARD TYPE OF SAFE MEASURE UNIT

.35** -.17* -.17*

.15* .41** -.40**

-0- .38** -.13 .11

.10 .35** -.20** .42** -.08

.01 or better

Number of stairways is related to use more than any of the other variables. Activities requiring the use of stairways are influential for

the sample. As a raw variable, building type does

not relate to use, but when number of stairways is partialled out, it becomes significantly related. Not

so for age of structure. It remains the same even when number of stairways is partialled out.

There is an artifactual relationship between

number of hazards and number of stairways. The

method of summing hazards insures that having more stairways will increase the probability of having more hazards. Percent Safe is also related to number of hazards, and simply reflects the fact that the judgment shows cognizance of the connection between hazards and safety.

When all five variables are used in the multiple

regression with use as the dependent variable, they

all contribute significantly. The overall result is not

large, however, and number of stairways accounts

for about 13 percent of stairway use alone. Building type adds about 2 percent and all physical

variables together account for only about 17

percent of stairway use. It means that within the

N =204

SEX OF RESPONDENT

USES/ HOUR SEX AGE NUMBER OF

HABITS PERCENT SAFE

-.11 AGE OF RESPONDENT -.29** .18* NUMBER OF HABITS .31** -.09 -.44** PERCENT SAFE -.18* -.01 .36** -.26** HAZARD MEASURE .16* -.01 -.19** .23** -.40**

*P <= .05; **P -= 01 or better

Number of hazards and Percent Safe are retained

as control variables because they are response

variables that relate to respondents' ages and

behavior. Sex is treated as a continuous variable for convenience of handling (point-biserial r is equivalent to the Pearson Product-Moment r with a dichotomous variable). The assumption of continuity is based on the fact that many variables not measured in the study are related to sex and

sex is a shorthand way of lumping them together.

In any case, sex is related only to age, a function of sampling covered earlier, and is consistent with the conclusion that users do not differ in rates of use whether they are home all day or away on a full- time job. In fact, age enhances the relationship

between sex and use, which goes from -0.11 to -0.06 with age partialled out. Other relationships in table 43 may be taken at face value.

The multiple correlation is quite low, 0.37, with

habits accounting for 10 percent of stairway use, age adding only 1 percent and all five variables together totalling 14 percent. Again the result is statistically but not practically significant. It means

that within the limitations of the data in this study,

only a very small amount of stairway use is related

to the broad demographic and behavioral variables

that were measured.

45

3. ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS

AND CRITICAL INCIDENTS

6.1 NOTE ON ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

There were 170 accident events collected in this

fitudy. This large number encouraged a more

detailed analysis than would be permitted with

fewer data. These events are treated as a dependent variable together with specific physical

and behavioral variables as independent variables. The independent variables, however, are

themselves survey response variables and their category frequencies will vary. In general, such

data connot be submitted to the ideal multivariate

statistical design where independent variables are made independent of one another. Nevertheless,

the independent variables can be assessed one at a time to determine their effect on accident rates. This strategy is applied to the accident analysis.

Since many of the variables of interest are nonmetric, i.e., they cannot be manipulated

arithmetically with ease, and the data are frequencies in the several categories of the variable.

47
a Chi square test is used here as in earlier sections.

If the accident events occur with frequencies that match the frequencies in the categories of a variable on interest, the Chi square test will not be

able to distinguish significantly between the two

distributions. The conclusion that the variable of

interest is not systematically related to the

different frequencies of accidents cannot be

rejected, since it is possible that merely an

increased rate of occurrence will result in the

increased accident events.

When two variables acting alone, such as age or sex

of user, do not influence the rate of accident

events, they may still have an effect when they act together. They are said to interact and their combined effect is called an interaction. It is possible, therefore, to construct what amounts to a new variable from the categories of both original variables and test this new variable (the inter- action) again by Chi square. Unless both of the two interacting variables are ineffective alone, the

test is not justified. Even when they are both

ineffective, some prudence must be used in drawing strong conclusions based on the statistical inferences. But in specific instances, a true but

complex interaction effect may be possible to infer.

Knowledge of ages or sexes of users alone, for example, is not sufficient to predict differences in frequencies of accident events. Knowledge of

specific age and sex combinations, however, will permit a conclusion based on the statistical significance of their interaction. Male children have

significantly more accident events than female

children and young adult females have significantly more accident events than young adult males (Chi square = 5.604, df = 1, P <.05; from recombined

data in table 44).

The 170 accident events include repeats by

individuals or repeats on stairways or within

dwelling units. Although repeats are included in the total sample of accident persons and accident

stairways in tables 44 and 45, they are not used in any analysis. There is no adequate way to weight

these repeats by the same person or on the same

stairway or in the same unit by either recency or

severity, and straight counting is not satisfactory

for purposes of analysis.

Table 44 classifies accident persons by sex, respondent-nonrespondent, severity of event, recency and age group. See section 2.8 for definitions that relate to accident events. Numbers

on the left of the slash count nonrepeated events

TABLE 44. ACCIDENT PERSONS BY SEX, FEMALE RESPONDENTS

RESP/NRESP, SEVERITY, RECENCY AND AGE GROUP

AGE SERIOUS MODERATE CRIT INC. GROUP R Y 0 R Y 0 R Y 0 TOTAL

0-4

5-9 10-14

15-19 20-34 9/1 2/5 5/4 7/Q // y 18/19

35-44 1/ 1/ 1/ 3/1 2/4 8/5 45-54 1/ 1/ 2/2 2/4 6/6 56-64 1/ /I 1/1 65 up 1/ 1/ 1/ y, TOTAL 6/ 1/ 3/2 1/ 11/7 11/17 37/31

FEMALE NONRESPONDENTS

AfiE SERIOUS MODERATE CRIT. INC. GROUP R Y 0 R Y 0 R Y 0 TOTAL

0-4 1/ 1/ 2/ 5-9 2/ 1/ 1/ 4/ 10-14 2/1 1/ /2 3/3 15-19 2/ 1/ 1/ 4/ 20-34 1/ 1 / •1/ 35-44 1/ 2/ 3/ 45-54 1/ 1/ 1/ /I 3/1 55-64 1/ 1/ 1/ 3/ 65 up 1/ 1/ TOTAL 2/ 6/ 2/ V 6/1 2/ 3/ 3/3 27/4

MALE RESPONDENTS

AGE SERIOUS MODERATE CRIT. INC. GROUP R Y 0 R Y 0 R Y 0 TOTAL

0-4

5-9 10-14

15-19 20-34

35-44 45-54 4/6 4/6

55-64 3/7 3/7

65 up 2/ 2/4 4/4 TOTAL 2/ 9/17 11/17

MALE NONRESPONDENTS

AGE SERIOUS MODERATE CRIT. INC. GROUP R Y 0 R Y 0 R Y 0 TOTAL

0-4 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 3/ 1/ 1/ 9/ 5-9 2/ 2/ 10-14 1/1 1/ 2/1 15-19 20-34 1/1 1/3 3/2 5/6 35-44 1/ 1/ 2/ 45-54

55-64

65 up tDtAL 3/ 1/ 1/1 4/4 1/ b/ 4/2 1/ 20/7

and numbers on the right of the slash count

all repeats. Therefore, there is a maximum of 95

different accident persons on which there are 59

repeat events. Not shown in the table are 8 nonrespondent accident persons whose age is not known by the respondents, and 8 repeats of these nonrespondents, for the total of 170.

Table 45 classifies accident stairways by type,

severity and location together with all repeats.

Therefore, there is a total of 98 accident stairways on which analysis is possible, including three from

the incomplete phone interview group. Accident

units total 71 from the sample of 253 dwelling

units in the study. The number of cases varies from one analysis to another in the tables that follow either because only a subset is used, such aj B-1 and 1-2 or because respondents did not give

complete information, such as frequency of use or

age. The three cases from the incomplete phone

interviews are missing from some analyses. Only

respondents' data could be used in the multiple

regression cases below and some data are missing

for them.

48
TABLE 45. ACCIDENT STAIRWAYS. SINGLES AND DOUBLES: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE

ACCIDENT STAIRWAYS K tr tH 1

i

SAME STAIRWAYS

INSIDE S H CR TOT '^^^"^ s M CR TOT

B-1 5* 7 26 38 B-l 5 29 34 1-2 9 5 24 38 1-2 1 6 24 31 2-3 1 1 2 2-3 2 2 4 SINGLES 2 2 SINGLES

5UBT0T 14

- 13 80 SUBTOT 1 13 55 69 OUTSIDE 5 M CR TOT OUTSIDE S M CR TOT FRONT 3 3* 1 7 FRONT 1 1 BACK 2 1* 3 BACK 1 1 SINGLES 1 1 2 SINGLES

DOUBLES 3 3 DOUBLES 1 1 SUBTOT 6 8 1 15 SUBTOT 2 1 3 THRESH. 3 3 THRESH. TOTALS 20 21 57 98 TOTALS 1 15 56 72 ALL EVENTS 21 36 113 170

TABLE 46. COMPARISONS OF ACCIDENT EVENTS BY AGE GROUPS (RESPONDEin DATA)

All data are percentages; number of cases at top of column.

Tables on the left enumerate the accident stairways, singles

and doubles by the defining severity of the event: S = Serious;

M = Moderate; CR = Critical Incident.

Tables on the right enumerate additional events occurring on the same stairways, singles and doubles listed on the left.

'Indicates one accident in each case included from the data given by the phone interview subgroup not returning the short mail form; they are used in a limited number of analyses.

Respondents were asked to suggest the cause of the accident, as nearly as they could, and to note whether physical or personal factors or both were

involved. When respondents in the phone and

personal interviews attributed causes to such

things as "inattention" or "carelessness," more

specific causes were sought by probing.

Table 1, summarizing the general results of all variables in the study and their effects on accident

events, is on page 10.

6.2 COMPARISON WITH NEISS

ACCIDENT DATA

AGE GROUP

NEISS SAMPLE

S + H MILK.*

S + M + Sr + Mr*

S + M + CR

+ Sr + Mr*

TOTAL SAMPLE** PERSONS

N = 21,718 44 57 117 154 «

0-4 16 13 10 9 7 12 5-9 6 8 7 5 4 6 10-14 7 11 9 6 6 5 15-19 9 9 7 3 2 4 20-34 27 24 37 35 34 28

35-44 10 11 9 11 12 14 45-54 10 9 7 15 17 14 55-64 7 6 7 7 10 8

65 up 8 9 7 9 8 9

P values*** M .01 *S = Serious; M = Moderate; CR = Critical incident; subscript means repeats. **Hinus 8 cases of nonrespondents for which no age was given and 8 repeats. ***P values are from Kolmogorov- Smirnoff test against the NEISS distribution.

analysis is made according to accident persons, as

table 46 shows (cf. cols. 1 and 3; cf. cols. 1 and 6). On the addition of critical incidents, however, the

distribution differs from the NEISS distribution (columns 1 and 4). Despite this difference, all critical incidents are included in the analyses

because they point to critical factors.

The second comparison is between accident events on inside and outside steps and stairways in this study and data from NEISS in-depth interviews of

a special sample of cases. The comparison is shown

in Table 47.

TABLE 47. COMPARISON OF INSIDE AND OUTSIDE STAIRWAY SAMPLES

NEISS IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW SAMPLE MILWAUKEE SAMPLE

INSIDE INSIDE S + M S + M + CR "Inside," hall , kitchen. attic, back inside 130 27 80 Cellar, basement 38 168 OUTSIDE OUTSIDE

"Outside," yard, porch. carport 31 14 15 Front (outside, steps, door) 39 Back, back door, side door 1989

Data collected in this study allow several comparisons to be made with data from the National Electronic Information Surveillance

System (NEISS) of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission. The first analysis compares serious and moderate accident events, broken down by age group, with the NEISS distribution. This is shown

in table 46, columns 1 and 2.

There is no significant difference between the

distribution of accidents by age collected in this study and the larger sample collected by NEISS.

This result supports the use of data in this study

for the analysis of relationships between physical

and behavioral variables and accident events.

The result holds when repeats of serious and

moderate events are used and also when the

The number of accident events on inside steps is twice as large as those on outside steps in both sets of data and they are not significantly different (Chi square = 1.52; P >.2211). When critical incidents are added, the number of cases on inside steps in this study is five times those on outside steps (Chi square = 18.96; P<.0001). This result is probably

due to the greater number of handrails on inside stairways and is discussed in section 6.4.5.

The third comparison is illustrated in figure 7. Plotted there are data showing how male

children have more accident events than female

children and female adults have more than male

adults (Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, P < .01; 64

females and 31 males). The sum of these data is not different from the NEISS curve for both sexes shown in the plot.

49
CUM

I I I I I I I

1 I I I

I I I I 0-4 20-34 65 up

AGE GROUPS

Figure 7. Age and. sex differences.

6.2.1 Comparisons with Other Survey

Variables

In keeping with the general strategy outlined

above, comparisons between two different

distributions are made for each of the several

physical and behavioral variables measured in this study.

Cases of accident events (defined by persons,

stairways, or dwelling units) are compared with

nonaccident cases for each category of the variables

in question. The "nonaccident" cases include the remaining people, stairways, or dwelling units on which the variables were measured, and for which

no accident was reported by the respondents in this study.

Chi squares were calculated for each of the comparisons. From the probability of finding the

differences by chance, an inference was made about

the effectiveness of the variable for producing the

accident events independent of the unequal

occurrences of cases in the variable itself.

In the tables in sections 6.3-6.6, accident cases are

indicated by "A" and nonaccident cases by "NA." In some cases where there is insufficient room, "Chi

square" is abbreviated "CS."

6.3 ACCIDENTS AND DEMOGRAPHIC

VARIABLES

The seven demographic variables used in the

selection of the sample for this study were

examined in relation to accident events. Three of

these: Renter/Owner Status, Value of Home, and

Monthly Rent show no trends and are not includecr

in the data presented in table 48. A Chi square

analysis of each of the four remaining variables is presented there, however, and briefly discussed. Although none of these variables is significantly related to accident events alone, there are some

trends and a significant interaction between age and sex is reported in section 6.1.

TABLE 48. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS OF FOUR DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

BUILD. TYPE AGE OF STRUCT. AGE OF RESP. SEX OF RESP. A NA A NA A NA A NA SFD 54 133 70-75 2 8 20-24 3 13 FEM. 37 148 DUP 11 35 65-69 4 12 25-34 15 40 MALE 11 57 APT 5 14 50-64 19 60 35-44 8 47 48 205

71 182 40-49 8 17 45-54 10 36

B. 40 36 74 55-64 4 38

71 182 65 up 8 29 48 203

CS = .54 CS = 2.36 CS = 6.33 CS = .52

P = .7654 P = .6724 P = .2780 P

= 4803

I m

m

There are more accident units among single family

dwellings than in other types of housing. Older

units also show more accident events than occur in newer units. Age of structure is related to stairway

quality and there are more older SFDs than either

of the other two types. The trends may both be

accounted for by stairway quality, as measured by

hazards.

Females and people in the 25-34 age group show more

accident events than other sex and age groups. Thes(

two groups show higher rates in the NEISS data also Young adult females are exposed to residential stairways more systematically than any other group

except the children they care for, and this exposure

affects accident rates.

The value of demographic variables for stratification of the original sample cannot be based on their

specific effects on stairway use, stairway accidents,! itco or stairway hazards. Rather, they enter into interactions with one another and their use insuresi

a balanced representation in the sample.

6.4 ACCIDENTS AND PHYSICAL

VARIABLES: FEATURES

Comparisons are made between nonaccident and

accident cases for a dozen measured physical

variables and three derived physical variables. For most variables, tables are given right along with

the text. In some cases, however, where important

accident data appear in another section of this report, a reference to those data is given.

Fori

iier

lliet 50
tl

Where accident cases are given in those tables, they

' are presented in parentheses. Since the total

! number of cases is also given, the nonaccident cases

are found by subtracting the numbers in

I parentheses from the corresponding totals.

6.4.1 Number of Risers

As a deterrent to increased use, which increases

exposure to stairways, number of risers is weak.

Correlations between number of risers and

use/hour is 0.04 for B-1 and 0.10 for 1-2 (P>.6171

and 0.2110, respectively; N = 161). As shown in table 21, the ranges for numbers of risers on these stairways is not large. For a given ceiling height,

adding risers makes a gentler slope and taking

them away makes the slope steeper. If an

' argument is made that having more risers will deter use, an equal case can be made for an

I increase in stairway use resulting from the gentler

' slope caused by using more risers, other things being

1 1 equal.

' Rate of accidents, which is in fact related to

j exposure, is not related to number of risers. Chi

square and correlation were used to examine the

relationship. The distribution of stairways was

f)| divided into three broad classes: One riser, 2-9

ifj! risers, and 10 or more risers. These three classes

5 1 roughly correspond to singles, flights, and full

' stairways.

M

{9i For stairways in the site sample, the Chi square

lj was .46 (P>.9245), and the correlation between

] frequencies of accident stairways and the raw

j frequency of occurrence of different numbers of

inij risers was 0.90 (P<.001), If sheer frequency of occurrence of different numbers of risers can

1, J account for so much variation in accident events, it

1 is clear that number of risers is not related to

ise' accidents, at least within the range of 1-31 risers in the sample.

I For economy, only a Chi square test was run on

I data from the total sample of stairways, still using

' the three classes. Its small value (1.75, P >.4294),

. again supports the conclusion that number of risers

lj does not affect accident rate.

1 6.4.2 Riser-Tread Dimensions

I Within the range of riser-tread dimensions

I compiled from site measurements, accident rates

'

I are not related significantly to the recomi mendations for dimensions as determined by

l! the three broad classes defined in section 3.4.

The tests were made on the classes composed by

using mean riser and tread dimensions rather than

by using recommended dimensions. Although the relationship is not statistically stable, there is a trend in the data (note accident rates) that a larger

sample and more refined measurements might

prove stable. Data from the site sample for flights are shown in table 49.

TABLE 49. RECOMMENDED COMBINATIONS OF RISER- TREAD DIMENSIONS

TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION

Least Inter Most TOT

A 17 14 9 40

NA 40 56 37 133

57 70 46 173 ACC. RATE: 29.8 20.0 19.6 23. 1 Chi squ are = 2.30; P = . 3108

The three classes in the table correspond roughly

to slope, with the least recommended stairways

being the steeper and the most recommended

stairways being the shallower. Those having

intermediate recommendations fall between the two in slope. None of the riser-tread combinations

found in the sample are unusual in any way. They

are all reasonably within the recommended limits for riser and tread dimensions.

6.4.3 Stairway Lighting

Stairway lighting was measured in homes of the

site sample, taking into account both light levels and light gradients as discussed in section 3.7. Raw measures and relevant accident data are displayed in appendix B. Only accident events that were not explicitly attributed to another feature or personal habit are indicated there. Even though some light levels were very low, and both levels and gradients range over three orders of magnitude, all levels were sufficient to discriminate

major stairway features after a short period inside the residence.'

Dividing the highly skewed distribution of light levels into two halves at the median also divides the accident events in half. The same procedure

applied to gradients also divides accident events in half. However, the interaction between level and

gradient shows a trend. Summary data are not presented in this report.

At higher light levels, above 8 footcandles, light level is sufficiently high that gradient has little effect. Accident rate here is about 11 percent

(2/19). At lower light levels, below 2 footcandles,

'An object in 0.1 fc of light may be discriminated immediately by an average eye adapted to30 fc: op. cit., footnote 7.

51
accident rate is doubled, to about 22 percent

(15/68). In the intermediate range of light levels, between 2 and 8 footcandles, the range of gradients

is very wide and stairways with lower gradients

have no accident events. Accident rate for this group is about 32 percent (8/25), or about three times the rate for high light levels.

These differences do not reach significance

primarily because of the small number of cases (Chi square = 2.88; P> .20). The values used to cut

the distribution were quite arbitrary, but the data suggest that it would be fruitful to study both

lighting levels and the gradients of lighting in the dynamic field situation with more precise

measurement techniques.

6.4.4 Tread Materials, Friction and Sequences

A large number of different tread materials was

encountered on stairways in the site sample, but

they fell into a few general categories as indicated

for the total sample in section 3.3. In addition, the

friction measures in the field showed great

variability and stairways had varying numbers of

different materials in sequence from top to bottom.

Finally, the tread materials show different wear.

All these factors play roles in the determination of relationships between tread materials and accident

rates.

Data in table 50, show that there is no

relationship between four broad classes of materials and accident rates. More to the point,

however, is a comparison of accident rates with the corresponding average friction measures for these

classes of materials displayed to the right in table

50. Over the range of friction measures taken, the

TABLE 50. ANALYSIS OF TREAD MATERIALS AND FRICTION

DATA FROM TOTAL SAMPLE SITE SAMPLE

TREAD MATERIAL A NA TOT ACC. RATE FRICTION

Linoleum/Tile 17 122 139 .12 .53 Carpeting 24 120 144 .17 .78 Paint/Varnish 24 99 123 .20 .66 Rubber Treads 15 41 56 .27 .81 80 382 462

Chi square = 5.79; P = .1755

lower the measure, the lower the accident rate. Clearly this result cannot be explained by relative "slipperiness" of the materials in the sample. In figure 4, the distributions of friction measures on

accident stairways show graphically their close relationship to mere frequency of occurrence of all measures, and not to some pattern of materials or value of friction.

Friction of ordinary materials is not a primary

factor that determines accident rates. It may

operate in the extremes where it is low enough to be like ice or high enough that the shoe is caught,

but not in ordinary circumstances.

Supporting this conclusion are data in table 51,

which show that varied materials in sequence

bear no relationship to accidents. Reference to the

list in appendix F shows that many sequences vary widely in friction, sometimes from step to step. It

is doubtful that improvement of the measuring

techniques to reduce variability of field data would

show a relationship except for extreme measures

of friction.

TABLE 51. ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS IN SEQUENCE

DATA FROM SITE SAMPLE

NUMBER OF MATERIALS IN SEQUENCE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOT

A 6 2 4 8 5 4 4 0 1 34 NA 6 7 15 10 18 5 8 5 3 78

Chi

12 9 19 18 23 10 12 square = 8.15; P = .42565 4 112

6.4,5 Handrails

Presence of handrails on stairways is the single

most frequent recommendation by respondents,

and the lack of handrails in the sample is notably

high. Experts concur, adding many specifications for shape, height, spacing of supports and

strength.

I With the indicated awareness of the need for | handrails, their absence might be assumed to be

related to increased accident rates. It is not. This

| result is displayed in table 52. The left display

| shows no relationship. Data there are taken from

j inside stairways only in the total sample. In the

display to the right are data on flights from the I smaller site sample. Differences are not significant

but the trend is opposite from the expected.

TABLE 52. ANALYSIS OF PRESENCE OF HANDRAILS (INSIDE ONLY) DATA FROM TOTAL SAMPLE DATA FROM SITE SAMPLE HANDRAILS: A NA TOT HANDRAILS: A NA TOT Absent 23 100 123 Absent 8 41 49 Present 52 289 351 Present 32 92 124

85 389 474 40 133 173 CS = .07; P = .8035 CS = 1.74; P = .1906

The data in table 53 help clarify the importance of

handrails against data above which fly in the face

of prudence and practice. Serious and moderate

accidents are separated from critical incidents in the analysis. The relationship is significant.

Dividing column frequencies by their column

marginals shows that critical incidents on stairway

52
TABLE 53. ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS AND CRITICAL INCIDENTS DATA FROM TOTAL SAMPLE

S.M* CR** TOT HANDRAILS: Absent

Present

CS = 4.78;

13 10 23

19 43 62

32 53 85 0320

•serious or moderate

**crit1cal

inci dent

with handrails occur four times as often as they occur on stairways without handrails. Accidents on

the other hand show very little difference in either

case. These data suggest that when handrails are present they reduce severity, or, if they had been

present, they would have reduced severity.

With regard to irregularity in handrail height (see table 17) the trend favors regular heights, but the

difference is not significant (Chi square = 1.38; P>.25).

6.5 ACCIDENTS AND PHYSICAL

VARIABLES: CONFIGURATION

6.5.1 Configuration, Location, Riser-Tread

Irregularity and Winders.

This complex set of variables is discussed together

because none of the four bear consistently

TABLE 54. TABLE 55. CONFIGURATION,

TOTAL SAMPLE

A NA TOT

CONFIGURATION

B-1

A NA

X LOCATION, TOT SAM

1-2 TOT A NA TOT STRAIGHT 36 158 194 STR 25 108 133 11 50 61 LAND + 90° 14 111 125 90° 5 58 63 9 53 62 LAND + 180° 21 74 95 180° 8 40 48 13 34 47

2 LANDINGS 5 13 18 2 L 0 4 4 5 9 14

CS = 6.28; P 76 356 0990

432

Chi square

248

= 14.07;

184

P = .0394

TABLE 56. TABLE 57. LOCATION, TOTAL SAMPLE IRREGULARITY, TOTAL SAMPLE

A NA TOT A NA TOT

8-1 38 211 249 NO IRR 60 351 411

1-2 38 148 186 IRR 18 45 63 2-3 2 37 39

78 396 474

78 396 474 CS = 8.73; P

= .0055

CS = 5.31; P

= 0760

TABLE 58. TABLE 59. LOCATION, SITE SAMPLE IRREGULARITY. SITE SAMPLE

A NA TOT A NA TOT

B-1 15 69 84 UNDER 1" 26 98 124 1-2 23 44 67 ABOUT 1" 6 19 25 2-3 2 20 22 OVER 1" 8 16 24 40 133 173 40 133 173 CS = 8 .37; P

= 0160 CS = 1.75; P

= .4294

TABLE 60. TABLE 61. LOCATION X B-1

NI I ANA

CS

IRREGULARITY, TOTAL

1-2 2-3

NI I NI I TOT

33 5 25 13 2 0 ^8

181 30 139 9 31 6 396 214 35 164 22 33 6 474

= 33.49; P

= .0000

LOCATION X IRREGULARITY, SITE

B-1 1-2 2-3 _NI I Ni I NI I JLQT

A 12 3 47 22

12 11 2

33 11 18 59 25 13.48:

45 22 20 2

P = .0194

significant relationships to accident events, but

interactions of three of them with location are

related to accidents on stairways. There are 12

tables and one summary table (tables 54 - 66)

displaying the several analyses. They will be

referred to by title only. Data are all for inside stairways only.

Which floors a stairway is between—its location

has no influence on accident rates in the total sample. This variable, however, is related to accident rates when flight is the unit of analysis, as shown by the site sample data. Flights from 1-2 are the offenders, as are 1-2 stairways in the trend

for the total sample.

6.5.2 Configuration

Configuration for the total sample also has no

influence on accident rates, but the trend shows

stairways with 180-degree turns to have more

accidents than other configurations. When

configuration interacts with location, 1-2 stairways

with 180-degree turns are more highly associated

with accidents than are the others. There is a small increase above chance for straight stairways from

B-1.

TABLE 62. TABLE 63 WINDERS: TOTAL SAMPLE WINDERS: SITE SAMPLE

A NA TOT A NA TOT Absent 51 283 334 Absent 20 50 70 Present 27 113 140 Present 13 23 36 78 396 474

CS = 1.18; P = . 2807

33 73 106 CS = .79; P = .3918

LOCATION X WINDERS, TOTAL

B-1 1-2 2-3

NW W NW W NW W TOT

LOCATION X WINDERS,

B-1 1-2 2-3 NW W NW W NW W

SITE

TOT

A 31 7 18 20 2 0 78 A 13 1 8 10 1 0 33 NA 165 46 96 52 22 15 396 NA 25 13 15 9 8 3 73

CS

196 53 114 72 24 15

= 11.22; P = .0465 474

CS

38 14 23 19 9 3

= 11.15; P = .0489

106

TABLE 66. SUMMARY TABLE OF P-VALUES FROM TESTS

LOCATION CONFIGURATION BOTH

TABLES 56, 54, 55: .0760 .0990 .0394 LOCATION IRREGULARITY BOTH

TABLES 56, 57, 60: .0760 .0055 .0001 TABLES 58, 59, 61: .0160 .4294 .0194 LOCATION WINDERS BOTH TABLES 56. 62, 64: .0760 .2807 .0465 TABLES 58, 63, 65: .0160 .3918 .0489

53
6.5.3 Riser-Tread Irregularity

Riser-tread irregularity does show a relationship to increased accident rates in the total sample, but the more precise data taken on the site sample does

not bear out the relationship. When irregularity

interacts with location, relationships are significant for both site and total samples, and again, the 1-2 stairways are offenders by showing more accident events than expected by chance.

6.5.4 Winders

Winders alone consistently show no relationships

to accidents in either set of data. Again, when

winders interact with location, the interaction shows the relationship for both samples. Winders more frequently appear on 1-2 stairways in the

total sample, and it is the 1-2 stairway that shows

a greater accident rate in the Winder X Location

interaction.

With a larger sample, configuration, location, and

irregularity—but not winders—might exhibit

significant relationships to accident rates since they

are so close with the present sample sizes. However, it is clear that winders contribute

directly to increased turns and to tread irregularities. Moreover, they appear more often on 1-2 stairways. The data do not permit more

complete analysis and individually each analysis

makes a small point. Together, they marshal

considerable force of argument to implicate winders

as contributors to hazards that may lead to increased stairway accidents.

6.5.5 Low Headroom and Orientation Edge

These two variables are discussed together because

each can distract the user while using the stairway

and increase the probability of accidents. Therefore, stairways having one or the other

should also have more accident events than

stairways without either one. When both are

present, the stairways should show an even higher

incidence of accident events.

Data in tables 67 and 69 relate low headroom

and orientation edge to accident events. Number

of accident events is in parenthesis in both

table 67 and 69. Table 67 displays the data from the total sample using the respondents'

criteria for both variables. The comparison test, in table 68, shows no significant relationship, but together the variables have twice the effect than

either alone.

JABLE 67. TABLE 68, RESPONDENT CRITERIA FROM TOTAL SAMPLE

LHR

ON: NONE

ORIENTATION EDGE ON COMPARISON TEST

NONE B-1 1-2 2-3 TOT A NA 94(12) 73(16) 6(1) 173(29) NEITHER 33 191 B-1 4(5) 22(7) 56(12) LHR ONLY 6 39 1-2 8(1) 7(2) 15( 3) OE ONLY 29 144 2-3 3 3(1) 6( 1) TOGETHER 10 22 TOT 45(6) 116(19) 80(18) 9(2) NEITHER: TOTAL STAIRWAYS:

250(45) 224(33) 474 78) CS = 5.91

P = .1211

78 396

TABLE 69. INVESTIGATOR CRITERIA FROM SITE MEASUREMENTS

ORIENTATION EDGE AT STEP NUMBER:

LHR

AT: NONE

NONE 12 3 4 5 6 7 TOT

4(2) 2(1) 3(2) 1(1) 10( 6)

1 13(2) 10(4) 7 3(2) 33(8)

2 5 3(2) 5(3) 1(1) 14(6)

3 1(1) 1 1 4(2) 1(1) 8(4)

4 1 2(2) 2 1(1) 6(3)

5 ,?!}! 1 2(1) TOT 21(4) 18(8)15(4) 7(4) 6(4) 4(2) 1(1) 1(1) 73(28) NEITHER: 33 6) TOTAL STAIRWAYS: 106(34)

The detailed data in table 69, using investigator

criteria, are taken from the site measurements.

Low headroom uses a standard that includes the

distracting effect of headers not low enough to bump peoples' heads. In addition, the step at which

each variable appears was determined. The test of these data is in table 70.

TABLE 70. COMPARISON TEST

NO OE LHR

OR LHR ONLY

OE ONLY BOTHSAME STEP TOT

6 4 6 7 11 34

27 17 4 14 10 72

33 21 10 21 21 106

Chi square = 12.15; P = 0170

There are clear effects of the variables, and when

they occur at the same step, hazard is increased. The same standard for low headroom used with

respondents probably would increase the occurrence alone and in conjunction with

orientation edge.

Headroom low enough to bump heads is immediately recognized as hazardous by most

people. But the distracting effects of low headroom i that is not low enough to bump heads, and of orientation edges that permit a full view of a room

before the user reaches the bottom are not

universally seen as hazardous. In fact open views

into a room are often considered an advantage by

many people. That under certain conditions they can become hazardous is important to know.

54
6.5.6 Number of Stairways

I Increasing the number of stairways in a dwelling

unit will increase the probability of stairway

accidents (using percentages based on data in table

j 71). This finding makes intuitive sense, but it

I doesn't explain why stairways are hazardous. More

j specific information is needed and is partly supplied

by the measure of quality below.

I

6.5.7 Hazard Measure

I Increased accident rates are associated with

I increased stairway hazards. Percentages calculated from data in table 72 show this increase. The

measure is a sum of hazards, so a higher score means lower stairway quality. Since it is a combination of nine potential hazards it is a more

stable measure than some of the single variables measured in this study. It also has an imposed

! metric property that makes it useful in analysis. It

1; is a relatively quick way to assess residential

I stairways, particularly since it shows a close relationship to accident rate.

TABLE 71. TABLE 72. TABLE 73. NUMBER STAIRWAYS HAZARD MEASURE PERCENT SAFE

A NA A NA A NA

0 1 1 0-1 16 70 0% 0 1

1 13 49 2-3 28 75 25% 2 2

2 41 106 4-5 17 28 sot 11 12

3 11 26 6-7 6 5 75% 36 69

4 5 0 8-9 3 3 100% 22 93 71 182 10-11 1 1 71 177

71 182 CS = 16.57 CS = 11 68 CS = 12.20

P = .0043 P = .0221 P = 0167

The addition of more hazards to the scale, along

with some modification of existing hazards, would

improve it. Using the forced choice mode would

I make responses less equivocal. Its discrimination

' would be improved by applying the scale to

individual stairways instead of all stairways in a unit.

1 6.5.8 Percent Safe

I This measure is quite subjective and combines not

I only a collection of feelings about stairways and

their specific features, but also all stairways that belong to the unit. In this respect it is deficient.

l| The measure was shown to interact with Renter/

Owner Status to produce an inconsistency of

I response for renters (table 35). If a choice has to be made, the Hazard Measure is the one recommended.

Percent Safe, however, does not measure the same

thing as the Hazard Measure, as their inter- correlation of 0.40 demonstrates. Applied to individual stairways of the dwelling unit, its directness and simplicity recommend it More

important it is related to accident rate and is probably a function of whether the respondent has

had (or has seen) accidents on home stairways.

6.6 ACCIDENTS AND BEHAVIORAL

VARIABLES

6.6.1 Number of Uses Per Hour

Special activities, style of life, and sheer

opportunity all influence hourly rate of use of home stairways. One of the two respondents with

highest hourly rates held a meeting at home the day the record was taken and used stairways 90

times in 13 hours. The other, whose special

activity was redecorating an old house, counted 82

uses during 14 hours at home (see table 74).

Less rare in the sample were several respondents

who regularly use their stairways 35-45 times each

day (2.2 to 2.8 uses per hour). Such a person would make between 5000 and 6000 round trips on home stairways per year on weekdays alone (table

75).

Being at home all day or having more than the average number of stairways are both associated with somewhat higher hourly rates of stairway

use. The average, however, is about 1.4 uses per hour for respondents in the total sample. The

range is from 0.125 uses per hour to 6.545 uses per hour, a factor of 52.

Although there is a fairly wide range in the hourly

rate of use, there is only a faint trend relating

accident rates to uses per hour, and the

relationship is not significant. Table 74 presents

the data on uses per hour.

When age is controlled, as shown by the

classification in table 77, the trend is significant.

The interaction selects out only the lower age groups having high uses rates as those with more

accident events than expected by chance.

6.6.2 Number of Uses Per Day

Daily rate may be treated as a total frequency of use because diurnal periods do not really represent

continuous rates in the same way as hourly rates

can. They are separated by periods of sleep.

55
TABLE 74 TABLE 75. TABLE 76. USES/HOUR USES/DAY TOTAL HABITS

A NA A NA A NA 0-.9 17 89 0-8 5 33 0-1 5 49

1-1.9 14 60 8-15 15 72 2-3 10 63 2-2.9 9 23 16-23 15 31 4-5 21 51 3-3.9 2 9 24-31 2 26 6-7 5 34

4 up 3 5 32 up 8 24 8-9 4 11 45 186 45 186 45 208

CS = 4.01 CS = 9.62 CS = 11.36

P = .4144 P = .0482 P

= .0343

TABLE 77. AGE OF RESPONDENT X USES PER HOUR

0-45 years 45 and up

0 -1.9 2 up 0-1.9 2 up TOT

A 13 13 18 1 45

NA 66 20 81 17 184

79 33 99 18 229

Chi square = 11.06; P = .0111

Counting all uses made during the day, regardless

of how many hours the person is at home, shows a significant increase in accident events as daily use

increases; see table 75. Together with results on

hourly rate, these results suggest that accident events for a particular individual take place after some particular number of uses is made, rather than

how rapidly those uses are made, assuming normal

conditions.

This interpretation fits with the behavioral

information about use in general. Hourly rate is a function of time of day and not a function of whether the person is home all day or away at work full time.

Accident data were not collected in this study in a way that allowed them to be distributed by time of

day. Therefore, use is made of some data found in Esmay (1961). lo Replotting those data by two-hour

periods shows the accident events to be distributed almost equally throughout the day. There are two

nominal peaks, one in mid-morning and the other

in the late afternoon. These periods are when

hourly rate is next to highest and next to lowest,

respectively (fig. 5, page 40). When hourly rates are ebbing and at their lowest, from 2 PM to 8 PM,

Esmay's data show a high incidence of accident

events. Hourly rates alone are not clearly related

to accident rates.

6.6.3 Stairway Habits

The way people use and treat home stairways

bears a relationship to accident rates on those

stairways. Many things determine stairway habits,

including how often stairways must be used,

frequent demands of special situations, features of

specific stairways, the person's accident history and

generalized attitudes toward stairways. A sample of

'°Esmay, Merle L. (1961) Home stairway safety research

results. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State

University, 16 pp. mimeo.

imprudent habits considered to contribute to accidents were given to respondents in the total sample; see section I, page 116. They were ranked by

the total number of habits they checked. The scale was then used to relate total habits to accident events.

Data on total habits for the accident and nonaccident groups are shown in table 76. There is a significant relationship; people with fewer habits in general have fewer accident events than people with more habits. The average number of habits for the

total sample is 3.6, with an average of 3.4 for the nonaccident group and 4.3 for the accident group.

Respondents under 45 years have both higher

rates of use and a larger number of careless habits. There were not enough data to run a meaningful

multivariate analysis with three variables, but

looking at the Habit X Use interaction strongly

suggests that people in the younger age groups

have more accidents as a result of greater demands

for stairway use combined with careless stairway

habits (see table 77).

6.7 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BY MULTIPLE

REGRESSIONS

Parallel to the approach used in chapter 4, the

analysis here addresses a pair of questions: How

are accident rates affected by (1) physical variables i and (2) personal variables? Regression analysis is used here to get a rough idea of the total effect of several variables on accident rates, used

independently, with the limited data on hand.

There is a degree of control, but it is not as complete as in analysis of variance.

Because age and type of structure are not as important as configuration in assessing accident

rates, the set of physical variables substitutes configuration (B-1 and 1-2) in the analysis. They

were metricized by imposing a ranking based on

the number of turns in the stairway, since each

turn involves a change in gait (sec. C, page 113).

Data in table 78 show the multiple regressions for physical and personal variables separately, listed in order of their importance. The Multiple R^ term may

be treated as a percentage of variability accounted for, and is used to measure importance.

Only respondents who themselves had accidents on their own stairways were used in this analysis.

56
The Multiple R' for each set of variables (24.5 percent

for physical variables and 23.0 percent for personal

variables) shows that their aggregate ability of these

sets of variables to predict accidents is substantial. The aggregate pattern is important, not the individual

factors.

TABLE 78. SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS

Dependent Variable: Accident Events

Physical Variables: Multiple R N

= 32 Percent Safe . 370 Configuration, 1-2 .432 Configuration, B-1 .458 Number of stairways .476 Uses per hour .488 Hazard Measure .495

Personal Variables: Multiple R N

= 41 Uses per hour .297 Sex of respondent .401 Age of respondent .441 Number of habits .469 Hazard Measure .477 Percent Safe .480

The results imply that with more data and a precise analysis patterns would emerge that emphasize the crucial factors. These patterns must

include physical hazards, habits and use factors,

and exigencies and special conditions surrounding

the accident events. The interpretation is that no one factor is crucial until the pattern of factors thrusts it into a causal relationship with an

accident event. The conclusion is to lower the

probability of that event by eliminating as many

factors as feasible, both physical and behavioral, to break up the patterns or at least reduce their probability of occurrence.

57
J1(1[a\((
APPENDIX A

DATA FROM SITE VISIT

SAMPLE OF 54 HOUSEHOLDS

IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY

Overall order of the table is by stairways: B-1,

1-2, 2-3, Front outside. Back outside. Miscellaneous.

Housing type is shown within each stairway type:

apartments first, duplexes second, and single family

houses third. Read across on epair of facing pages

for physical measurement data on a given stairway.

Each stairway is numbered by a SUBJECT CODE,

which is a serial listing of the 54 households.

COLUMN HEADINGS AND CODING

cnc; concrete(c)

CDt: smooth carpet(s)

pil- pile carpet —nap(n)

mat; rubber/fiber mat(m)

vtr: vinyl plastic treads

rtr: rubber treads(r)

wd: bare wood(w)

pnt:

var: varnished wood(v)

lin: linoleum alone(l)

1/m: linoleum/metal nosings(l)

t/m; tile/metal nosings(t)

throw rug(o); ceramic tile(ct); hemp mat(h);

cork(ck); asphalt (a)

NUMBER Total number of materials, includ- MATER ing bottom and top landings, for

all flights between given floor

levels.

SUBJECT

CODES

NUMBER

RISERS

STEP

DIMENSIONS

RS TR NO IR

HANDRAIL

MEASURES

R/L R/F/L mi IR

ORIENT/

HEADRM

com = common stairway; pri = private stairway; all unlabelled inside stairways

are private.

Total number of risers from

bottom to top landings of

of specific flight; lower flight

first; op = open risers.

Average RiSer, TRead, and

NOsing measures in inches; IRregularity: 0 = under 1 in, 1 = 1 in, 2 = over 1 in.

Right/Left side; Rigid/Firm/ Loose; Average HeighT in inches; IRregularity; 0 = under 2 in, 1 = 2 in or more. Number of risers from bot- tom landing to tread where

either orientation edge or lowest headroom occurs.

WEAR

NUM

SEV

FRICTION

(LOCATION)

1 = No visible wear; 2 = Some wear;

3 = Moderate wear; 4 = Much wear;

5 = Extreme wear, usually with damage.

Number of occurences and severity of accidents and critical in- cidents on specific flight indicated.

Coefficients of friction (x 100)

measured on landing or tread in- dicated, using the NBS-Brungraber

Portable Slip-Resistance Tester." Measures are given for the major

material abbreviated under MAJOR

MATER(IAL). Measures for minor

materials are underlined and a 1- or 2-letter abbreviation is used. In cases of two flights, friction on TOP

LANDING of a lower flight applies

to BOT(TOM) LANDING of the upper flight.

MAJOR Material on largest number

MATTER of trends. Letter in ( ): materials different from major

material under FRICTION.

I'Brungraber, Robert J. A New Portable Tester for the Evaluation of the Slip-Resistance of Walking Surfaces. Nat. Bur. of Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 953, 51 pages (July 1977).

59
BASEMENT TO FIRST FLOOR

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

APARTMENTS

301 com 56

8

8

Ih

Ih

0

0

L

L

L

L 30

30

0

0

1/m 5 4

"50? mm 8

5 88

10

lOh Ih

0

0

L

L

FL 28

29

0

0

1/m

1/m

6 3

U

6

8

7h

10k

lOh

IkJ- 2 Ih0

0

R

R

R

R

32

32

0

0 1/1 1/m 7 2

304 pri* com

/7op

7op

717h

7h

7h

111 11^

Uh

Uh

1

Ih

Ih

Ih

u

0

0

L R+L

R+L

K R/R

R/R

30/30

30/30

u 0/0

0/0

2/1 Pll

Dil

oC

1

J.

1

1

J.

305 com 6

7 7h

7h

11

11

Ih

Ih

0

0

R

R

RR 28

28

0

0

V ti c

\j 1

J,

306 com 7op

7op

8

8

12

12

2

2

11 R+L

R+L

R/R

R/R

34/33

33/33

0/0

0/1

\/ ^ V L.I c 1

J.

DUPLEXES

307 com 6

6 7h

7h

10

10

Ih

J- '2

0

1 nonenone

1 /_ J./ - 1 / m

cD

/I

308 10

3

78

10

9h

1^-2

1^-2

10Lnone

R 29 0 -/I/ J- Qo

c0

309 10

A

*r 8

7 lOh 1^2

1 I' 0nu

R

DK

R

Dr\ 30

jKj

1

11 -/2 1/m 7 1

310 none

311 6

5

98

9

10?-2 Ih

I- '2

0

0 none

none

-/I Tin 5 5

312 8 7h lOh 1^2 0 none pnt 3 5 313 com 11 8h 9 1 L L 28 0 2/2 lin 3 5 314 com 7

5 8

7 9h

lOh

1^2 Ih

0

0 none

none

lin

l/m

QO

At

315 8

4 7h

7 9h

lOh

Ih

Ih

0

0 none

none

0/ o rtr

1/m

oy 0

316 com 8

5

77h

10

10

Ih 20

L

L

LL 30

24

0

1 3/ O 1/m 7

b

317 com 13 8 lOh 1 L R 35 0 -/4 1/m 6 1 318 com 10

2 8

7h

lOh

lOh

10

Rnone

F 31 0

1/m 6 1

319 com 8

5 8

7 Sh

10

Ih

Ih

20RnoneF 27 1 1/2 1/m 6 3

320 com 11

2 7h

7h

lOi^ lOh

Ih

Ih

2

2 none none

t/m 9 3

*Short split-level flight inside apartment.

60
BASEMENT TO FIRST FLOOR

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

APARTMENTS

OO CO 79 DO

73 71 68 72 61 62 74 67

301

62 65 68 65

Do oy fin DU DD D J Dy fin DU fiA Of

302

48 58 50 52 49 62 51 59 52 58 56 54v 303

OH Do OD D i Dt fi9 D^ Dt Do fi9 D£ oy fii D

1

55 40 60 65 57 54 60 57 41 40 46 47 65 58 56 74v 304

54 56 59 47

65 68 62 65

68 77 69 74t 72 89 78 86 72 89 79 85 305

71 86 83 81 73 84 78 79

94 [09 104 99c 76 98 84 86 76 79 99 86 96 108 102 94c 306

86 78 89 84 75 96 79 84

DUPLEXES

59 79 63 68

76 73 54 58 64 69 61 54

307

0/ 7Q/y DC) 7/1 79 7

1

/ I oy by 7c;

/ 0 79 71/

1

7Q Q9 / O OL 79 810 308

60 71 65 67 59 68 70 59

82 72 83 790 69 64 59 65 309

84 89 87 88s none 310

62 64 64 66c 76 71 71 70 76 78 78 80 76 74 74 70 78 76 78 77n 311

77 79 72 76 76 76 67 72 63 64 72 69v

79 69 57 63 69 65 63 68 312

92 98 95 94c 48 59 52 51 50 56 49 58 52 54 49 57 313

73 84 79 81n 57 71 58 61 65 314

53 54 58 62 56 58 62 65 74 52 59 63

o/ lb O /I OH /y 7Q/o CQDo /D 7 1 fifi fiQ DD oy 68 68w 315

M

78 84 89 81c

78

58

77

63

79

59

78

61 316

59 61 58 64

76 83 78 810 58 64 59 61 59 72 62 66 89 99 91 94s 317

61 60 55 60

65 66 66 67 83 84 82 83s

318

L 86 84 92 94c 47 56 61 62 61 61 58 56 319

92 94 96 88 86 92 96 91

103 102 92 98in 62 67 64 58 89 97 102 92m 320

65 74 59 61 100 98 92 97m

61
BASEMENT TO FIRST FLOOR

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

SINGLE FAMILY

321 7

5 7h

7h

8

11

Ih

Ih

20 Rnone

R 33 1 -/2 var

t/m

7

54

322 8

4

8

8

103^ llh

Ih

Ih

0

0 none

none

-/2 1/m 7 2

323 8

4 87 llh

11

Ih

1

20LL

R

R

32

32

11 -/I 1/m 5 1

324 8

4

8

7

lOig

11^2

2

2

0

0

L

L

R

R 3835

0

0 1/1 l/m 6 3

325 8

4 8

7h

10

10

1%

1%

0

0 none

none

-/I T/m 7 1

326 9

3 88

9

9

1

1 0

0

R

R

LL 40

40

11 -/2 1/m 6 1

327 7

5 88 10

1

1

2

2 none

none

-/2 pnt

1/m 7 43 328 212

• 2 7h

9^52 Ih

1^2 0

0 noneL L 34 0

lin var

7 3

329 11 9 2 0% 2 L L 35 0 11- 1/m 5 3 330 Hop 8 10 2 0 L F 37 1 -/I pnt 4 3 331 12

2 7h7 12%

13

1%

2 0

0

LnoneR 31 0

3/3 cpt

t/m

8 1

332 12 8 10 1% 0 none 1/1 1/m 3 2 333 13 8 11 Ih 2 L R 28 1 3/1 1/m 4 1 334 11

rear* 3 8

9

9 Ih1

20 none none

1/1 pnt

1/m

4

4

3

5 335 75 8

7%

10

2

1^-2 1^5 0

0 none none

1/m 5 2

336 56

8

7 11

10

0

1

2

2 noneR R 33 1

Ui 1 u 1/m

5 4

337 12 8% 9 li; 0 R R 1

J. 717 1 LI *+ 9L. 10

3 7h

7h lOh

Ih

Ih

20

LnoneR 34 0 2/3 1/m 9 1

339 12 8 10 1 0 R L 32 0 3/3 rtr 4 3 340 12 8 9h 1 0 L L 28 0 t/m 4 1 341 14 7h 10 11-2 0 R L 30 0 -/I t/m 3 2 342 lOop

2 7h

7h

9

10

0

Ih

0

0

Lnone

R 26 1 2/- pnt

1/m 7 3

343 12 8 lOis Ih 2 R F 31 1 rtr 5 2 *Flight down to connected garage.

62
BASEMENT TO FIRST FLOOR

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

SINGLE -AMILY

45

54

61

62

48

60

59

56

55

61

58

60

46

58

59

55

60

59

49

54

61

62

52

60

321

49 63 55 58 89 102 92 94m 322

50 54 61 52 58 49 61 57 98 100 99 98m

110 105 92 120 79

80

85

95

91

82

71

71

65

85

75

77

78

87

59

92

323

L 57

59

63

57

58

57

65

58

61

61

54

55

55

51

56

57

324

L 85 81 82 78s 65 62 66 59 56 60 66 61 79 68 69 72s 325

L 66

59

62

54

59

56

61

55

58 61 61 65

68 68 67 69o 326

56 55 5R •J J fi7 791 c 68

50

73

62

by

54

/I

61

7 A 55

by

58

/I

62

7 O 51

b9

59

oo

Oil. 51

7 A /4

62

7n/9

58

O O "7 327

69 58 74 67 58 74 63 65 71 69 74 66 68 82 68 74

^ c 89 90 55 68 58 64 60 64 55 56 59 iJO fid fit; 329

82 77 76 77c 65 55 63 60 66 45 58 55 52 65 60 591 330

52 50 54 52ct 79 77 82

"7 O 78 88 85 OA80 83 60 60 /O 62 63 64 63 61o 331

50 60 57 46 49 52 48 58 52 54

62 65 oo fi^i O J 71/ J. 79 fiR DO 1 H /

1

7Q 77

85 83 85 83s 55 58 58 57 52 53 63 64 52 54 60 54 333

5M 65 68 68 591 72 64 78 74 53 41 70 48 60 67 63 50 48 52 50 421 334

75 82 65 78c 62 67 66 53w 68 74 62 68 68 72 72 60s rear

67 69 64 65c 65 62 59 59 62 61 60 69 335

63 61 fin 5QJ y 71/ ± fid fin UU

L,M 78

58

86

67

79

59

84

66

82

60

81

61

86

59

"7 O 78

64

O A 84

62

79

64

81

58

82

59

o o ^ 336

M 64 61 62 61c 60 55 53 52 63 60 59 62 69 70 75 62 72 76 70 741 337

54 68 61 63

57 67 58 60 55 72 56 59

338

L 66 78 90 86c 90 82 80 75 86 83 83 89 84 86 84 81 55 64 64 58v 339

55 68 59 64 59 68 64 60 64 61 63 63 340

62 50 56 56 58 59 59 69 52 64 36 56 75 62 63 68 341

L 71 76 74 75n 48 56 49 54 50 48 55 53 49 56 54 51 65 99 68 83o 342

53 62 55 60 61 64 62 58

92 98 96 96 96 94 95 96 94 93 95 98 56 65 59 611 343

63
BASEMENT TO FIRST FLOOR

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

SINGLE FAMILY, cont.

344 12 8 10 Ih 0 L R 34 0 1/2 cpt 4 1 345 12 8 9h Ih 0 L L 33 0 2/1 1/m 3 1 346 12 8 lOh 2 0 L F 32 1 3/1 rtr 5 1 347 none

JHO 1 7 oo lOh 1 1 R/L L/L 31/32 1/0 1/2 1/m 5 1 349 12 8 10 Ih 0 L L 33 0 2/2 1/m 4 2 350 12 8 10 Ih 0 R R 36 0 3/1 t/m 4 1 351 rear

7*4**

7h

7h

9h

9h

1

1

1

1

LRLL 34

32

0

0

5/4 cpt

t/m

2

3

1

1 352 12 Ih 10 Ih 0 R/L R/R 33/33 0/0 2/2 var 6 3 353 12 8 lOh Ih 0 R R 32 0 2/1 cpt 3 1 354 11 8J-2 lOh 1-2 u

1L

DK

1I wd 1 FIRST TO SECOND FLOOR

APARTMENTS

301 com 8

7 8

8

lOh

lOh

Ih

Ih

0

0

R

R

FF 30

30

0

0

1/m 5 3

302 8

9 8

7 10

9h

Ih

Ih

0

0

R

R

L

L 3028

0

0

t/m 7 3

303 com 7

7 8

8

lOh

lOh

Ih 0

u

R

D /I K/L

R 32

R/R 32/38

0

U/ I cpt 9 2

304 none

305 com 77 Ih

Ih

Uh

Uh

Ih 0n

L

1 LR 28

28

0

nu cpt 1 1

306 com 7

7 Ih

Ih

1212

2

0c

1

1 R/L

R /I R/R 29/34

R/R 32/34

0/0

u/ u vtr 5 1

DUPLEXES

307 com 8

8

Ih

Ih

lOh

lOh

Ih 0

U

R

K

L

L 3232

0

0

11- 1/m 5

308 31*** Bh 9h ih U none pnt 2 3 309 10

6 8

8

lOh

lOh

Ih

Ih

10

RR

RR 30

30

1

1 1/- 1/m 5 2

310 12

5 7h

7h

lOh

11

Ih

1

0

0

R

R

R

R 3030

1

1 cpt 3 3

311 none

312 19 7h lOh Ih 1 L L 41 1 pnt 5 4

*Split-level to livinq room. **Spl it-level to patio. ***Flight direct to 3rd floor.

64
BASEMENT TO FIRST FLOOR

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

SINGLE I-AMILY, cont.

M, 2L 84 83 86 83 83 84 83 82 78 76 75 75 344

72 77 73 65 87 84 86 87 77 76 76 66 78 72 79 73 82 72 71 76 345

M 67 68 66 67o 58 51 54 53 55 52 50 51 53 57 60 58 68 64 64 64n 346 none 347

58 62 59 60t 62 74 65 70 74 63 71 69 67 73 72 63 57 65 63 58n 348

L 62 66 68 64 60 66 58 60 53 63 65 59 349

5L 65 65 67 71 58 64 60 65 63 69 73 68 61 76 68 66 50 60 61 53 350

61 64 58 61 65 70 60 65 70 75 64 71 72 75 76 65 62 68 62 56n 351

55 58 52 48 58 54 52 56 48 62 54 56 rear

L 58 71 59 65 60 64 68 65 72 58 64 69 352

84 83 80 781 78 78 76 79 79 81 78 80 353

95 97 99 88c 78 82 81 74 65 78 73 79 67 72 79 81 61 64 72 671 354

FIRST TO SECOND FLOOR

APARTMENTS

68 86 83 79

67 81 73 75 71

"7 C lb 68 73

301

L

S 65 68 73 7451 53 60 61 54 59 65 71

302

78 86 79 84m 62 78 68 74 60 81 69 76 56 64 58 60v 303

64 76 66 72t 68 84 68 72 70 82 76 78 none 304

L

L 74 82 76 77 80 81 76 68

ol COby /b / / 70/ L 7n/y CObo 69 69 73 80 78

305

108 97 96 99c 82 87 79 94 76 83 89 91 95 104 96 101c 306

82 80 95 78 94 91 79 80

DUPLEXES

54 69 59 60

bU b i 64 55 CO C/1 b4 by 67

55 72 65 59 307

0/ 7 "5 16 C 0 bo b4V bi c n b4 C O

KiC C 0 bo 64 69 65 67 308

309

98

98

94

95

102 98

97 98

97

94

95

87

98

91

98

96

310

none 311

68 69 66 74 70 70 68 72 312

65
FIRST TO SECOND FLOOR

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

buPLEXES, cont.

313 8

6

8

8

10

10

Ih

Ih

20

R

R

L

L 35

33

1

1 rtr

cpt

8 5

314 frnt

rear

15*

8

7

8

8

8

10

9

9h

2Ik

Ih

10

0

Rnone none

R 26 1 pil var5

5

1

3

315 9

6 7h

7h

10

10

Ih

Ih

0

0 none none

4/- var 4 3

316 7

7 8

8

10

10

1

1^2 0

0

LL

L

L 3232

0

0 Vm 7 3

317 13 8 llh Ih 0 L R 35 1 cpt 5 2

318 none

319 (3

flgts)

9+1

5 8

8

9k

10

Ik* 2 1^2

10L R/L

R 30

F/F 28/31

1 1/1

1/- 1/m 7 3

320 10

2 8

8

10

lOh

Ik2

1^-2 0

0

R

R

L

L 3540

10

4/- var 7 2

SINGLE FAMILY

321 6

8

8

8h

10

9

1Ih2

2 nonenone

-/l l/m var2

4

5 322 8

6 7k

7h

10

10

Ik

1

10 none

R R 35 1 4/4 l/m

var

7 2

3

323 15 8 10 2 2 P R 27 1 5/2 pil 3 3

324 14

3 7k' 2 7

11

11

2

1^2

1J. 0

R

R

F

F 31

31

10

-/5 pil 5 4

325 9

6 88

lOh

11

Ik2 1^2

1

1

L

L

RR 31

30

0

1 5/3 pil 1 1

326 12 8 10 15-2 1 R/L F/L 39/37 0/0 2/1 pil 2 2 327 7

7 8

8

10

10

1Ih2

2

L

L

R

R 32

26

1

1 1/1 cpt 2 2

328 14

3 7h

7h

11^-2 11^

Ih

Ih

0

0

L

L

L

L 30

36

0

0

4/5 oil 3 1

329 none

330 13 8 10 Ih 0 L R 36 1 -/3 cpt 4 5 331 11

8

Sh

Sh

I2h

I2h

Ih

Ih

0

0

L

L

R

R 32

39

0

0

16/- pil 1 2

332 13 9h Ih 1 R L 22 1 2/1 pil 1 3

333 15 7h 11 2 0 L F 29 1 6/4 pil 1 2 334 14 7 lOh Ih 2 L R 34 1 4/4 pnt 4 1 *Unit has two stairways; front stairway has private entrance; rear has two flights.

66
FIRST TO SECOND FLOOR

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

DUPLEXES, cont.

' 65 79 73 74m 84 88 85 85 92 81 82 90 79 89 79 84 85 88 86 87 313

78 92 80 86 84 86 91 79 91 79 86 87

M

89

72

96

71

91

61

94

681

88

48

89

53

94

57

91

52

94 92 92 90 91 88 96 94 95 95 96 89 f

r 314

57 52 61 54 59 83 72 64 106 108 99 110m

68 76 69 71

66 66 64 64 63 68 64 65

315

54 58 59 56

54 63 59 61 58 68 55 64

316

79 84 7Q Q3 RQ0_7 Q4 Ql RQ Q'? Ql 92 88 94 none

317

318

L 62 58 61 60

64 63 57 56 51 54 57 55

319

1 n/i yo 103 97m 0/ /O DO 74 59 680 320

61 69 70 65 52 59 61 64o

SINGLE FAMILY

co 51

f / 65

Do

63

ZIQ 58 60

ou 64y / 52DO

51 59

3D

51

H / 65DO

63

D 1 321

M,L 55 59 58 56 55 57 58 56 57 58 59 59 94 99 97 96m 322

48 62 DO DU dRHO D J D^ 4QH^ D ± c•J oo 82 85 87 90 QlJ J. ou 00 oo Rfi OD 7R/ 0 Rfi OD Rfi OD RdOH RR00 QD 92 90 88 323

2L

1 72 75 76 74 72 72 74 697? 74 71 71 69 72 71 71 91 87 91 81 324

1LL 78 75 75 79 78 79 79 72

76 70 68 69 72 73 74 74

*7 n 74 71 72 73 325

70 7? 70 72 76 74 75 75 72 70 73 69 326

L

L 91 98 96 94

94 96 92 98 96 98 97 94

327

86 86 86 89s 72 72 73/ -J 71 72 72 78 66 328

86 89 84 91 none 329

2M, 2L 53 53 54 56 72 70 71 71 69 69 69 69 330

70 72 75 72

78 72 76 72

78 73 71 78 331

77 76 74 77 69 74 64 72 72 69 71 72 332

2L 72 73 72 71 77 72 76 71 84 82 82 84 333

5M 68 72 72 60n 48 40 51 53 48 43 51 50 55 54 47 64 73 60 82 77n 334

67
FIRST TO SECOND FLOOR

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

SINGLE FAMILY, cont.

335 7

7 8

8

8^5 9h 10

0 none

none

2/2 var 3 4

336 14 Sk oo ih i DK

1L 9Q 1

1 /I J-/

1 /m f 0

337 13 8h n IH U

nK

DK OO u var 0O

o

L 338 10

H lOJ^

1 1^ 1^ U

0

1^ R/LK R/R

"5/1 32/31

A

u1/1

l/m 5 1

Qo 11 Ih 2 L L 34 1 cpt 3 4

«o lOh Ih 0 R/L L/L 28/30 0/0 4/- pil 2 2

Qo 11 2 1 R R 30 0 5/4 pil 1 2

QO lOJg 2 0 L L 31 0 -/I pil 1 2

QO lOij 15^ 0 R L 30 0 -/I var 3 3

OtH ilUilc

O'tO io 9^2 15-2 0 R L 34 0 2/1 pil 3 2

o'fD none

OH/ none

348 none

349 14 8 10 0 R F 33 0 1/1 pil 4 3 350 none

351 8 7h 10 1^2 0 L R 33 1 pil 1 1 352 14 7h 10 1^2 0 L F 33 0 4/- var 3 2 353 none

354 none SFfOND TO THIRD FLOOR

APARTMENTS

301 59 8

8

10

10

Ih

Ih

0

0

LRF

F 36

36

1

1 -/l var 3 4

302 8

8

7h

7h

lOJ^ Ih

Ih

0

0

R

L

L

L 3030

0

0 pnt 3 3

305 mezz 7*

3rd 6 7h

8

11

11 Ih

0

0

RR/L

R 27

R/R 27/32

0

0/0

71- pil 1 1

306 com 7op

7op

pri 2**

7h

7h

7

12

12

11^1

2

2

1

0

0

0

R/L

R/Lnone

R/R

R/R

32/33

33/34

0/0

0/1

vtr

pil

5

1

1

1 *Apartment has two floors and mezzcinine. **Dining room to sunken living room.

68
FIRST TO SECOND FLOOR

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

SINGLE FAMILY, cont.

52 56 54 57 51 49 58 55

58 57 56 54 57 62 61 641

335

1 M *+ / R8 J DO H-O Dc. 58 59 62 61 ooD

71 fin fi? fi3 fi? DO ot O J. D / fin ou fii D J. 64 j-j / JO U X 53 62 57 60 67 59 60 66

OOO

86 88 84 83n 64 67 60 62v 79 75 76 74 84 85 84 Q/I 7Q on pc; /o oU oo 339

L 65 72 66 70 68 71 65 72 68 72 71 69 71 65 63 70 340

64 66 65 65 69 74 70 71 80 77 80 79 341

85 92 89 90 90 86 87 91 97 92 85 88 342

65 79 68 74n 50 59 53 55 58 57 51 59 59 52 55 57 343 none 344

82 82 78 68s 101 98 97 96 95 92 93 88 93 98 95 94 98 97 97 94 345 none 346 none 347

1 lU 1 1 c 348

84 76 79 77 66 73 70 69 77 76 75 78 none

349

350

S 54 56 58 48 62 63 65 58 62 59 65 62 62 64 60 62 65 70 60 65 351

L 55 65 58 63 63 55 64 59 58 59 65 56 none

none

352

353

354

SECOND TO THIRD FLOOR

APARTMENTS

66 67 63 64

61 65 71 67 72 59 58 63

301

41 48 53 62 01 ou oc. 0/

59 64 65 68

302

3L

3M

69

70

78

71

72

69

76

78

68

68

74

75

76

72

71

76

72

71

79

72

76

73

71

69

69

76

69

69

70

69

73

70

68

69

72 74 69 m

68 73 71 3 305

94 109 96 98c 84 79 92 94 79 83 86 99 101 97 99 104c 306

94 76 94 91 90 80 87 89 101 102 95 94c

71 86 76 79 72 74 81 85 71 76 82 85

69
SECOND TO THIRD FLOOR

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

DUPLEXES

307 8

7

8

8h

10^

lOh

1Ih0

0 none

none

1/3 var 3 4

309 10

6

7

7 Uh Ih

1

20

R

R

R 32

R 32

1

1 rtr 6 4

314 (3 7 flgts)5+2

8h

7 9

9

1

1 0

0 none

none

-/I var 5 3

315 8

6

8

8

10

10

Ih

Ih

0

0 none

none var 4 3

316 77 7h

8

9h

9

1

1

0

0

L

L

R 23

R 23

11

|Jll u At

AH

SINGLE FAMILY

324 13 8 10 Ih 0 none 1/1 var 2 3 328 14 8 9 Ih 0 L R 31 0 1/1 var 2 3 341 15 7h 10 Ih 1 L R 31 0 2/1 pil 1 2 FRONT OUTSIDE (3 or mo rs risers or DUPLEXES

307 4

5

7

7 12

IOJ5 J- 2

0

1

0

2 noneL F 28 0 cnc pnt

1224 308 4

6

7

7 12

10

0

1

20 none

R L 32 0 cnc Dnt

124

4

309 54

6

6

1113

0

0

20 none nonecnc

cnc

122

2 311 5 Sh 11 Oh 1 R L 32 1 pnt 2 4

313 66

7h

7h

12

IIJ^ 0

1

0

2 none

R/L L/L 29/29 0/0

cnc pnt12Cm3

5 314 6

6

C 1 7h

Id

llh

0

Ih

2

2 R/L

K 31

L/L 32/32

1 0/0

cnc pntI2

02 315 34

Sh

8h

12

11

0

1

20 none

R/L R/R 34/34 0/0

cnc pnt

12

33 318 3 7h 12 0 0 none cnc 1 1 319 3 6 12 0 0 L R 21 0 rnr 1 3 SINGLE FAMILY

321 6

5

67h

12

10

0

0

0

0 none

none

cnc cnc113

3 322 12

4

78

12

llh

0

2h

2

2

LnoneR 36 1 cnc pnt

12

3

3 323 5 7 12 1 2 none pnt 2 4

70
SECOND TO THIRD FLOOR

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

DUPLEXES

68 89 79 83

84 69 81 75 none taken

307

309

59 65 71 72

68 65 64 68 73 71 68 65

314

64

69

69

74

65

63

67

70

63

63

71

72

67

61

69

64

68

61

72

67

66

63

70

62

315

316

SINGLE FAMILY

87 83 82 82n 59 52 55 53 52 59 55 62 70 67 63 54 52 57 62 64p 324

58 59 69 62 69 58 71 66 54 57 59 58 none taken328

341

FRONT OUTSIDE

DUPLEXES

98

M

86 89 94

87 76 79 84

91

79

86

83

92

86

96

77

97 91

86 76

89 87

81 79

307

89 94 91 90

72 84 79 81

90

67

89

79

93

69

91

76 59 76 60 69

92 91 88 89 308

101 84 93 86 78

83

85

76

89

79

72

87 74 76 76 74

309

62 62 68 66 64 59 64 68 80 64 66 69 311

78

88

98

92

79

89

86

91c 59 68 61 64

88

61

97

59

79

67

84

66

89 96

64 68

86 79

59 61

313

78 92 77 86 79

69

91

73

84

79

86

81

84

73

86

76

79

84

91

86

78

76

84

71

86

84

90

81

81 92

81 69

91 79

73 86

314

80

M 82 87 83 84

88

87

87

86

92

86

89

82

88

81

86

87

78

83

84

83 87 86 74 87 75

62 56

82 81

61 61

315

75 81 88 80 88 79 97 91 88 88 92 88 318

88 89 92 94 86 88 94 66 91 94 93 97 319

SINGLE FAMILY

94

S,L

101 99 96 99

96

100

101

100 100

97 98 66 76 68 69p 68 94 79 89m

321

S 92 98 94 95

69 84 72 76

96

73

97

78

97

83

92

72 79 69 83 74

94 92

88 112

97 98

94 98m

322

105 103 103 109 85 89 91 75 90 93 91 86 75 65 83 781 323

71
FRONT OUTSIDE

SUBJECT NUMBER STEP DIMENSIONS HANDRAIL MEASURES ORIENT/ MAJOR NUMBR

CODES RISERS RS TR NO IR R/L R/F/L HT. IR HEADRM MATER MATER

SINGLE FAMILY, cont.

324 5 7 12 0 0 none cnc 1 0

n 7k 1 ? n 2 none cnc 1 3

0 0 R/L R/R 35/35 0/0 cnc 1 2

326 4 6J$ 13 0 0 none cnc 1 I 328 7 6 13 0 2 R F 36 0 cnc 1 3

cD D J. 0 n n nnnp M VJ 1 1 ^ cnc 1 3

3 6 15 0 1 none cnc 1 3

sj 7 1 9k nu 1J. 1 lUi ic ± 3

0o

oo 1 9 nu L. 1 lUi iC mr\*\\\^ 1X 3 6 7 11 1 0 L R 34 0 pnt 2 oil cu

1 7 111 1 lU 1 1 c U 1 1 UN 9 1

J.

66c. C0

cD

1 9 u

11 none pn p 11

•3 4 8 12h 1 1 none opt 2 3 335 4 7J$ llh 1 1 none pnt 2 1 336 7 7 12 0 0 none cnc 1 3 6 SJg 12^2 Oh 1 none pnt 2 5 340 3 6 10^2 0 2 none cnc 1 2 341 4 7^-2 12 0 0 R/L F/F 28/28 0/0 cnc 1 3 343 3 6I5 12 0 2 none cnc 1 3 BACK OUTSIDE (3 or more risers only)

DUPLEXES and SINGLE FAMILY

307 5 10 0 2 R/L R/R 28/28 0/0 cnc 1 3

3 eh 12 0 1 R L 36 0 cnc 1 3 316 4 7h IIJ^ 2 2 none pnt 3 5 317 3 6h 12 0 2 none cnc 1 2 323 4 8 11 Ih 1 none pnt 2 4

324 3 9 Sh 2 2 none pnt 2 1 328 6 7 llh 1^2 2 R F 30 0 pnt 2 3 332 4 7 12 0 0 none cnc 1 3 336 7 8J5 14 0 0 L R 30 0 cnc 5 340 3 61$ 10 0 0 none cnc 4

341 4 7 11 0 2 none cnc 2 343 3 73$ 11 0 1 none cnc 3 349 3 7 12 0 1 L F 31 0 cnc 2

72
FRONT OUTSIDE

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

SINGLE FAMILY, cont.

66

62

79

63

83

72

92

65

69

71

73

64

57 87

76 65

8d /4

57 54

82 78

58 70

324

92 82 87 80 81 83 87 92 86 89 86 74 325

Q7o/ OD Q 1 y i QOOC. OC 1 0 ol 65 87 82 82 82 85 89 72

89 96 91 93

64 94 64 74

64

94

77

99

88 75

97 96

94

88

76

102

74

92

84

96 71 88 78 82

328

329

100 98 97 99m 67 67 63 67 78 78

(covered with a 75 77 69 87 72wild grape vine)

82 75 76 78 75

330

94 99 94 98 102 99 97 98 98 94 97 97 331

85

88

87

94

92

91

88

91 92 92 89 91

71

95

84

93

96

95

84

93

83 91

88 89

87 87

90 87

332

78 79 84 72c 78 85 69 73 66 68 72 64 65 69 69 72 64 72 63 71m 335

86 95 OO OO

65

Q "5 82

Q 1 y i 73

ol

79

78

75

85

78

81

68

80

80 79 65 68 78

336

95 104 99 96 99 97 101 98 102 95 97 98 61 85 78 82m 340

90 83 89 86 93 88 95 92 94 92 92 94 341

87 99 98 89 99 93 89 91 96 97 97 97 69 89 72 78m 343

BACK OUTSIDE

DUPLEXES and SINGLE FAMILY

79 86 81 84 92 92 96 98 87 102 89 97 307

91 97 94 98 86 87 89 92 101 84 96 99 314

S,M 77 68 69 75 61 69 64 66 74 71 72 72 316

79 89 82 87 82 86 79 89 80 79 84 86 89 90 94 94m 317 none taken 323

68 62 74 59 74 62 61 48 none taken

324

328

90 94 90 92 83 75 82 80 87 81 85 83 332

92 90 91 86 78 86 79 85 74 89 78 86 79 89 83 85 336

72 92 78 84 80 89 76 74 90 91 79 83 340

90 87 90 89 84 89 88 87 75 79 74 76 341

87 96 89 94 94 96 95 95 87 89 93 96 343

72 70 82 84 95 87 87 91 78 69 74 80 349

73
ISOLATED SINGLES AND DOUBLES. OUTSIDE AND INSIDE; MISCELLANEOUS

SUBJECT LOCA- STEP DIMENSIONS MA IAD rlAJUK Ml IMDD WEAR

CODES TION RS TR NO IR COMnENTb MATCD rlA 1 tK MATCD rlA 1 lK

OUTSIDE SINGLES

304 F 6 Thresno I d cnc 03 i 305 F n8 At siQewaiKj yu Trorn uiag. cnc 11

11 305 bal cony 8 Sill of door on ^nd rioor pi] 03

11 311 F 7 At Sidewalk, 2b trom bldg. cnc 1

A4

311 S oh Basement landing door cnc

o0 b 317 F Bh Entrance landing cnc 03

o

c 317 F 9 Alternate entrance cnc 03

0c 317 S 7 Basement landing door cnc

A

'i o 319 S

CI5^ Walk to garage cnc 1I

/I 320 S 10 Side entrance landing cnc 03 5 322 S 7*5 Basement landing door cnc 03

03 324 B 10 Thresno 1

cnc 03

03

325 B Threshoi

cnc 03

o

L 327

r-r 2*5 Porch step cnc

00 1 329 S 7*5 Back landing cnc

A4

03

333 p

r 8 Entrance landing cnc 03

o

c. 333 D b Threshoi

cnc

0o

0 339 c

r / At Sidewalk, cu trom Diog. cnc 1

03

O /I O 342 r

r Entrance landing cnc

oco3

O /I O 342 DD

A4 Basement landing door cncoo

o

o /I yi 344 r Entrance landing cnc 03 I

1 /I /J 344 nb 4*5 Threshoi

cnc 03

1 345 nB 4*5 Threshold to garage cnc

03

oL 346 B 10 Pie-shaped back landing cnc o

L 1 348 r 9*5 Entrance landing cnc 03 I nD Ih Back landing cnc 03 1 349 F 5 Entrance landing cnc 3 1 350 F 9 At sidewalk, 40' from bldg. lannon 1 2

o c o 352 F 7 Entrance landing cnc 1 3

o c o 352 B

/I 4 Back landing cnc 1 2 OUTSIDE DOUBLES

OA O 303 r

r 7 12 0 2

• Entrance landing cnc

11

03 3u3 B 8 12 0 2 Entrance landing (back) cnc 1

03

O AO 3Uo B 7 11 0 0 Back porch pnt 4

0 1 c 3ib nD 5 12 0 2 Severe spall ing cnc 1 5

3<iD cr 5*5 18 0 0 At sidewalk, 35 trom bldg. cnc 1 2 00 c r

r 5 14 0 0 Entrance landing steps cnc 2 2 ooc DD 5*5 I9J5 0 2 Basement landing door cnc

it 4 3 007 cO 5 I2J5 0 2 Porch steps cnc

03 1 oon 33U nD 5*5 10 0 0 Back landing cnc 1 4

C

r 0 12 0 0 At Sidewalk, bu trom bldg. cnc I 03 Til b 5*5 15 Ih 2 Back porch pnt

A4

/I 4

334 Fr

p. Uh 0 1 nX. SlQcWalK, fU TrOm u 1 ug . cnc 1

0 337 F 9 12 0 2 Entrance landing cnc 2 3

337 B 9 IIJ5 0 0 Back porch cnc 3 2 338 F 7^5 12 0 0 Entrance landing cnc 2 3 338 B 7^5 0 0 Entrance landing cnc 2 3

74
ISOLATED OUTSIDE AND INSIDE; MISCELLANEOUS

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

OUTSIDE SINGLES

90 94 83 87 65 OC OO / bn

87 96 89 90 98 QQy y Q7y /

Q/l 72 86 79 82n one 63 78 78 75 69 Do 7t; 0/ "311 oil

79 72 92 74 311 Oil

87 94 89 92 104 1 1 n QA lUDin 01/

89 96 94 92 89 QQyy QAyt QSyo ol/

97 99 102 94a 88 94 92 89 87 l\JC. Qly J. QPm yom 01/ M 74 70/ y 7Q/y oiy "31 Q

95 85 76 72 92 OH OD OO "390 89 98 89 96 112 1iUmJ. QQyy lu jm "399 ice

68 68 76 65 "39/1 82 84 76 86

92 96 97 87 93 QQyy Qnyu ytm '?97 96 102 97 99a 86 94 89 90 84 1 OA Ql QQm J Jill '?9Q o^y

92 87 84 89 78 78 75 77h / / ll 000

75 87 78 62 65 58 62 OO 000

69 80 86 82 85 82 82 7Q/ 3 ??Q 005

87 97 90 93 OH^

93 104 97 102 Ott

84 86 82 92 89 93 84 OU OHH

97 100 97 98 344

92 82 84 78 345

97 97 87 84 346

89 95 99 91 84 97 89 91 98 105 99 :101m 348

99 98 94 96 82 94 89 92 348

82 78 87 76 68 63 68 62 349

62 87 96 105 120 350

72 96 78 86 352

72 79 96 84 352

OUTSIDE DOUBLES

82 94 88 92 88 96 99 94 303

92 99 97 96 91 95 95 91 303

74 83 76 81 72 79 74 76 308

78 92 89 84 91 93 82 79 316

84 85 86 79 91 87 89 92 97 89 89 95 325

89 89 88 78 88 76 67 78 64 66 62 59ct 325

2M 77 77 88 88 326

92 99 97 94 88 97 89 93 91 89 89 90 327

/ D 92 90 86 95 88 84 89 330

88 92 79 81 74 72 78 80 79 83 78 92 331

98 88 102 96m 331

70 85 74 82 70 75 81 67 78 88 91 75 334

76 82 88 82 72 88 78 79 71 73 88 78 337

84 84 87 85m 79 72 75 75 79 72 75 74n 337

86 88 87 86 92 99 94 98 87 97 89 94 338

72 89 78 84 92 104 101 93 86 94 87 90 338

75
I SOLATED SINGLES AND DOUBLES. OUTSIDE AND INSIDE; MISCELLANEOUS

SUBJECT LOCA- STEP DIMENSIONS MAJOR NUMBR lilCAD CODES TION DC TD Kb 1 K NU T D COMMENTS MATER MATER

WtrtK

r\i IT r' T r\ r* OUTSIDE DOUBLES

,

cont.

339 F

O 1 o o id U d Entrance landing cnc 2 3 339 B

O 1 o o ic U

A

U Entrance landing cnc 2 3 341 F / id U

A

U Porch to open patio cnc 1 3 345 F b 1/ U d Entrance landing cnc 2 3 346 F U

0L Top of sloping walk cnc 1 1 346 F

7 10 / Ld n

U

A

U Right angles to above (346) cnc 1 1 347 F C 19 A

U

0d Settled, tilted step cnc 3 5 350 F 7 10 / i.d U A

U Entrance landing cnc 1 2 350 B

IX- 1 0

/-i id nu

nu Back landing cnc 1 2 351 F 1 12 0 0 Entrance landing cnc 2 2 351 S Ih 13 0 1 Kitchen to driveway cnc 2 2 353 F

71^ 1 0 /*2 id U

A

U Entrance landing cnc 1 2 353 B

71, 1 0Id U

A

U Back landing cnc 1 2 354 F

C 1 c

0 lb U

A

U Entrance landing cnc 1 1 354 B

C 10 b io AU

A

U Step 1: Wood slat on gravel cnc 5 1

T Mc T nc" INblUt

323 F

7

/ 1 R tn «;rrppn onrrh var 2 4 331 hall b

1 1 I Incursion, door, radiator pil 1 1 331 hall b*2 I Complex hall system 1/m 2 1 345 B 7 1 Kitchen door threshold cpt 3 1 INSIDE DOUBLES

324 LR C 1 o 1 1 AU LR to sunporch var 2 1 334 F 7 10 / Id AU

A

U LR to sunporch pnt 4 5 348 S O'a -l-D nu

o

C Hall to garage mat 4 1 MISCELLANEOUS

305 F 8 Threshold cnc 4 1 321 F 10 Threshold pnt 3 4

339 insi de Top landing, 1-2 cpt 1 1 345 F Ih Threshold cnc 3 2 NOTE: Other isolated singles and doubles, thresholds and miscellaneous steps

having no friction measures or accidents appear only in summary tables.

76
ISOLATED OUTSIDE AND INSIDE; MISCELLANEOUS

NUM FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION FRICTION SUBJ.

SEV BOT LANDING BOTTOM STEP MIDDLE STEP TOP STEP TOP LANDING CODES

OUTSIDE DOUBLES, cont.

95 88 88 96 72 84 79 79 84 79 77 76 339

69 75 77 84 78 78 68 67 67 59 68 58 82 66 67 66m 339

84 88 92 88 89 91 97 91 93 93 94 96 341

98 95 97 102 75 72 67 66 87 77 74 78 345

88 88 88 88 346

88 87 75 82 76 79 75 78 346

M none taken 347

99 96 94 95 96 93 89 88 94 96 88 94 350

76 77 82 82 69 75 76 80 77 82 78 84 350

105 110 94 102 95 84 105 99 100 102 94 104 351

75 82 76 71 75 72 68 79 351

89 87 92 95 88 82 88 82 75 86 82 86 353

81 81 77 82 85 84 74 79 87 84 78 68 353

no Cic 99 on 0"7 o/ ono9 9b 9o 102 104 94 96 354

93 97 84 86 108 110 99 97 354

INSIDE SINGLES

70 72 80 98 323

L CO AO bU bU 65 63 64 64 331

58 54 43 53 51 57 43 49 331

L 95 92 93 94 68 74 70 721 345

INSIDE DOUBLES

50 52 50 54ck 47 50 52 45 52 48 40 56 324

57 60 59 62 60 43 74 631 73 71 75 73n 334

95 102 97 100 95 99 96 96 92 97 95 96n 348

MISCELLANEOUS

L 86 92 91 88 79 87 82 81m 305

L none taken 321

86 82 82 89 339

L none taken 345

77
11

I
APPENDIX B LIGHTING MEASURES (Explanatory notes at end of table)

B-1 1-2 OTHER

RTL RTL RTL

^^T"

- - 4 3 - - - - -

1 -

- 1 - - - 8 2 -1

3 - - - - - -

5 22 4 4 12 5

1 - - 2 14

- - - 8 20 15

B-l(pn)

- - - 2 r 4

- - - 1-3

- - - - - 2

2-3(pn)

- - - 1-1 - 4 .1 - ; - - - 2 11 2

2^3"

2 2 2 5 9 1 40 35

72 12

1 1 5 2 5

1-3

1 12 17 28

1 27 13 30 10 20

3 12 7 1 - 1 2-3

9 47 7

5 + 24 30 8 12 13 5 20

80 51 65 2 3 9 4 6

- - 2

15 2 10

2 3 1

2 5 4

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

B-1 1-2 OTHER

RTL RTL RTL

' - - 35 3 18

1 - - 1-1

- - - 5 14

- - - 1 --

20 2 12 1 4 3 32 40 35

52 5 10 - - - - - 6 5 9 20 42 3 1 4 3

2-3

- 1 2 2 3 12 - 1 4

10 2B 3

- 19

- - - 34 + 14 75 35 4

5 - 1 30 6 12 - 1 4

10 32 1 1 11 4 - - 4

44 42 11 21 29 8

2 47 3 5 3 5

2 3 5 16 15 20

50 62 15 not taken

22 2 12

-

1 5

6 15 16 7 2 4

12 40B33 1 1 - - - 5 5 4

9 2 5 8 1 10

2 2 1 1-1 - - - 4 5 8

1 16 2 48 15 6

22 53 4 - - 2

6 6 15 - - -

4 11 - - -

- - 2 - - 3 1 - 1 16 3

79
B-1 1-2 OTHER B-1 1-2 OTHER

R T L R T L R T L R T L R T L R T L single den-gar.

323 - 3 1 334 5 2 5

3 si ngl

_ - - 4 3

_ _ _ 8 10 10 2 1 - 2 4 2

324 1 - 1

- - 4 7 3 335 5 4 8

80 80 24 15 1 4

13 6 6 1 - 1

325 1 1 2 1 2 2 336 4 6 4 3 12 32

5 - 7 1 -3 14 12B15 - 1

1J. 1 3 2 - 5

326 11 5 13 10 5 10 337

2 - 2 6 2 9 "U - - -

1 - 16

327 338 1 - 1 8 27 9

15 8 46 — ~ 15 17 5 16 9 76

11 7 18 4 3 2 3 2

- 1 2-3

328 - 1 4 12 6 339 1 2 - 1

_ 0 1 4 - - 2 1 3 0 0 0 ~ ~ " 2 - 1

329 _ 340 —

5 2 3

30

2

- 20 19

2-3

330 2 2 341 3 - 6 10 1 4

1 2 - 1-1

1 1 9 1 fr. hall

331 2 2 2 5 342 4 2 5 5 5 9

3 - 9 16 2 1 b. hall 1 - 1 1

- 1

1 1 2 1 2

332 + 8 9 9 9 9 343 19 37 18 + 11 11

8 - 4 2 1 4 1 2 22 34 12

- 2 1 3 1 - 2 1 4

333 6 1 2 344 3 2 3

1 - - 4 2 3 1

80
B-1 1-2 OTHER B-1 1-2 OTHER

R T 1 R T L R T L D T 1 D T L R T 1 ki t-den

3 1 1 14 1 2 sJ>J\J 7

rt L.\J 1-1 in

A 1

•5 back B-1

346 - - 1 351 1 1 5 2 - 1 50 12 40

3 ! 9 41 6 20

15 2 15 4 9 10 30 2 10

347 No inside stairways. Light 352 _ _1 1 4

levels on thresholds were

all higher than 100 fc. 1 hall-gar.

348 17 7 6 12 2 2 353 6 1 16

1 1 3 1 1

2 1 5 1 _

349 - - 2 1 1 4 354 12 5 7

- - - 2 2

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1. All measures are in footcandles of incident light.

2. - = less than 1 footcandle; + = greater than 100 footcandles.

3. Patterns in table are locations of measures as follows:

(wall = eye level on right or left stairway wall; if no wall, at eye

level above handrail)

RIGHT MIDDLE LEFT

wall landing wall TOP

wall tread/

landing wall MIDDLE

wall tread wall BOTTOM

4.

= stairway where accident may be a result of lighting.

5. OTHER = 2nd to 3rd; Inside single or double; Miscellaneous.

6. All measures were taken with a direct reading, cosine-corrected

light meter with limits of 0-100 footcandles (Weston Model 703-60,

type 7).

81
I
APPENDIX C

ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONS

AND RELATED INFORMATION

NOTES: In addition to a brief description of the

accident or critical incident, selected physical features of the stairway and

conditions surrounding the event are

noted. Where relevant, personal data such as handicaps or prostheses are

: presented along with the age and sex of the victim.

These descriptions are essentially clinical notes, providing observations not clearly discernible from the tabular data and

statistical analysis. Because of this format, categories of information are not uniformly present in each case.

Imail sample

j« 4 Respondent, a 61 year old female, fell on B-1

' and broke her wrist. She fell from step 2 downward and has no idea of the cause. Medical treatment was required. This is a single family

detached home built between 1950-64. The 12

I

steps are covered with tile/metal nosing.

!• 6 Respondent's 25 year old daughter was

j visiting home and fell on B-1, injuring her arm.

Medical treatment was required and daughter

lost over a week of work. This straight stairway

has 11 steps covered with tile/metal nosing. The

1 house was built between 1950-64.

I * 15 Respondent, 55 year old male, says someone

' in his house trips or falls at least once every two

j weeks. "Coming down stairs (1-2) you have to

I reach down to open the door. You lean forward

' and it throws you off balance." The bottom

landing to the door is very short (314 in from door

to riser). Both B-1 and 1-2 have irregular riser heights. On B-1, the top riser is 4 in and others range from 71/2 to 9 in. There is an orientation

edge on B-1. Covering on B-1 is linoleum/metal

i nosing, and on 1-2, varnish. Respondent does

i not think the stairways need any repairs. He

rates them as 75 percent safe. House built between 1950-64.

I« 58 Respondent, 35 year old female, has had two

j recent falls which she believes are due to the

' narrow steps with winders on 1-2. She lives in a

duplex, built before 1940. The 13 steps are covered with linoleum/metal nosing.

• 81 Respondent, 27 year old female, reports that an 18 year old girl in the home caught her foot

in a worn rug on 1-2 and fell down part of a stairway with 16 steps. This is a single family

home built before 1940. The rug has been

changed since then.

(All other accident events reported on the mail survey forms appear only in the summary tables and in the overall analysis. These descriptions were limited to number of events, flight

locations, times and whether accident event

involved the respondent or another person.)

TELEPHONE SAMPLE

• 105 Female respondent, age 27, fell when she was pregnant, hit hard on the wall of B-1, and

saved herself from falling all the way down.

Because she was pregnant, she went to the doctor to make sure she was all right. She was

wearing cork platform shoes. In an older accident she fell on the front concrete steps (2 steps + landing) and had multiple scratches and

bruises. She did not see her doctor, although she was pregnant this time also. Respondent thinks

that pregnancy affects her balance because she

has had no other problems with falling. She

rates her stairways as 50 percent safe. In reporting her stairway use, she had made 40-50

trips on the day she kept her diary record.

Comments: The B-1 stairway is enclosed but has no handrails. Covering is rubber treads and

varnish. There are winders. The house was built before 1940.

• 122 This 30 year old female recently slipped on

her B-1 stairway. Her heel caught on her pants

cuff. She caught herself on the handrail and

avoided a fall. She was not injured. Her 5 year

old boy fell on the front stoop, injured his face and eyes and required emergency medical care. He was running up the step, not paying

attention. Respondent said it was a stupid

accident, not due to steps. Comments: The B-1 stairway is fully carpeted.

There is only one step in the outside front of this new town house.

• 132 The respondent, 27 year old female, fell on

her front outside wooden steps. She reports that she fell at night. Stairway was slippery and had

83
no handrail at the time of the accident. Injuries were light.

Comments: Duplex was built before 1940; the

inside steps are described as loose, broken and

patched. Stairway has six open risers; treads are worn.

134 Respondent, female age 40, reports that she

has seen two other persons in her family fall on

B-1. There were no injuries. Information is incomplete.

145 Female respondent, age 26, reports that she

slipped on the top ledge of the basement steps. The end of her sandal got caught on the nosing.

The top steps are loose and the rubber treads

are also loose. This rental house was built in 1950-64.

146 Respondent, female age 38, lives in a HUD

sponsored, low income attached town house.

Within the past year there have been two

accidents. Both occurred on 1-2. There is a handrail there but one of the girls, age 15 broke

it when she fell down the stairs. She needed

medical attention. Another girl, age 18, fell on

the same stairway and required first aid. Respondent thinks straight steps with no

landing are dangerous even though her stairway

is not "slippery."

Comments: Respondent in this 1965-70 house

emphasizes HUD rules about not putting any

covering on her varnished stairways. She thinks

carpeting would make the stairways safer.

149 Female, 37, living in a pre-1940 single

family detached home, reports that her son running up the stairway 1-2, missed a step and

slipped down several steps. His injuries were

light and respondent thinks the accident was

probably his fault.

Comments: The stairs are curved from wear and

very dark. There is an orientation edge. There are no hand rails.

153 Respondent, female 32, lives in a 1950-64

age town house. Her 3'/2 year old son fell on

stairway 1-2 and required medical attention. She

thinks the cause was his inexperience with

steps. He was probably hurrying. The stairway

is fully carpeted.

155 Male respondent, age 25, lives in a pre-1940

single family detached home. His wife, 22,

slipped as she was descending from 2 to 1. She wore slipper sox which respondent thinks might

have caused the accident. Injuries were light. Accident occurred during the daytime.

Comments: Stairway has orientation edge.

Covering is varnish with carpeting in the middle. Stairway has a landing and a turn, and some irregular riser heights.

• 176 Female respondent, age 75, got to the top of her B-1 shared stairway and fell down most of the 11 steps. She was sore and bruised and went

to her doctor for assurance that she hadn't broken anything. She thinks her stairway was

not at fault. She gets dizzy spells and she had one when she fell. Apartment was built in 1950-

59 period.

Comments: This stairway has no handrail.

• 186 Female respondent, age 65, reports that her

sister fell on the outside front steps (three woode

steps) and required first aid. The sister has a history of falling. Respondent feels the steps are

clearly marked and lighted, but that sister was

inattentive.

• 188 Male respondent, age 32, described accident

which happened to a 30 year old female. She

stepped on her long pants and fell on stairway

1-2. This is a pre-1940 single family dwelling.

The architect-respondent says the house has very steep risers and runs. Injury light.

Comments: There are winders and 13 steps

between 1 and 2. Stairway is fully carpeted.

SITE VISIT SAMPLE

• 302 A resident in the respondent's home, male, age 43, missed 2 steps, lost his balance but was

able to keep himself from a full fall. He was

carrying a large glass display case at the time. The incident happened on the lower flight of stairway 1-2 as he was descending. He has a severe case of osteomyelitis and uses a cane. Respondent said his behavior was foolhardy for ' he was balancing the case and waving his cane

at the same time. He had been drinking and was

"feeling no pain." The accident occurred in the middle of the afternoon.

A female visitor, age 36, tripped on the top step of 1-2. Her thin high heel shoe caught on the metal nosing. She fell into the window at the

84
bottom of the upper flight of 1-2. Lacerations

required first aid. Her elbow cracked the glass pane. Although she was cut up, everyone in the house was grateful that she was not seriously

injured.

Respondent, age 42, describes herself as clumsy

and regularly trips both on stairs and "on the

flat." She adjusts by walking down stairs with

great care. She is not as careful when she walks

up the stairs and consequently she often trips on her way up. Respondent, whose family has

lived in the house for over 100 years, considers

the stairways to be safe (except for the above mentioned window). (Not included in analysis.)

Comment: This old house has been cut up into 4 apartments so respondent does not have full use

of all of the stairways in the house. She does

not have a history of the stairway accidents but she knows that her immediate family has not had any severe accidents. Lighting on 1-2 while

adequate for vision to the dark adapted eye, did not register on the light meter when it was

placed on the treads. Only one reading on the wall,

at eye level, registered as much as 3 fc.

• 305 Twenty five year old female respondent has

had problems with the steps between the top

floor and mezzanine of her apartment. Once she

pulled a muscle when she lost her balance and

fell down part of this flight. She was carrying

clothes and feels this contributed to the fall. A

second time she went down the whole flight, falling into a large picture which covers the mezzanine wall. The picture was dented, the respondent bruised. On the third occasion, she

fell down part of the same stairway, again

hitting the picture, this time she hurt her hand.

Part of her problem is that she watches TV in the evening, and sleepily walks down to the bedroom or bathroom without turning on the

light. She has tripped many other times on

various stairways in the building but these are the ones where she was hurt.

Respondent's 28 year old husband has fallen twice on the flight between the mezannine and

living room. He characteristically rushes down

and up these stairs, taken two steps at a time. Each time he was shaken up but required no

treatment. Both falls were while descending.

While carrying a case of beer into the building,

he fell at the threshold to the front entrance. The door is heavy and he was trying to balance

the beer, with a resulting fall.

A male visitor, approx. age 32, fell from the mezzanine to main floor of the apartment. He

was looking at a new picture displayed on the

wall of the living room. He was shaken, no

injuries.

Respondent's female friend, no age given, tripped on the inside apt. stairway (shared apt. stairs) but was not hurt.

Respondent's husband saw a four year old boy

catch himself as he was falling through the open

handrails of the same inside shared stairway,

1-2. Child was frightened but not hurt.

Comments: In addition to living in a home

requiring heavy use of stairs for normal

household activities (three levels inside apartment

and two shared stairways), other features may

be relevant. All floors and stairs inside the apartment are covered with a light colored sculptured rug, making the stairs not

particularly distinguishable. The lighting doesn't

hit the stairway so that the edges of the steps

stand out. Respondent's husband is an art

director. The apartment looks like a gallery,

displaying many large, striking pieces of art. These are attractive but very distracting.

• 307 As he was leaving for work, respondent's

husband, age 29, slipped on the outside front wooden steps. It was early in the morning and

the day was cold and wet. He was shaken and

bruised but required no treatment. He felt that the steps were slippery because they were wet.

Comments: The five steps on the accident flight

have settled, producing many irregularities.

Between the first and second steps, there is a

2'/2 in difference in riser heights. On a single step

of this flight, there is as much as a 1 in difference

in riser height from the left to the right side. The appearance of these steps is fan-like.

Respondent considers stairways 100 percent

safe, although the steps have irregularities,

considerable wear, missing handrails, low head room and other negative features. Moreover,

there are four small children living in the home.

She can't recall any stairway accidents or even

near accidents for them.

• 315 Respondent, age 40, lost her balance and fell down four wooden steps on the front outdoor

flight. It was dark, the steps were icy and she was holding a bowling ball. After this fall, she

had the porch resurfaced with a sand paint

85
finish. Since respondent has osteomyelitis, she

thinks the fall caused her more pain and

inconvenience than might have happened to a healthy person. She usually walks very carefully

because she knows she is vulnerable.

Respondent's 15 year old daughter fell down

kitchen to back hall landing. The fall involved

only a couple of steps but she sprained her

ankle. Accident was in the daytime. Respondent

is not sure of the cause, but suggests daughter

may have been hurrying. There are no handrails on this flight and this may also have contributed.

Comments: Husband is in the process of redecorating and repairing. There are no

handrails. Linoleum and metal nosings are worn

and it is easy to catch your shoe in the nosing.

Despite the fact that there is a door with a window in it, daytime readings on treads did not measure more than 2 fc with the door closed.

316 Respondent's neighbor, a 60 year old female

who lives in the lower part of this duplex, fell on the back outside stairs, requiring medical care

(several treatments). Exact injuries are not known but they lasted several months. Victim

normally wears a leg brace, making an added

complication both in walking and extent of

injury. Accident in descent.

Respondent's 5 year old daughter slipped and

hurt her leg, requiring first aid. Daughter has

slipped on these steps many times but this one

time she got hurt. She is frightened of this stairway because she feels that she might fall when she stands at the top of the stairs. Respondent has told daughter to use another

exit. Accident was during descent.

Respondent's mother (now deceased) fell off this same stairway 3 years ago, with only a minor

injury. This is not included in the accident

summary because of insufficient information.

Respondent feels that a good handrail would

solve the problem of this stairway.

Comments: The steps described above not only

lack a handrail, but they are warped, have

exceedingly sharp edges, and have riser heights

varying from 6V2 to 81/2 in. When the screen door is opened, it sweeps over the whole landing

so that a person going up the stairs has to back

down them when opening the door. The

respondent does not worry about any other

stairway they use although they have a variety

of problems. The two front concrete steps to the entrance are broken and cracked. One has a 4'/2

(in riser and the other a 7 in riser. The steps

in the building have irregular riser heights

within a single flight. Lighting levels vary widely on single flights. A string which goes from the rear door to the first landing is used to turn on

the hall and basement light. Two bicycles as well

as many other objects are stored on both the

steps and landings of the stairways. This is not a dilapidated building, rather, it is old and in need

of repairs.

* 319 Respondent, female 26, has had three falls. On

the middle step of the lower flight of B-1, she caught

the toes of her shoes on the metal nosing. She was

descending. She was able to balance herself and did not have a complete fall. She was merely shaken.

On 1-2, lower flight, respondent also tripped on

metal nosing. This time she caught herself on

the handrail and avoided an injury. Again it occurred during descent.

Respondent fell flat on outside single step

leading to garage. Abrasions on hand and arm

but no serious injury. She wasn't sure why she

fell.

Comments: The outside garage step riser is 5 in. on one side and 6 in. on the other to accommodate

a walk (cracked because of heaving) which slopes

down toward the step.

Respondent claims that she catches her shoes on

all of the steps, but the accidents described

above occur as she steps off the middle landing

and turns to descend on the lower flight (i.e., there is a directional change). On 1-2, the middle landing is broken up into two parts by a single step, so adding to directional change is a change in the vertical height imposed by the

single riser. Respondent says most of the

incidents of shoes caught in nosing occur during

ascent, but the ones described above occurred

during descent.

• 321 Respondent, 51 year old female, reported an

old accident (at age 46) when she slipped on a stone on the top landing of the stairway leading

from the front porch to the sidewalk. She fell down five concrete steps to the middle concrete

landing. She required first aid and still has a scar above her ankle. Another time she fell on part

of this same stairway but can't remember any

details (not included in sample).

86
Respondent remembers still another incident when she missed a step on the same flight and

fell down to the middle landing. She thinks this could have been avoided had there been a handrail. She may have been hurrying. She was

shaken but not really hurt.

Respondent put her foot in a box at the top of the stairway between 1 and 2. She fell from 2 to

[landing. Some factors of interest are: She was

not wearing glasses, there was no handrail. She

had some soreness and abrasions requiring first aid but no medical care. She felt the effects for a couple of weeks.

Respondent's friend, female, age 54, fell on the deep

threshold step at the front entrance. She

tripped, hit the rubber mat on the porch at the edge of the step, twisted her ankle, but does not

consider injury to be of any consequence. Other

people have had trouble with this step.

Comments: The 1-2 stairway is relatively steep

and the upper straight section without winders

has shallow treads (9 to 91/2 in.) and moderate

risers [iVi to 9 in.). Light levels vary from 0 to 15 fc so it's very dark walking down into the

stairway. The large amount of light at the top is misleading.

On the outside front steps, the lower and upper

flights have different aggregates.

Threshold step has 10 in riser and '/z in nosing.

• 322 Respondent, female age 67, described an old accident on her front concrete stairway. When

age 40 she fell the complete length (12 steps) of the stairway. She slipped on grass which grew

between the concrete sections of the upper

landing and fell into a soft spongy area. Respondent was hurrying to get to a friend waiting in a car. She was wearing high heels, it was raining, there was no handrail. She was

bruised and felt the effects for a couple of weeks

but never consulted a doctor. There is now a very rigid, substantial pipe handrail on one side of the stairway. Note: actual fall was to concrete

step, she then rolled to bottom.

Respondent recently tripped and "partly fell" down winders on lower flight of 1-2, spraining

her ankle. This happened during the daytime

and respondent doesn't really know how it happened.

Respondent's 18 month old grandson dropped

off near the bottom of winders in the same

lower flight of 1-2. She feels the child should

have been supervised; it was a case of adult negligence. No injury noted.

Comments: Orientation edge and low head room are at steps 4-5 of this flight. There are no

handrails. Outside concrete steps are now visibly settled to one side so that they tilt. This may

help drainage of the steps but it appears to be a dangerous slope for walking up and down the

steps. The foot never hits a horizontal plane.

• 323 Respondent's small male child, age 2, cut his head open as a result of stairway accident

betwen 1 and 2. He was wearing pajamas with

feet when he slipped and fell on a winder four

steps from the bottom. He hit a hinge which

had previously been used for a gate. Respondent

commented on the slipperiness of the sculptured rug covering on the stairway. He as well as others in the family have slipped on this stairway also. The padding under the carpet

contributes. The steps are rounded and one's

foot tends to slip downward as you descend

these steps.

Comments: The rounded nosing has a large

radius of curvature so the descending person's

foot actually does not hit a flat surface but,

rather, hits a surface sloping slightly downward.

• 324 Respondent, age 26, can remember falling or slipping three times since they moved into

their home 3 months prior to interview. She

thinks she may be accident prone on stairways

as a result of never having lived in a house with

many steps. She is always slipping, barely

avoiding a major fall. The carpet between 1 and

2 is "slippery" and worn, and it is on this stairway where she usually trips. In each of two

falls on this stairway, she was descending. One

occurred near the top of the stairway, the other,

as she turned on the landing and planned to descend the lower flight of 1-2. In both cases, she slipped a few steps, caught herself on the

handrail and avoided a complete fall. She fell on

B-1 also, this time close to the bottom of the

stairway.

Respondent's 4 year old son has also taken a few

spills since they moved into the house. The

worst one occurred on 1-2. The boy tumbled

down the lower flight, hit his head but had no

noticeable injury.

Comments: This household consists of two

young families who recently moved into the

87
house. They have been doing extensive

renovations and much equipment is visible. Respondent, when home, spends much time

going up and down stairs as part of the activities related to remodeling. Light level measures 0 fc on all measures of both B-1 and 1-2. The 1-2 covering is moderately dark with low contrast, which may prevent edges of steps from being seen easily. There is no hand rail on the lower

flight of B-1 and there are winders. Moreover,

orientation edge and low head room occur on

step 1 of this flight.

325 Respondent, age 28, was able to remember

four separate occasions, two within the last 30

days, when she fell or tripped on her stairs. When she comes home from work, she puts on

Scholl's sandals and this may be why she has

tripped (her conjecture). Each time she slipped on a different place on the stairway. Two were

on the B-1 and two on the 1-2 stairway. She

has been shaken, bruised, but considers injuries to be trivial.

Comments: Stairway between 1 and 2 has an awkward handrail to grab because of the way the newell and rail come together. Stairway has walls on B-1 but there is no handrail. On both stairways,

light levels were low (no tread measured over 2 fc) but contrast appears to be adequate. Respondent

plans to continue to wear the Scholl sandals.

327 Respondent's children, two girls ages 6 and

10, occupy a second floor bedroom as do the other two children in the family. The parents

sleep on the first floor. Children describe the congestion on the stairways, especially when

they rush downstairs in the morning. It is not unusual for them to bump each other. One

week prior to the interview the older child bumped into the younger one's head. They both

fell down several steps and had "sore " heads. No

serious injury.

Comments: Stairway has winders from step three through eight, with orientation edge and low head room at step 1. Light levels are very low (0 fc on all treads) but contrast appears sufficient.

330 Respondent's son, age 12, fell twice in the nine months they have lived in the house. The

carpet between 1 and 2 is completely detached

in the middle of the flight, and it moves as you

walk on the remaining steps. The first time he

tumbled down and hit his head. The second

time he skinned his leg. First aid was needed but no medical attention was necessary.

Respondent has slipped twice on these steps

within the past 9 months. Again the problem is related to the loose carpeting.

Comments: This is a 100-year old house

scheduled for demolition. The stairway has

apparently been remodeled several times. An

opening in the stairwall, looking into the

kitchen area, is one such change. Respondent is embarrassed by the condition of the house and

assured interviewer that it was not the usual

level of housing to which she was accustomed.

It is interesting, however, that in nine months,

neither she nor her husband made any effort to

nail down the stairway carpeting. It was

completely detached from several middle steps

and was an obvious hazard. The treads all measured 0 fc on the inside stairways and

contrast was also relatively low. As a result of the remodeling, there was a 5 in difference in handrail height from top to bottom of the

stairway. There was a pair of shoes and a loose throw rug at the bottom of the flight.

• 333 Respondent's 2-year old son fell five steps

from the bottom of front inside stairway, 1-2. He cut his head but this was superficial. She

feels it was his inexperience with steps and that the stairway is very safe. She was close to him at the time of the incident.

Respondent slipped on steps between 1-2

recently. There was no injury.

Comments: Except for low light levels (maximum of 2 fc) there are no features which

appear hazardous.

• 334 This 28-year old female respondent was

able to enumerate 10 separate accidents on their home stairways—all within the past year. The

basic problem reported by the respondent is low

head room on B-1 and 1-2, with headroom of 60 in and 62 in on steps 1 and 4 respectively.

Although the details of these accidents were not completely spelled out, they follow a pattern.

The respondent or her husband hurry up or down the stairs (usually descent is related to accidents) and, forgetting the low ceiling, hit their heads on the overhang. Respondent talked about "sore heads." None of these accidents have required medical attention but "One of these days we're going to get hurt bad." Accidents happen "day or night, lighted or not

lighted."

88
Comments: This is a small house to which a den

and garage were added. Nothing seems to fit. Every stairway is awkward, except 1-2. There is no handrail on B-1, the handrail on 1-2 varies in height by 4 in., and riser heights are low (6-7 in. on

1-2). There is a high variability in friction caused by debris on the steps. B-1 and 1-2 steps are painted black with white walls. The step

between the den and garage has a partly

missing tread and loose riser.

• 336 Respondent, female age 23, has had no

recent accidents nor has her husband and child. She recalls four accidents, two on B-1 and two on

1-2. She can't recall the details of these

accidents but there were lacerations on two of the occasions. She feels that she probably was

running and not watching where she was going.

She says the nosing of her 1-2 steps is slippery

and a potential hazard. The front porch and

steps are so dilapidated that they are blocked off to prevent their use.

Comments: These two stairways have some

irregularities in riser heights. Risers are higher

than treads are deep, making a very steep

stairway, the steepest encountered in this study

(over 45°). B-1 also has no handrail. The house

will probably be torn down in the next few years.

• 337 Respondent, female age 53, has never had

an accident in her home but recalls that each of her daughters have fallen on their 1-2 stairway.

One, age 22, required first aid after falling

down the upper part of the stairs. She was

hurrying in stocking feet. It was a daytime

accident. The second daughter fell at age 12, fell on the lower half of the stairway, hurt herself but there was no serious injury. She was

probably hurrying. There is a low headroom

point on steps 2 and 3 of B-1. An assessor, not

familiar with the house, hit his head on the overhang, something which never happens to respondent or her husband because they are

familiar with this. She rates her stairways as 100% safe.

Comments: Light levels on both stairways is low (O fc on all treads measured). On B-1,

orientation edge and low head room both occur on step 2.

• 339 Respondent, female, age 53, recalls some

falls when her children were small but none

stand out in her mind. The week prior to the interview she stumbled going up the basement

steps. She thinks it was due to wearing slippery

soles. She was shaken. She says that "everyone

stumbles" on B-1, usually towards the bottom of

this straight stairway.

Comments: Orientation edge occurs at step 2. Low light levels are found on both stairways

(0 fc on all treads measured).

• 340 Respondent, age 47, female, described an

old accident. She was carrying a sheet down

1-2, stumbled, caught herself and fell again on

the last four steps. It was about 4 PM. She was

not injured, but was shaken by the experience.

She attributes the accident to the sheet which

interfered with her view of the stairway.

Respondent thinks her stairway is very steep

and wishes something could be done about it.

Comments: Orientation edge is at step 4. There

are two handrails, one on either side. A person might look around to see handrails and be

distracted. A bannister, part length on one side, ends at a vertical orientation edge. The stairway

is not among the steepest encountered in this study. The light level is between 0 and 2 fc for the stairway, but contrast is adequate.

• 342 Respondent, 44-year old female, feels the stairways are very safe but her husband plans

to rebuild B-1. The steps are getting wet and

rotting as a consequence of water from a shower located at the foot of the basement

steps. She has tripped on these steps but caught

herself in time. This was a misstep because her

hands were full of clothing. She feels it was due

to personal carelessness. Slipped on lower flight, B-1.

Comments: One side of lower flight, B-1, is without a handrail. The shower curtain hanging

there is deceptively solid-looking.

• 344 Respondents's 2-year old niece fell down

whole flight of B-1. It was evening and the light was not on. The child was not watched. Child was frightened. She hit her head but there was

no evidence of any lasting injury. The kitchen

step which leads to the upper landing of the B-1

stairway is a problem because visitors don't know it's there. Respondent, age 26, female, has

tripped on this step because she makes a habit

of jumping from the kitchen to the unused

bedroom across the landing (over 2 single steps).

The family dog likes to lie on the landing and

sometimes they have tripped over it. Respondent's husband has also tripped on this same step but was not injured.

89
Comments: The top riser of B-1 is awkward.

The otherwise straight stairway has one extra

riser at the top landing so that a person

descending the stairway from the kitchen or the unused bedroom must step down one step, turn 90 degrees and continue down the remaining

11 steps. The landing often has a dog or cat on

it. It is level with the back door threshold and

that door swings inward over the entire landing,

below the kitchen floor level or the bedroom

floor opposite. When the door was open, light

level at the top jumped off the scale. With the door closed, light levels drop to between 0 and

2 fc.

345 Respondent has not fallen but is very

careful on stairs because he has a severe

arthritis which has partially crippled him. He

finds that walking on stairs of any kind is a problem to him. His grandchildren who visit very often have both fallen on stairs. The

younger one, 2-year old male, recently tripped on the step between the breezeway and garage. He was bumped and shaken but no lasting

injury occurred. The six year old grandaughter

has very poor vision and he has observed her

falling on all of the stairways as well as on the

fiat. The one he remembers specifically is a fall from the kitchen to the breezeway.

346 When respondent's son was less than a year, he fell about three steps to the bottom of stairway B-1. He acquired first aid but no

medical care (laceration on thigh). Respondent,

female age 27, has not had an accident on these

stairs but she has had her heel stuck on the nosing between steps 3 and 4.

Comments: Steps 3 and 4 have loose nosing

which they plan to fix. There is low head room

on step 1 and an orientation edge on step 3. There is no handrail on this flight but there is a partial wall half way up,

347 Respondent, female 26, has tripped on her

front threshold plus single step a number of

times. One month prior to the interview she was holding her four month old baby, fell but managed to hold on to the baby and save herself from injury, although she turned her ankle. Respondent attributes some of the problem to the step itself which is not level. She suggests

that since there are no inside steps, she often

forgets the steps at the front and back

entrances.

The prefabricated home did not have this step

originally. It has separated from the house and

is tilted. Vines are growing around it so that it

is hard to see. The back riser is high (10").

• 349 A male adult visitor slipped on the middle

steps of B-1 but was not hurt. Cause is unknown.

Comments: There is low head room on step 2 from the bottom of B-1. The middle part of the

handrail is loose. Light readings on tread levels are all 0 fc. There is a throw rug and folding

door at the top of the stairway. This stairway

also has an orientation edge at step 2.

• 350 Respondent, female age 30, has slipped or

fallen about five times between basement and

first floor over the past year. No medical care or

first aid was required.

Comments: Light level is somewhat low

(between 1 and 3 fc on treads). Orientation edge,

is on step 3 and low head room on step 1.

• 351 Within the past year, respondent, female age 22, fell on 1-2, going up the stairs. She was

wearing platform shoes, tried to turn around

and change direction and fell. She hurt her knee

but didn't see a doctor. Accident is attributed to wearing platform shoes.

Comments: The padding on the 1-2 stairway is very thick and the pile of the rug is thick,

tending to round the nosing. Handrail on this stairway is not even height (2 inch difference in height from top to bottom).

• 352 Respondent, female age 53, occasionally

misses the top step and trips. Two times she

actually fell, once from B-1 and once from 1-2. She was walking dovv'nstairs on both occasions. She attributes these accidents to the wearing of

bifocals.

Comments: Light levels are 0-1 fc on these

stairs. There are no other obvious hazards.

90
APPENDIX D

RESPONDENTS' SUGGESTIONS

1 AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR IMPROVING STAIRWAY

SAFETY

DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROM MAIL

SAMPLE

#75 25F SFD OWNER 1940-4912

We keep heavy double thickness of carpet

e at the foot of the basement stairs. I do

i appreciate the railing around here and

would hope to see them all over. I avoid

high heels like the plague.

! #81 39M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

No worn carpeting. Keep surfaces dry.

Handrails are important.

orj

li #84 57F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

] No fences or walls at bottom of stairs. We

I are going to court about a neighbor

putting a fence at the bottom of the

outside stairway.

#85 54F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Should not have narrow or winding

s stairways with platform. Should have wide

^1 enough tread to accommodate a large foot.

I No metal strip on stairs. No high wax.

J Handrailing inside and out. No holes in

I concrete steps.

#87 67F SFD OWNER 1940-49

If stairs are built wide enough, there

shouldn't be any trouble because then

I they're not so steep looking, especially

I when coming down. They should not have

" open steps without a backing.

i #88 41F SFD OWNER

i What about lighting? You asked the

J [questions about stairways in the dark and

il thought about my folks' house that has a

^ light only at the bottom of the stairs. I

Ij think this is very dangerous. 1 think that

j' curving stairs (winding) are always more

y dangerous than straight ones because they

I are more unequal in width and it makes

I them more difficult.

I i^Lists respondent's age, sex; unit type (single family detached or attached: SFD, SFA; duplex; DUP; apartment:

' APT); tenure; when built.

DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROM TELEPHONE

SAMPLE

#111 53F SFD OWNER 1965-70

just to not keep a loose rug at the top of

the steps or keep the floor waxed at the top of the steps.

#112 45F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

We did something that might sound odd, but it works. We put a different color linoleum on each step leading to the basement, that way every step was very

noticeable. I never wax my steps either.

#115 40F SFD OWNER 1950-64

We always use a gate that collapses and

pulls open on our basement door so our

children don't fall downstairs.

#118 68F DUP OWNER 1950-64

Carpeting is not as safe as rubber mats. Rug at bottom of stairs should be skid

resistent.

#119 69M DUP OWNER 1940-49

Handrails are important.

#120 67M SFD OWNER 1950-64

Many people have standard treads and

risers on their stairs but then they put on heavy carpeting and padding which cause bunching or lumping. I think this is quite

dangerous, especially for elder people.

They can stumble and fall very easily.

#123 65F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Winders on stairways should be banned.

People not familiar with them can very

easily step on the narrow part and fall.

#101 41F SFA OWNER 1971-74

We looked at many apartments and town

houses that had open risers and while we

don't have any small children, consider this type very bad. The openings are large

enough for a child to fall through.

#103 48F SFD OWNER 1950-64

I think stairs should be made a proper

height and slope. My mother had to have

10 steps replaced outside. It was done by a professional but he made the steps the wrong height and also sloped them so much it's a wonder no one got hurt on

them. You know we are all used to lifting our feet a certain height on the stairs and

91
this was all wrong. The little strips of metal that are put on some of the base- ment steps are a nuisance and very very dangerous and very easy for a person to catch their heels on them.

#104 39M SFD OWNER 1965-70

I wish they would come up with a stand- ard riser and tread height. Being in the construction business, I see this every day

because of decor or some such tiling, they

change the height of the riser. I find this to be very dangerous, especially for older people cause they are usually used to one

height. It's hard for them to not fall when

the stair is of a different height.

#107 42F SFD OWNER 1950-64

I think the metal strips some people have on their stairs are dangerous because if they become loose, they can cause you to

trip.

#108 31F SFD RENTER 1950-64

I would say that there should always be a handrail at least on one side of the stair- well if not both. I've been places when

there was no rail and I thought it was very dangerous. In this house, we now have

treads on the basement stairs to improve

safety.

#110 41F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Keep the stairs clear of objects that don't belong there. I'm guilty of putting clothes

etc. on the stairs until my next trip and

know this is bad. We could so easily trip over them.

#126 62M DUP OWNER Bef. 1940

Waxed linoleum is bad. Metal edging is bad. All stairways should be carpeted completely.

#127 52F SFD OWNER 1950-64

I do think that handrails are so important

and (also) keep the stairs clear of things.

#128 33F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Worn carpeting (should be) removed or

replaced. Handrails are important and

loose metal strips are dangerous.

#129 54M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Width of stairways should be uniform.

(They should) be wide enough so both

hands could reach either side. Handrails

are important. Carpeting should be in- stalled so it won't pull out.

#131 29M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Iron railings outside. Handrailings over at

least 3 or 4 steps. Replace covering if worn

or torn.

#132 27F DUPLEX RENTER Bef. 1940

Handrails are important.

#133 62F DUPLEX OWNER Bef. 1940

Have standard tread. Flat carpeting, no

shag. All stairs should have handrails. No

linoleum, no metal edging.

#134 40F SFD OWNER 1940-49

I try to tell my children 'walk' instead of

'run' for safety, and to remove anything

that might be on steps even if they didn't put it there.

#135 23M SFD RENTER Bef. 1940

Just a little tighter on things that the landlord promises. They should be made to do

things that they promise, like he told us he

would put up a handrail when we moved

in, and he hasn't.

#136 71F DUPLEX OWNER Bef. 1940

Handrailings are important.

#137 57F DUPLEX RENTER Bef. 1940

Should have handrails inside and out.

#138 75F DUPLEX RENTER 1940-49

Handrailings are important.

#139 48M APT RENTER Bef. 1940

Get the landlords to fix the steps but they

don't do it unless forced to do it (wood is rotten, steps are crooked).

#140 78F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Everybody should have handrails and not

too much carpeting on the steps and not worn so you can't catch your heel in it.

#141 50F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I do think there should be a railing on all stairways inside and outside.

#142 66M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Handrailings are important. Carpeting if

it's tacked down good. Rubber treads are good.

92
143 53F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Handrail on both sides (resp. had stroke 2

! years ago and is very cautious on stairs).

144 65F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

No curved stairways. Straight stairways

and landings. Need railings on all stair- ways. Painted stairs are slippery, should

have carpeting or rubber treads.

145 26M DUP RENTER 1950-64

Entire stair should be covered with a nonskid tread. Handrails should be on both

sides.

146 38F SFA RENTER 1965-70

I think stairs should definitely have landings. They shouldn't have so many

I straight stairways, just all stairs. They

, should sort of have them broken up into landings between stairs to break a fall or prevent accidents. I also don't think they

i should have stairs that come to a point. I

1 love winding stairs but they should be

I much wider than what they usually are,

j like if you are going up while someone is

] coming down, there isn't much room on

, the step for two, or if you're carrying

' something, it's hard to not miss the step.

147 58M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

(Suggest) putting more handrails on stairs,

f Permanent carpet is better than rubber

mats. Mats tear and are dangerous.

|l49 37F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

No metal edge—can catch heel. Handrails

! are important. Uniform width is important.

: Paint on outside that wouldn't be slippery

when wet (is important). All carpeting

j (should be) tacked down securely or glued.

|fl52 50F SFD OWNER 1950-64

I'm all against carpeted stairs, toward the basement especially. I think they're slip- pery.

153 32F SFA OWNER 1950-64

Just hang on to the guardrail and walk,

don't run.

F154 53F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I Should have same size step (uniform

risers).

#157 21F DUPLEX RENTER 1965-70

Handrails important, especially for older

people.

#158 41F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Mine going to the basement have crooked

stairs. The second one from the bottom is straight across and the bottom one is sort

of peaky or pointy and then I also have a peaky or pointy one in the center of the

stairway. 1 think instead of the peaky ones,

I should have all straight ones, not peaky

winding stairs, sort of. I think the steps

should be wider—like with the fellows—they

have like a size 10 shoe (and) it don't fit on

the stairway. Like with mine, it's a size 5 shoe, but some of my son's friends have

larger shoes and they don't fit on the step. The tread should be wider (deeper).

#159 25F DUPLEX RENTER 1950-64

Rubber treads (are) bad.

#160 27F DUPLEX OWNER Bef. 1940

I think all stairs should have a handrail. Most old houses don't and I know of

friends who have had bad falls because of

this. Most old houses (also) have steps that are too narrow.

#161 47F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Outside railing on steps can be slippery in winter. Landings on inside steps are easier than straight steps. Rubber stair treads can be bad, and would rather have paint or

varnish. Handrails are important at least on one side. Steps should be wide and not

too steep. Landings are important. Steps, if ripped can be dangerous.

#162 68F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Have railings! Removable railings would be

nice for movings. Rubber treads are unsafe. Have steps wide enough and not too

steep. Stairs should have a landing, some

way.

#164 63F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

The only thing I can think of is with

carpeted stairways. The carpeting around

the stair on the edge gets slippery. I don't know if it's because of the type of carpeting I have. It's a smooth nylon with no

relief in it. Perhaps a sculptured carpet

would be different.

93
#165 40F APT RENTER Bef. 1940

Stairways should not be too narrow or

steep.

#167 55F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I just like railings on stairways. Some

places don't have any at all.

#170 42F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

The only thing (is that) handrails are important.

#171 75M SFD OWNER 1950-64

1 think everyone should put carpeting on

their steps from the first to second floor and cover the entire stairs, not only part of

it, so they don't fall. They should also have

a handrail on the side.

#173 25M SFD (converted duplex) OWNER

Bef. 1940

I've been fixing up the place since we got

it and have all kinds of inspectors here and was told it's a law that any place that has

3 steps or more, you gotta have a railing,

but yet I can go around here and show

you ten places that don't have any. I had

to put my railing up in the middle of winter. I'd like to know why do they press the point with only one person and not on

ten others? (these were fixed as of 10/15/75)

#174 56F SFA RENTER 1940-49

Carpets are sometimes nailed to the steps too shallow. When they run the carpeting

from one step to the next, they don't nail them back far enough and then the steps are too narrow and todays young people

have bigger feet. They tend to overbalance

and fall.

#176 75F APT RENTER 1950-64

I think all stairways should have railings

and also a nice wide platform before you

go up the stairs and at the top of the

stairs.

#181 72F SFD RENTER AGE: ? A handrail is so important. I have seen it prevent accidents. It's so easy to slip or stumble and have a bad fall if one isn't using the handrail.

#184 40F SFD RENTER 1950-64

Being in real estate, I'm up and down a lot

of stairs and steps. I showed two homes

today and the one place the sale of the home did not materialize (was) because th steps were too steep and narrow. The

other home had the basement entrance going from the living room. They had bui

in shelves for the wall right next to the , door that extended out into the stairway,

thought, if you were nine months

pregnant, why you couldn't even get dow

the stairway. Many older people have live in their homes for 20 years or more and , say they are selling for health reasons. I i feel most of the time their poor health is because of the stairways they have in the home.

#185 85F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

All stairs should have railings.

#186 65F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I really think lighting is a big factor. I live in an older house and I would make the

risers shorter and treads wider from fron^

to back.

#188 32M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

A lot of the older homes such as this hav( very steep risers and runs—that should b( changed. I don't know how but it should

be changed although the new regulations on risers and runs is better. One thing

that should not be allowed—this house

does not have a handrail on the stairways;

going to the basement. I think a handrail | should be required all over. I don't think

the metal nosing strips are too good. It's too easy to catch your foot or heel on

them.

#190 41F SFD OWNER 1950-64

I think carpeting on stairs is a must. Beinj

padded, if one should fall, it would be a softer landing. ;

#193 77F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Make sure all stairways have a handrail

and check often to make sure the metal

strip on the stair isn't raised. Yesterday I

[ caught the toe of my sandal on a part of the strip on the basement stairs and very

nearly had a nasty fall. I checked all the

rest of the steps, believe me.

#194 28F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

A lot of people don't have handrails. I know if you sell a home under FHA

94
regulations that you have to install brand new handrails if they're the least bit rickety—if you want to sell the house. I think the FHA regulations are pretty

strict, which is a good thing.

(*195 66M SFD OWNER 1950-64

Just that all stairs should have a handrail. The stairs should be wide enough and they

should be straight if possible.

#196 35F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Wider stairways and deeper. The tread could be, say, instead of 9 in. they could be

like 11 in. Handrails on both sides of the stairway rather than only one.

.kl97 65M SFD OWNER 1950-64

Risers not too high, windows designed

correctly, handrails on both sides of stairs, although residential stairs are usually too narrow for this.

!#199 32F SFD OWNER 1971-74

Do away with scatter rugs. I nearly fell when I tripped over one at the basement

of my mother's staircase. We have shag

carpeting and this isn't good. When we

wear those plastic scuffs, they tend to be very slippery on the shag carpeting.

#200 42F SFD OWNER 1950-64

I think one of the biggest things is people

leaving junk on them. A stairway is a permanent thing. It's the person using it that makes the hazard and he should exercise the care.

#201 48F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Families should have a hook on the base- ment door and keep it locked as well as closed when there are children around.

#202 76F DUP RENTER 1940-49

Handrailings are important. No linoleum

with metal strips. Rugs at bottom of stairs are dangerous.

#205 44F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Perhaps these winding stairs. Some folks have them where they're wide on one side and narrow on the other. I think that could be dangerous.

#206 24F DUP RENTER 1950-64

I think shag carpeting is dangerous on

steps because it sticks out and can't tell the end of the steps, especially for children.

DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROM SITE VISIT

SAMPLE

#303 72F APT RENTER 1950-64

Older people must walk very carefully,

especially on steps. They should not build doors that open into the stairway like we

have here.

#305 25F APT RENTER 1965-70

Pile rugs should not be put on stairways.

Open railings where children can fall through are bad, so are open risers. Single

steps like from a patio door are a hazard.

#307 29F DUP RENTER Bef. 1940

Use rough (textured) paint on porch steps

to avoid slipping. Fix broken and loose

steps which you find in a lot of old houses.

#308 62F APT RENTER Bef. 1940

Repair steps that are not on firm. Use

rubber treads for safety.

#309 61F DUP OWNER Bef. 1940

Narrow stairs are dangerous. In our last house I fell, hit my spine and had a concussion from a fall down the stairs which were winding and very narrow. Also, don't carry large things, like laundry, on winding and turning stairways.

#313 24F DUP RENTER Bef. 1940

Keep carpets on stairways hammered

down. Keep lighting fixed so that it always

works.

#314 29F DUP OWNER Bef. 1940

I keep a lot of things on my stairways and

I suppose I shouldn't do this. The front

steps (1-2) are hardly ever used so I store

a lot of things on them. Keep stairs in good shape and repair when needed.

#315 40F DUP OWNER Bef. 1940

Put sand in paint for outside porch steps. I walk carefully on steps because I have

osteomyelitis and it would be bad for me

to fall.

#316 35F DUP RENTER Bef. 1940

Handrails are very important.

#319 26F DUP RENTER 1940-49

Don't use metal strips on stairs, they get

loose and people trip on them. Handrails

should be on all stairways.

95
#321 51F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Handrails, especially for older people. Deep

single steps like at our front door are bad.

In some older houses like this, they made

them very deep and it's easy to trip on

them.

#323 34M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Avoid carpeting, especially sculptured rugs. Carpeting is slippery and rubber treads are

preferable. Have good lighting on stair- ways.

#324 26F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Replace slippery and worn carpeting. Fix handrails and install when necessary. I have to learn to be careful on stairways

because this is the first house we've lived

in where there are a lot of stairs.

#326 75M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Watch out for ice on outdoor steps. Walk

carefully and use the handrails.

#330 44F SFD RENTER Bef. 1940

Fix loose carpeting. Repair all loose steps. Stairways that turn are not as good as straight stairways. Narrow and uneven

stairs such as you find in very old (100- year old) houses are a problem.

#331 31F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Avoid single steps. Use handrails. Tell children not to run.

#332 59F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Keep stairways painted, use handrails.

#334 28F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Don't build stairways with a low over- hang. Don't put wax on steps. Fix broken

and missing steps.

#335 62F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

This house doesn't have handrails and it is very important to have them. You can't

sell a house without them.

#336 23F SFD RENTER Bef. 1940

Watch out for slippery metal nosings. Fix dilapidated steps.

#337 53F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Make ceilings above stairways high

enough so people don't bump heads.

96

#338 48F SFD OWNER 1950-64 ' Lots of people fix their own stairways, put

carpeting on, metal nosings and other

things. Stairways should be done by pro- '

fessionals. On my own house and on other

properties I own, I keep up repairs and get

things done right.

#339 53F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Keep steps dry. Kids come in from the pool in the back yard and get the kitchen ' floor and the basement steps wet.

#340 47F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Steep stairways are dangerous. Handrails

are important and so are throw rugs that don't slide.

#344 26F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Doors opening into stairwells and one or two steps that people don't know are

there, can cause accidents.

I #346 27F SFD OWNER 1950-64

Repair steps as necessary. Rubber treads

are good. ,,

#349 57F SFD OWNER 1940-49

Handrails. |

#350 30F SFD OWNER 1950-64 ' Narrow steps in older houses, no handrails. 1

#352 53F SFA RENTER 1950-64 (est.) I'm not allowed to put anything on the 1 stairs, no covering, but would like to ; carpet the stairs from 1-2 and put rubbertreads on B-1. Still, I don't have any problems on my stairways.

j ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE RESPONSES

(UNCODED: MAIL FORM NOT RETURNED)

|23F DUP RENTER Bef. 1940

Have handrails to hold onto all stairways.

Having carpeting, I think, would cut down on l slipping and falling on stairs.

32F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Stress handrails. I have a thing about going

down steps. I have to hang on to a rail and

when I have to go down where there is none, I am very uncomfortable. I hate to see steps

where there are no risers. They always look to me like they are flimsy and could collapse.

I
8F SFA OWNER AGE: ? Have a lock on the basement door high enough

that the kids have to use a chair to reach it, to keep them from falling downstairs. Never wax

the steps, that makes them too slippery.

7F SFA RENTAL AGE: ?

I do not think they should have open stairs with no wood at the back of the step. They should

have some kind of treads on them. Mine that I

! got here are sort of a plastic tread on the first to second floor, but they are glued down and they

keep coming loose all the time from when I scrub them. Water gets under them. They may

not be nailed down or taken off, the landlord

said, so I have to glue them all the time.

9F DUP OWNER Bef. 1940

i They should never have sharp turns and not so high in between steps. Steps should be carpeted.

Handrail on all stairways.

,5F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940 (Architect's wife)

j As long as there are human beings, there is no

J such thing as safety. People are careless.

!9F SFD OWNER 1940-49

; Carpeting is best because linoleum is slippery.

Keep toys off stairs.

')F DUP OWNER Bef. 1940

I Old carpeting and carpeting not being tacked

I down is dangerous. Loose treads are dangerous

' and leaving objects on stairs are dangerous.

I Metal strips are bad. Should have railings on all stairs.

I'jF SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I Be sure there is a handrail. Never have worn

carpeting on them.

75F SFD OWNER 1940-49

Handrails are important.

37F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Handrails are important.

Retired F SFD RENTER Bef. 1940

All stairs (should) have handrails. Carpeting on

outside stairs isn't too good if there is no roof over it. It rains and becomes slippery.

50F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I do not like the metal trips on the basement

stairs. They tend to loosen although ours are

real tight. I have been other places where they

have been loose. I would rather have none at all.

75F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I think stairway safety whether for outside or

inside stairs should be stressed for small

children, whether it's in their house or someone elses. Not to run up or down stairs. They

are not toys and can be just as dangerous as playground equipment at playgrounds where they have

no supervisor.

63M SFD OWNER 1950-64

Have wide treads on the stairs that are wide

enough for an adult's foot. Some are so narrow

you just about get half of the foot in them.

59F DUP RENTER Bef. 1940

Handrailings are important.

62M SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

I just think that everyone should have a railing on stairways. Some places don't and that's dangerous.

50F SFD OWNER Bef. 1940

Turning stairway is good with a landing.

Carpeting is best.

97
I
jVPPENDIX E

NTENDED STAIRWAY

i REPAIRS

YES" RESPONSES TO SECTION G: DO YOU

-HINK THE STAIRWAYS AROUND YOUR

iUlLDlNG NEED WORK, OTHER THAN

riEANING, TO MAKE THEM SAFER? IF SO.

f^HAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? PLEASE

STIMATE HOW MUCH THIS WORK MIGHT

':osT.

idd, Fix or Repair Coverings

9 SFD 1950-64 OWNER"

Indoor-outdoor carpeting on exterior steps

! and stoop. Back stoop too high because of

j settling concrete adjacent to it. Est. cost: $25 for carpeting; ? for back stoop

]7 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

' Carpeting or rubber tile or linoleum. Est.

j cost: $200

,9 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

I Stair treads or coverings needed. Est. cost: $100-199

!

'|9 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

' Handrails, treads. Est. cost: $25-50

i|

5 SFD 1940-49 OWNER

Rubber treads. Est. cost: under $25

!© APT Age? RENTER

' Metal strips are loose, steps are narrow.

Est. cost: $200 or more

|jl08 SFD 1950-64 RENTER

The stairway to the basement should have

treads on them. I've never fallen, but our

baby sitter went down a couple of them.

Est. cost: $25

26 DUP Bef. 1940 OWNER

[ New coverings. Old ones are getting worn. Est. cost: $200-299

jai SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Stairs need new covering. Est. cost: $25-

49

^Lists unit type; when built; tenure. See Note 12, page 91.

139 APT Bef. 1940 RENTER

They should be rebuilt in the back outside. The wood is rotten and they're crooked.

Also steps should be checked to basement.

Est. cost: $200 or more

145 DUP 1950-64 RENTER

Basement needs rubber treads fixed (loose

treads). Stairs on top are loose. Est. cost: $100-199

146 SFA 1965-70 RENTER

On the stairway from the first to second

floor it's all straight steps but very dangerous. I would like to put something on them but this is a HUD house and you

are restricted with what you can put on it. Wt can't nail anything down. We're not allowed to put carpeting down. It's not

slippery but it s vei v dangerous. Someone

in the household would pay for it, but we

have to get permission. Est. cost: $25-49

147 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

I'm in the process of pouring more

concrete steps to front walk which need

repair. I'm doing it myself. Est. cost: $25-

49

160 DUP Bef. 1940 OWNER

My husband is going to replace our

outside stairs to the second floor during

his vacation. They are old and need too much repair so he is going to build new

ones. There is no handrail between the second and third floor, and he will do this too. Est. cost: under $100

168 DUP Bef. 1940 OWNER

A new step (stairway) on the front that

I'm going to get next year. Est. cost: $200

188 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Outside rear steps—some of the boards

are loose. They could be replaced or nailed down. Actually, I think the whole thing

will have to be rebuilt one of these years.

Est. cost: $50-99 to replace loose boards; $100-199 to rebuild.

197 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

Safety nosings on the basement stairs for more safety. Est. cost: $50

301 APT Bef. 1940 RENTER

Paint steps, fix lighting. Est. cost: $200 or more

99
I

307 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

Paint outside steps with rough textured

paint. Est. cost: Below $25

313 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

Pound down loose carpets; fix lighting.

Est. cost: about $30

323 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Recarpet stairway from 1-2. Est. cost: $25-

50

324 SFD Bef. 1949 OWNER

Recarpet front stairs, 1-2, install handrails,

patch outside cement steps. Est. cost: $200

or more

330 SFD Bef. 1949 RENTER

Recover 1-2, resurface from basement to

first floor, put handrail on 1-2. Est. cost: ?

333 SFD Bef. 1949 OWNER

Ice control (how to keep ice off front

stoop, especially). Est. cost: ?

336 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Front porch needs to be completely

redone, including the steps. The inside

steps, 1-2, have slippery edges so you slide down if your foot hits it. Should be fixed.

Est. cost: $200 or more

335 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Put sand in paint for wooden porch and

steps. Put handrails all over inside and

outside steps. Don't think it can be sold unless this is done. (Respondent lives alone and would like to sell her house) Est. cost; ?

334 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Back inside step is mostly missing and

riser is loose. Est. cost: $25 or under

340 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

The stairway from 1-2 is too steep but

maybe nothing can be done about it. If there was a way, it should be fixed. Est. cost: ?

342 SFD 1940-49 OWNER

Repair worn and rotten stairs between

basement and first floor. Husband is handy and would put in whole new set of

stairs. Est. cost: $50-99

346 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

Add new rubber treads, fix single B-1 step with loose nosing. Est. cost: $50

347 SFD 1940-49 OWNER

Replace front outside step. Est. cost: unde

$25

REPAIR OR REPLACE STEPS

15 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

Coming down stairs, from 2-1, you have

to reach down to open the door and have

to lean forward —throws you off balance,. Bottom landing to door is very short, 3'4 inches from door to riser. Est. cost: ?

28 DUP 1971-74 RENTER

Eliminate winder where inner steps are too narrow. Est. cost: ?

30 DUP 1950-64 RENTER

Change height of some of the basement

steps. Est. cost: ?

38 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Turn step over. Est. cost: $50-99

|

42 SFD 1950-64 OWNER ; Front bricks need straightening, but we ' use back entrance most of the time. Est. cost: $25-49

47 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

Back outside needs to be redone and

protection from weather added. Est. cost $50-99

50 SFD 1950-64 OWNER

f^andrails and treads are needed. Est. cos $25-49

58 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

Steps are narrow on inside (winders). Esl cost: $200 or more

63 APT Age ? RENTER

Basement steps need repair. Broken step: between 2-3. Est. cost: $50-99 ',

70 SFD 1950-64 OWNER ' Mudjacking or redoing concrete steps. Es

cost: $200 or more

85 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Cellar steps need to be repaired. Son is taking down a house now and will use tf lumber. Est. cost: $25 or less

100
90 SFA 1971-74 OWNER

A gutter to keep water off steps when

snow melts. Would cost about $25-50

132 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

Handrail needed on outside stairway. Est. cost: $25 or less

194 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

A handrail from the back entrance to the back yard. We are planning on putting on

an addition to the house, so anything we

do now would have to be torn out.

302 APT Bef. 1940 OWNER

Tighten handrails. No cost

314 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

Intend to put railings down to the basement. Es*-. cost: ?

316 DUP Bef. 1940 RENTER

Install handrails outside. Est. cost: ?

349 SFD 1940-49 OWNER

Handrail needed on back steps. Est. cost $25 or less

LIGHTING

57 SFD Bef. 1940 OWNER

Lighting needed from basement to first floor. Est. cost: $25 or less

310 APT Bef. 1940 RENTER

Lighting and painting. Est. cost: $200 or more

101

kPPENDIX F

VIATERIALS ENCOUNTERED SERIALLY

ROM BOTTOM TO TOP OF EACH

INSIDE STAIRWAY

301 B-1: concrete, linoleum/metal, linoleum,

linoleum/ metal, linoleum

1- 2: linoleum, linoleum/metal, linoleum,

linoleum/metal, linoleum

2-3: linoleum, varnish, carpet/plastic sheet

302 B-1: concrete, rubber mat, linoleum/metal,

linoleum, tile/metal, tile 1-2: tile, tile/metal, tile, tile/metal, tile, pi'e

carpet, tile 2-3: tile, pile carpet, paint

303 B-1: concrete, linoleum/metal, varnished

nosing, linoleum, linoleum/metal,

linoleum, rubber mat

1-2: rubber mat, smooth mat, carpet/ varnish,

varnished nosing, linoleum, carpet/

varnish, varnished nosing, throw,

linoleum

304 B-1: pile carpet, parquet wood/varnish (inside

apt.) B-1: pile carpet (inside shared stairs)

305 B-1: concrete, vinyl tile, vinyl treads, smooth

carpet

1-2: smooth carpet (inside shared stairs) 2- 3; pile carpet (inside apt.)

306 B-1: broom concrete, steel/plastic treads,

broom concrete, steel/plastic treads,

broom concrete

1- 2: same as above

2-3: same as above

two steps inside apartment: shag rug

307 B-1: concrete, linoleum/metal, linoleum,

linoleum/metal, linoleum

1-2: linoleum, linoleum/metal, linoleum,

linoleum/metal, linoleum

2-3: linoleum, linoleum/metal, varnish

308 B-1: linoleum, throw, bare wood, paint,

linoleum, varnish, smooth carpet,

varnish

1-3: varnish, paint (no access to second level)

309 B-1: concrete, throw, linoleum/metal,

linoleum, linoleum/metal, throw,

linoleum

1-2: linoleum, linoleum/metal, linoleum,

throw, linoleum

2- 3: linoleum, rubber treads/varnish, linoleum/

metal, linoleum, rubber treads/

varnish, bare wood

310 1-2: ceramic tile, throw, smooth carpet/

varnish

311 B-1: concrete, linoleum, throw, linoleum, bare wood

312 B-1: concrete, painted linoleum, rubber mat

1-2: painted linoleum, rubber mat, painted

linoleum., smooth throw, bare wood

313 B-1: painted concrete, linoleum, paint

1-2: paint, plastic mat, rubber treads, paint,

throw, smooth carpet/paint, varnish

314 B-1: concrete, rubber mat, linoleum/metal,

linoleum, smooth throw, linoleum,

linoleum/metal, linoleum

314 1-2: pile carpet, pile carpet/varnish, varnish

throw, pile carpet (front stairway)

1-2: linoleum, smooth throw, varnish,

linoleum/metal, linoleum (back)

2- 3: linoleum, linoleum/metal, varnish, throve,

varnish

315 B-1: concrete, throw, rubber treads/paint,

paint, rubber treads/paint, throw,

linoleum/metal, throw, linoleum

1-2: linoleum, varnish, smooth throw,

linoleum

2-3: linoleum, throw, varnish, bare wood

316 B-1: brick, concrete, linoleum/metal on wood,

linoleum, throw, linoleum/metal,

linoleum

1-2: linoleum, throw, linoleum/metal,

linoleum, throw, linoleum/metal,

linoleum

2-3: linoleum, throw, varnish, bare wood

317 B-1: concrete, pile carpet, rubber mat,

linoleum/metal, throw, linoleum

1-2: linoleum, throw, throw, smooth carpet,

linoleum

318 B-1: concrete, tile/metal, smooth carpet, tile/ metal, varnished nosing, smooth carpet

319 B-1:

1-2:

concrete, throw, linoleum/metal,

linoleum, throw, smooth carpet

smooth carpet, linoleum/metal, linoleum.

103
linoleum/metal, linoleum, linoleum/ 0-J\J C IC/ pall I ICU WU\JU/ I i 1 1 VJ W, llllUlt: Ulll metal, linoleum J. . Lilt-/ lllXUVV, 51IIULJL11 Lai ptrt/ paint/ SmOOtll

C3rpet R 1

• D- J-

concrete, throw, tile/metal, tile, throw.

tiie/metal, varnish, throw, tile R 1 •

• -1 u u ceramic tile, throw, smooth carpet, tile. i-Z: .•111 '111 -1

tile, throw, varnish, throw, varnish. tile/metal, throw, tile, pile carpet

throw, varnish i-Z. pile carpet

front-back hall: pile carpet

321 D-I: u 1 ; 1-1 linoleum, tile, varnish, tile/metal, tile. back hall-kitchen: linoleum, linoleum/

tile/metal, tile metal, linoleum

1-2: linoleum, varnish R 1 • D- i

...

concrete, linoleum/metal, linoleum

322 D-1: .... painted concrete, rubber mat, linoleum/ i-Z. pile carpet

metal, linoleum, rubber mat, linoleum/

metal, linoleum 333 B-1: smooth carpet, linoleum/metal, linoleum

1-2: linoleum, throw, linoleum/metal, varnish. smooth carpet

throw, varnish, linoleum pile carpet

R 1 11 11-1 concrete, linoleum/metal, linoleum. 11-1 concrete, paint, paint/ metal, linoleum

linoleum/ metal linoleum 1-2: pile carpet, throw, paint, smooth carpet.

smooth carpet, pile carpet, shag rug. den-garage: concrete, wood, linoleum.

Hall to back porch: smooth carpet, varnish. smooth carpet

paint porch-entry: painted wood, linoleum.

Living room to front porch: varnish. bare wood, smooth carpet

linoleum

335 B-1: painted, concrete, 1-1,1 linoleum/metal.

324 B-1: , 11, 1 concr6t8/ tnroW/ linoleum/ iriet^l. iinuicuiii, iiiioicum, meiai, unoieum

linoleurT\/ linol8um/metal; linoleum 1-2: linoleum, varnish, linoleum

1-2: pile Cai pel, pile Ldrpci/ varnibn, putr carpci.

pile carpet/varnish, pile carpet 336 B-1: concrete, plastic mat, concrete, linoleum;

2-3: pile carpet, painted wood. metal, linoleum

living room-sun room: cork tile, varnish i-Z. linoleum, throw, linoleum/metal, tile

325 B-1: concrete, pile ...

throw, 11/ linoleum/metal. 337 B-1: 11 k U/ Ul linoleum, throw, varnish/rubber treads. linoleum, smooth throw, linoleum/ smooth carpet

metal, linoleum 1-2: pile carpet, varnish, pile carpet

1-2: pile carpet

L. 1.L 1. 1 1 / 1. 1 338 B-1: concrete, smooth carpet, linoleum/metal.

linoleum, throw, linoleum, linoleum/

326 B-1: concrete, throw, linoleum/metal. metal, throw, linoleum

linoleum, linoleum/metal, linoleum 1-2: linoleum, linoleum/metal, linoleum.

1-2: throw, smooth carpet/paint linoleum/metal, linoleum

327 B-1: 339 B-1: concrete, rubber treads/varnish, varnish.concrete, paint, linoleum/metal, linoleum.

5iia^ iiiiuw, luiuicum/ merai, iiie smooth throw

1-2: tile, smooth carpet

1-2: pile carpet, varnish, smooth carpet/

val lllsll

328 R 1 . D-1: smooth carpet, varnish, linoleum/metal. D-R 1i

tile, linoleum, pile, plastic mat

linoleum, varnish, linoleum/metal. 1-2: UllC till UW, pile LaipCL

linoleum

1-2: smooth carpet, shag carpet, smooth 341 B-1: tile, tile/metal, tile carpet 1-2: pile carpet

2-3: 1_ !_ -1 shag carpet, varnish 2-3: pile carpet

342 B-1: concrete, stained wood, linoleum/metal.

329 B-1: painted concrete, linoleum/metal, tile. linoleum, smooth carpet, linoleum/

smooth throw, tile metal, linoleum

104
1-2: pile carpet, varnish (to storage area), pile

carpet (to sleeping area)

343 B-1: painted concrete, loose linoleum, rubber

treads/varnish, linoleum/metal,

linoleum

1-2: pile carpet, varnish, smooth carpet

344 B-1: tile, smooth carpet, varnished edge,

linoleum

345 B-1: linoleum, linoleum/mstal, linoleum

1-2: linoleum, pile carpet/varnish, pile carpet

kitchen-den: smooth carpet, linoleum

346 B-1: concrete, throw, rubber treads/varnish,

pile throw, linoleum

348 B-1: tile, throw, linoleum/metal, smooth carpet/

plastic sheet

hall-garage: concrete, fiber mat, rubber

mat, throw, linoleum

349 B-1: concrete, linoleum/ metal, throw, tile 1-2: varnish, throw, pile carpet/ varnish, pile

carpet

350 B-1: tile, tile/metal, tile, throw

351 B-1: smooth carpet, pile carpet (front)

B-1: smooth carpet, tile/metal, tile (back)

1-2: pile carpet

352 B-1: concrete, throw, varnish, linoleum,

throw, linoleum

1-2: throw, varnish, smooth carpet

353 B-1: smooth carpet, tile/metal, smooth carpet

354 B-1: smooth concrete, bare wood, linoleum/

metal, linoleum

EXPLANATORY NOTES

The following abbreviated uses are made:

linoleum/metal = linoleum treads with metal

nosings.

carpet/plastic sheet = carpet covered with

protective plastic sheet.

tile/metal = asphalt tile treads with metal

nosings.

carpet/varnish - varnished wood stairway with

carpet down the middle. throw = loose throw rug; sometimes smooth,

sometimes knitted. rubber treads/varnish - varnished wood

stairway with rubber treads nailed to the wood;

in middle only.

105
II1I11i1
APPENDIX G

JAMPLE SURVEY FORMS AND

.ETTERS

Three-day record of stairway use (NBS 1031 C)

, Introductory letter to phone interview group

Introductory letter to mail survey group

Long mail survey form (NBS 1031 A)

XPLANATORY NOTES

1. The long mail survey form (NBS 1031 A) is the comprehensive form, lacking only the three-day record of stairway use (NBS 1031

i:

"

j 2. The long form was divided into two parts to

facilitate data collection for the phone

interview group:

I The interview schedule (NBS 1031 F), not

included here, was composed of the following

|, sections of the long mail form in this order:

B, A, D (last half), C (Ql - Q4), I, j and H.

The short mail form (NBS 1031 Bj, not

included here, contained the following

sections of the long mail form in this order:

F, C, D (first half), E, G (Q5) and the three-day record.

The phone interview schedule also included a request for any comments and recommendations on stairway safety.

3. In addition to the questions on the long mail form, the site visit group was asked for their housing preferences, asked to compare four

hazards (stairways, tubs and showers, doors

and windows), and asked to note activities requiring the use of stairways in their household. They filled out the three-day

record of stairway use and physical measures were taken on all stairways of their building.

These items are described and summarized

elsewhere in this report. Physical measures were recorded on a single sheet at the site (NBS 1031 B).

107
NBS 1031 C

(6-75)

A 3-Day Record of Your Own Use of Stairways

For the next 3 days, keep a record of how many times you go up and down your stairways. Please follow the instructions below so everyone will count in the same way:

1. Count only the number of times you use stairways that are part of your house or apartment building.

2. Count each time you walk up one floor or level as one use. Going down counts as another use. For example, if you go from the first floor to the second floor and come right back down again, you have used stairways twice.

Day 1 DATE FREQUENCY OF USE Did you sUp or fall at any time? Yes No

Waking to 10 a.m. Did you see anyone e\se slip or fall? DYes No

10 a.m. to noon If yes, tell what happened and where it happened:

Noon to 2 p.m.

2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to bedtime Hours away from home this day

O.M.B. No. 41-875044

Approval Expires: March 1976

Day 2

DATE FREQUENCYOF USE Did you sUp or fall at any time? Yes No

Waking to 10 a.m. Did you see anyone eke slip or fall? DYes No

1 0 a.m. to noon If yes, tell what happened and where it happened:

Noon to 2 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. ...

10 p.m. to bedtime Hours away from home this day

FREQUENCYOF USE

Day 3

DATE

Waking to 10 a.m. 10 a.m. to noon Noon to 2 p.m. 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to bedtime Hours away from home this dayDid you slip or fall at any time? Yes No

Did you see anyone e\se slip or fall? DYes No

If yes, tell what happened and where it happened:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION-PLEASE MAIL IN THE STAMPED ENVELOPE.

108
1 A SURVEY AND INVENTORY CONDUCTED BY CARSON CONSULTANTS INC

,

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

This letter is about a survey and inventory of stairways in the Milwaukee area conducted

under the auspices of the National Bureau of Standards. The purpose of the study is to help the Bureau establish standards to improve stairway safety. Before they can write standards,

they need to know about existing stairways and how people use them.

Most of us do not realize that the stairway is the most unsafe place in our homes. Last year

alone, there were about 365,000 injuries requiring treatment in hospital emergency rooms

because of stairways, ramps and landings. And this number does not include the many

injuries on stairways that were treated in a doctor's office or at home. This report comes

from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a Federal agency whose purpose it

is to make sure our consumer products are safe for us to use. Our study has several different parts and includes interviews, mail and phone surveys and

record keeping of stairway uses. We would like to ask you to participdte in a phone

interview. In a week or so, an interviewer will be contacting your household. She will ask

to speak to a person in the house who is most familiar with activities in your home. She

will ask for descriptions of your stairways and their use. A short written form will be sent following the call. It asks for additional stairway information which is more economically

collected by mail. The interviewer is a trained person with much experience doing surveys

for non-commercial organizations in Milwaukee.'

The information that will be asked of you is not of a highly personal kind. In any case, please be assured that your name and the specific information you supply will be held in strict confidence. Nobody outside the study will see any of your answers. The Bureau will use only summary information.

You may want to know how we got your name. The study used a standard selection method

and information from the U.S. Census publications and the Milwaukee Street Address

Telephone Directory. We have gotten a cross-section of homes to represent the population

of Milwaukee County. Since the sample has been carefully chosen, your response is important.

We would like to emphasize that there is no sales or marketing purpose behind this study.

We are conducting a purely scientific and engineering study for a branch of the Federal government to help improve stairway safety.

You may keep this sheet for your records. It has our Post Office Box number and telephone

number in case you wish to contact us regarding the study.

Thank you for your cooperation.

CARSON CONSULTANTS, INC., POST OFFICE BOX 18474, MILWAUKEE, Wl 53218, TEL354-3080

Florence E. Carson, Pres. PLEASE TURN OVER

109
WHO SHOULD FILL OUT THE SURVEY FORM? We would like the person who knows most about

the everyday activities in your home to answer the questions. This will usually be

the woman of the house, but another adult who lives in the home may wish to do it.

You can answer all of the main survey questions right now. The last section on p. 4

asks you to keep a record of your actual stairway uses for one full day. As soon

as you finish both parts, send the 4-page survey form back to us in the enclosed

stamped envelope. NO POSTAGE IS NECESSARY. Keep this letter for your files.

SOME BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS

In answering the questions:

Please note that we use the words

"stairs" and "stairway" to mean a set of 3 or more steps in a row.

Include private stairs , such as in

a house, and shared stairs , such

as in an apartment building.

Include inside stairs and outside

stairs , as long as they are a part

of the building where you live.

SPECIAL NOTE: If you live in a split

level house or another less common house design, consider the stairs

between different levels the same as stairs between floors that are found

in a conventional house.

PLEASE STUDY THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT

FOR DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND FOR THE

WAY TO COUNT STEPS.

llfllTOTAL NUMBER OF RISERS

:px LANDING

;;:;p;;:;;';-;;;;;ixH TRE

a RISER is the height of one step

a TREAD is the part you step on

a LANDING is a platform larger than a TREAD

a NOSING is the front overhanging edge

an OPEN RISER is one you can see through

a WINDER is a TREAD, wider on one side than the other

TOTAL NUMBER OF STEPS is TOTAL NUMBER OF RISERS BETWEEN TWO LEVELS

Most questions can be answered with one or more check marks (v) . If your answer does

not fit into any of the printed choices, use the space marked OTHER to write in your

answer. The remaining few questions ask for a number or a word or two only.

110
A SURVEY AND INVENTORY CONDUCTED BY CARSON CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The enclosed survey form is part of a study for the National Bureau of Standards. The

Bureau is trying to establish standards to innprove stairway safety. Before they can

write standards, they need to know about existing stairways in the United States and

how people use them.

Most of us do not realize that the stairway is the most unsafe place in our home.

Last year alone, there were about 365,000 injuries requiring treatment in hospital

emergency rooms because of stairways, ramps and landings. And this number does

not include the many injuries on stairways that were treated in a doctor's office or

at home. This report comes from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,

a Federal agency whose purpose it is to make sure that the things we use as consumers

are safe.

Milwaukee has been selected for the initial study of stairway safety because it has a wide variety of housing types and a varied population. We used a standard selection

method and information from the U.S. Census publications and the Milwaukee City

Directory. This has given us a cross section of homes to represent the population in the Milwaukee area. Since the sample has been very carefully chosen, your response

is important.

The study you are a part of has several aspects. Much of the information will come

from people like you who complete the survey form and return it. A small number of

people will be phoned to get other details about stairways. Finally, some people will keep a special record of their own stairway use for a few days.

Please be assured that your name and the specific information you supply will be held

in strict confidence. Nobody outside the study will see any of your answers, and the

Bureau will use only the summary information.

Please keep this sheet. It has our address in case you wish to contact us about the

study. Return only the survey form. No stamps are needed. On the back of this letter are some instructions that will help you answer the questions quickly.

Thank you for your cooperation.

CARSON CONSULTANTS, INC., POST OFFICE BOX 18474, MILWAUKEE, Wl 53218, TEL 354-3080

Florence E. Carson, Pres. PLEASE TURN OVER

111
SOME BRIEF NOTES ABOUT STAIRWAYS

The phone interview will be easier and faster if you take a few minutes to study the

picture and statements below. You might also take a look at your own stairways to

check on their location, design, coverings and state of repair. In answering the

questions over the phone, please note:

We use the words "stairs" and "stairway"

to mean any set of 3 or more steps in a row.

We include private stairs , such as inside

a house, and shared stairs , such as in an apartment building.

We include inside stairs and outside

stairs , as long as they are part of the

building where you live.

In counting steps, you can count risers,

as shown in the picture. You can also

simply count the number of steps you must

take in order to go from one floor to

the next floor .

If you live in a split level house or another less common house design,

consider the stairs between different

levels the same as stairs between

floors that are found in a conventional

house.

TOTAL NUMBER OF RISERS :

a RISER is the height of one step

a TREAD is the part you step on

a LANDING is a platform larger than a TREAD

a NOSING is the front overhanging edge

an OPEN RISER is one you can see through

a WINDER is a TREAD, wider on one side than the other

TOTAL NUMBER OF STEPS is TOTAL NUMBER OF RISERS BETWEEN TWO LEVELS

112
NBS 1031 A

(6-751i

•Today's Date- 1

O.M.B. No. 41-S75044

Approval Expirei: March 1976

ASURVEYAND INVENTORY CONDUCTED BY CARSON CONSULTANTS INC ^OR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

•Time You Began. The information supplied by you on this form will be held in strict confidence. It will be used only for the purposes of this study.

SECTION A

1. How would you describe the place where you are now living?

Single-family detached house Other (describe)

.

Single-family attached house (like a rower town house)

Apartment building (different families on different floors)

2. When was it built? 1971-1974 1965-1970 1950-1964 1940-1949 Before 1940 Don't know

3. Have you lived in your present place less than 6 months? Yes No

4. Is your place: Rented? Owned or being bought by you?

Answer these questions only if you live in a

single-family house (attached or detached).

5. Check each floor that is in your house: Basement 1st 2nd 3rd Other

6. Is your house divided into two or more separate

apartments? Yes No

If it is, which floors are used by you and members of your household?

Answer these questions only if you live in an apartment building.

7. Total number of floors in your building

(include basement)

8. Which floor do you live on?

1st 2nd 3rd Basement4th or above

9. Is there an elevator? Yes No

Do you use the elevator regularly? Yes DNo

SECTION B

Please give the following information about people now living in your household:

1. Head of household: Self Other (Relationship to you

2. Yourself: Sex Age Occupation

3. Husband or Wife: Age Occupation

J

4. All Other People, whether related or not related. (G ive sexes and ages only.) (AGE /SEX) / I I L L

_ Not applicable

J. L

SECTION C

Use these diagrams to identify stairways you have. Only the style is important.

STRAIGHT-I OR NO LANDING —' D^^-^T HALF TURN-1 LANDING c\L-> FULLTURN-1 LANDING a^--^!^

FULLTURN-2 LANDINGS eNO STAIRWAY Which of the above diagrams is closest to the style of the stairway you have between the: (Please circle the appropriate letter.)

1. basement and the first floor? a b c d e 4. front door and sidewalk? a b c d e

2. first floor and second floor? a b c d e 5. back door and ground level? abed

3. second floor and third floor? a b c d e 6. Other floors abed e

PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

113
SECTION D

Carefully count the number of steps in each stairway of your house or apartment building that you and members of

your household use. Starting on one floor, count the actual number of steps you would take to get to the next floor. Count a landing between floors as only one step, as shown on the instruction sheet. For no steps, write in "none." NUMBER OF STEPS: NUMBER OF STEPS:

1. Basement to the first floor 4. Front door to sidewalk

2. First floor to second floor 5. Back door to ground level

3. Second floor to third floor 6. Other floors

If there are any places with only one or two steps, please give their locations in your house or apartment building:

Residential stairways may be made of wood, concrete, brick or other materials. Please write in what each stairway of your building is made of If more than one material is used, write in all materials used.

1. Basement to the first floor 4. Front door to sidewalk

2. First floor to second floor 5. Back door to ground level

3. Second floor to third floor 6. Other floors

Please check all materials on the steps of the following inside stairways: CARPET FULL WIDTH OF STEP

1. Basement to the first floor

2. First floor to second floor

3. Second floor to third floor

CARPET DOWN

MIDDLE ONLY

PAINT OR

VARNISH RUBBER TREADS

OTHER MATERIALS

[Write in]:

SECTION E

Back

Back

Back

Back

Please check each stairway for which the statement is true:

1. Stairway has a handrail or bannister along the full length.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside

2. Some or all steps have open risers. Basement—1st 1st— 2nd 2nd—3rd Front outside

3. On these stairs, a person can bump into a ceiling or projection.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside

4. A child's body can get through the handrailing or bannister Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside

5. You can notice that one or more steps have irregular riser heights.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside Back

6. Going down, you can get a clear view of a room before reaching the bottom step. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

7. Mud, snow or water from the outside is easily tracked on these steps. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

8. The color or shade of this stairway wall is much lighter than the steps. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

9. This stairway is protected from the weather by a roof, awning or other protection. Front outside Back outside

10. This stairway has one or more winders. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside Back outside

outside

outside

outside

outside

outside

PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGI

114
SECTION F

Please check each stairway for which the statement is true:

1. Some or most steps are curved from wear. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside 1 1 Back outside

2. Some steps are loose, broken or badly patched.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside 1 1 Back outside

3. Covering on steps is loose, torn or worn. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

4. Handrail is loose, splintered or broken. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside 1 1 Back outside

5. Steps are sometimes slippery.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd Front outside 1 1 Back outside

6. Electric light is needed on the stairway during some daylight hours every day.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

7. You face a large mirror or window as you go up or down the stairway.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

8. Lighting on the stairway causes glare on the steps. Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

9. A throw rug or piece of furniture is within 3 feet of the stairway.

Basement-lst 1st-2nd 2nd-3rd

SECTION G

1. Do you think the stairways around your building need work, other than cleaning, to make them safer? Yes DNo

If so, what needs to be done?

2. Who would have to pay for it?

3. Please estimate how much this work might cost: Below$25 $25-$49 DSBO-SGQ DSlOO-Sigg $200ormore

4. Who is responsible for cleaning and clearing your outside stairways?

Someone in your household Manager or Owner Homeowners' Group Paid help

5. Given the present condition of stairways around your building, rate them for safety:

Very Unsafe - 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% - Very Safe

SECTION H

^. About what was your total family income before taxes in 1974? Under $5,000 $5,000-$7,499 $7,500-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999

$15,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000 and above

2. Owners: If you sold your house today, how much do you think you could get for it? Under $10,000 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$34,999 $35,000 and above

3. Renters: What is your monthly rent? Under $100 $100-$199 $200-$299 $300-$399 $400 and above

Which of these is included in your rent? Water Gas or Oil Electricity None

PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

115
SECTION I ^^^^

Please check each item you do a few times each week at your house or apartment building:

1. Hurry or run on stairways 6. DWalk on stairways with bare feet

2. DUse stairways in the dark 7. DWalk on stairways in stocking feet

3. Fail to use an available handrail 8. DWear slippers, clogs, high heels or

4. DStop to talk while on stairways platform shoes

5. Leave object on or near stairways 9. Wear clothing that is long enough to catch on your heels

1 0. Do children regularly play on stairways at your house or apartment building? Yes No

11. Do you use a baby walker or stroller inside your house or apartment building? Yes No

SECTION J

All of us have had minor slips or near-accidents on stairways without actually falling. Some of us have had more

serious falls or accidents on stairways. Try to remember if any of these things happened today on the stairways of your house or apartment building:

1 . Did you slip, have to grab a handrail, lose balance, stumble or actually fall on your stairways today?

Yes DNo

2. About how many times did any of these things happen to you?

3. Were you hurt by any of these events? Yes No

4. Which stairways were involved?

5. Did you see any other member of your household slip, have to grab a handrail, lose balance, stumble or actually

fall on your stairways today? Yes No

6. About how many times did you see these things happen?

7. Was anyone hurt by any of these events? Yes No Don't know

8. Which stairways were involved?

9. Were there any stairway accidents during the past year at your present residence that were serious enough to require first aid or medical care? Yes No

If there were, please give age and sex of each person and the stairways involved:

•Time You Finished.

SECTION K: One-Day Record of Your Own Use of Stairways

Tomorrow keep a record of how many times you go up and down your stairways. Please follow the instructions below so everyone will count in the same way:

1. Count only the number of times you use stairways that are part of your house or apartment building.

2. Count each time you walk up one floor or level as one use. Going down counts as another use. For example, if you go from the first floor to the second floor and come right back down again, you have used stairways twice.

DATE FREQUENCY OF USE Waking to 10 a.m. 10 a.m. to noon Noon to 2 p.m.

2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 10 p.m. to bedtime

Hours away from home this day

Did you slip or fall at any time? Yes No

Did yga see anyone else slip or fall? Yes No

If yes, tell what happened and where it happened:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION-PLEASE MAIL IN THE STAMPED ENVELOPE.

116
APPENDIX H

COMPARISON OF METHODS

OF DATA COLLECTION

The study was designed to obtain physical data and

respondent information directly from a site visit and to enlarge the data base by mail and phone

surveys. This elaborate design v^as required by the second purpose of the pilot study, which was to compare the efficacy of each data collection method

for the study of stairway safety. Where important

differences between the methods occur, they are discussed below. This is followed by an overall evaluation of the various parts of the survey and

recommendations for its use in any future studies.

i Demographic Differences. Some relationships

among the three subsamples, the total sample and

the Milwaukee County population have already

been discussed in section 2.3 of this report. The

, following demographic differences are important in

i understanding variations obtained by the three (methods:

The site sample has a larger proportion of

i duplexes and apartments, renters, and

respondents in the 20-34 age group.

The mail sample has a larger proportion of high

I incomes.

The site sample contained more younger people

because they were less fearful about allowing the

linvestigators into their homes. There are also more

'renters in this younger group and they came

largely from the duplexes and apartments.

The mail survey required a fairly high literacy level Jand, since education and income are correlated in

|!the general population, it is expected that this

jjreiationship held for this subsample as well.

.Response Rate. The mail survey response rate of

132 percent was in keeping with the generally

lexpected low rate of returns for mail surveys. Two

additional features contributed to the low

responses. The subject of stairway safety does not

jhave a high interest value and the survey form

lijtself requires competence in reading and following

lldirections. The falling off in tract representation

occurred in tracts with the lowest educational and

jeconomic levels.

|The phone interview had the best response rate of

jthe three methods. Because the additional short

mail survey was needed to obtain the complete

information, there was a loss of 47 cases (completed phone interview but no return of the mail form). These can be considered lost cases although some use of the data is made in the verbatim accounts of respondents in appendix C. Professional interviewers under supervision of an

experienced interview supervisor aided greatly in this phase of the study.

The interviewing staff put a great deal of effort into allaying any fears and persuading respondents

to allow a site visit. In addition, they made a list of "on the fence" phone respondents and the principal

investigators contacted these people in order to reassure them of the value and legitimacy of the

study. These efforts, coupled with the introductory

letter made it possible to obtain 54 site visits. Two

additional cases were obtained when owners of duplexes introduced the investigators to their tenants.

The site visit represented a considerable invasion of privacy in that all portions of the home were

entered—basements, attics and sometimes

bedrooms—places where people don't even invite their best friends. In addition, respondents were

questioned about their stairways and their habits. For these reasons, all physical measures and site interviews wete conducted by the principal

investigators. Most of the interviews lasted at least an hour and some extended well beyond this time. Many of the respondents had allowed the visit because they did not realize the extensiveness of the measurements. It required stamina, persistence

and persuasion in order to keep them in the study.

The paragraphs below discuss the major differences

in responses of the three subsamples to the various

physical and behavioral measures in the survey.

Configuration. The site subsample had fewer

straight stairways and more stairways with a full turn on B-1 and 1-2. The larger representation of duplexes plus apartments accounts for this difference. When configuration is controlled for building type, differences between methods

decrease sharply. Some part of the difference may

also be due to difficulties in discriminating between

configuration styles which have landings, winders

and turns. Site respondents were motivated to check their stairways and produced accurate

responses.

Number of risers. As in the case of configuration, the larger proportion of apartments and duplexes

in the site sample contributed to a small increase in

117
number of risers reported by this group. When

number of risers is controlled for building type, differences between the methods decrease.

Coverings. Site respondents reported more B-1

stairways covered with linoleum and metal nosings,

and fewer with rubber treads and paint/varnish.

The linoleum/metal nosing response is not one of

the printed alternatives, which means that the answer had to be written in the "other" space. Whenever a write in item is used instead of a multiple choice item, response rate to that item is reduced.

Nineteen physical measures. Nine measures out of

this group (Mail Survey Form on pp. 114-115) were

used in the Hazard Measure for the very reason

that the data were stable across the three subsamples. Out of the 11 remaining items, 9 show

some differences, particularly between the site sample and the phone and mail groups. Respondents in the site group gave more critical reports on the condition and description of their stairways: more worn/torn, more irregularity, more

glare, more mirrors, windows, throw rugs, furniture on or near stairways, mud easier to track

in, and fewer open risers and cases where walls are

lighter than steps. The last two items were

misunderstood by many respondents. The site interview gave an opportunity to clarify them, but

they need editing for inclusion in a mail survey.

Habits. More site respondents reported that they

hurry on stairways, leave objects, fail to use

handrail and overall, check more habits. In general,

the site respondents were probably more motivated

than the phone and mail groups, because the site

visit forced them to take time out and both think

and look at the whole subject of stairways. In addition, the site subsample has more younger

respondents, and it has already been noted that age and number of habits chosen are correlated.

Frequency of Use. The same reasoning as employed

in Habits above applies to frequency of use. Age and

trips/hour are correlated and the site visit prompted more attention to the diary keeping.

Since respondents gave all other responses during

the site visit it was necessary to leave the form for trips/hour and get the information later by phone.

Mean number of trips/hour were 2.8 for the mail group, 3.2 for the phone group and 3.3 for the site group.

Accidents and Critical Incidents. More accidents and critical incidents came out of the site sample

than from either of the other groups. This was due

to the probing done during the site visit which

elicited greater recall of accidents. It was not unusual for respondents to report at first that they never had any accidents, only to correct this later

in the interview. Unless a serious or at least a clear cut injury results from an accident, people have

difficulty remembering the accident.

Rationale for combining data of the three subsamples. Site respondents were interested or at least concerned

with having someone examine and measure their stairways. As a result, they gave more responses and were more critical of their stairways than were the other two groups. Only a small number of respondents

had information about their stairways immediately

available to them. More typically, they had to stop

and look at their stairways before answering questions about configuration, number of risers, covering

and the like. Similarly, on the behavioral measures,

they often had to stop and reflect before they could provide an answer. Much of stairway behavior

occurs with little conscious awareness of the

details.

Despite the greater responsiveness on the part of the site respondents, there was remarkable

consistency in the data of all groups that justifies

combining them for analysis. Compared to the

investigators' more precise site observations and

measurements, it is safe to say that the respondent

data, no matter what method was used, must be

considered as understated, both for the physical

and behavioral parts of the survey, but is never

contradictory.

General recommendations.

• Reasonable remuneration to residents would be

the most effective way to get physical site measurements needed for an inventory.

• The overall number of physical measures

gathered from any one residence should be reduced.

• A monitoring approach would be the preferred

method for getting an accurate record of stair- way use and data on critical incidents and small

accidents.

• The greater responsiveness of the site sample

does not necessarily suggest that much of the

data is best gathered by this method. Alterations

and clarifications of individual items would

increase their effectiveness so that they could be compiled by either phone or mail methods.

118
I> This pilot study aimed at getting broad coverage

I of information about stairways and stairway behavior. Reduction in survey scope and greater

precision on specific topics would increase response rate and maintain accuracy.

• The mail survey allows respondents more time to think and check answers, hence tends to be more accurate than the phone survey. It is not

i as cost effective as the phone survey. Average

interview cost of the phone survey was 60 percent

of the cost of the mail survey.

bETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE MAIL

SURVEY FORM

;The recommendations presented below are organized by section, and item number within

section, as they appear on the mail survey form

|(pages 113 to 116). Sections for which no

changes are recommended are left out of the

jalphabetical sequence entirely. In some cases, an

item from one section is recommended to be con-

.nected more closely with an item from another

(section. In these cases, both items are discussed

under the first listed item.

General modifications. An instruction page with

nomenclature and definitions should be attached to jthe survey form so the respondents do not have

Jto refer to a separate sheet. A space should be provided at the end of the survey form to allow respondents to offer recomI mendations and suggestions about improving stair- Iway safety. The instruction to this item should

, suggest broad classes of physical and behavioral

' variables to the respondent, e.g., structure, sizes, covering materials, lighting, etc., and users' habits,

frequency of use, repairs, etc.

\ Section B. Items B-2 and B-3, pertaining to AGE of respondent and spouse should show categories rather than ask for an exact figure. The following

; categories are recommended: under 20/20-24/25-29/

! 30-34/35-44/45-54/55-64/65-75/above 75.

Section D. In addition to the present four explicit

I categories, and the two following categories:

! "Linoleum or tile," and "Metal nosings."

[Section E. Remove item E-1 to a section by itself

I and reword as follows for each stairway, B-1, 1-2,

! 2-3, Front and Back outside: "The (basement to

first floor) stairway has:

a handrail or bannister along the full length

a handrail or bannister only on the upper

pa rt a handrail or bannister only on the lower

pari a part or full length handrail on both sides no handrail or bannister at all,"

Delete items E-2 and E-7 entirely.

Reword item E-3 to read: "On these stairways, the

ceiling is low enough for an adult to reach it while

standing on one of the lower steps." (B-1, 1-2, 2-3, Front and Back outside)

Add the following item: "On these stairways, the user can bump into a projection." (B-1, 1-2, 2-3, Front and Back outside)

Combine items E-8 (contrast) and F-8 (glare) into a separate section by themselves and reword as follows: "Some parts of a stairway may be very

bright compared with other parts of the same stair- way. This bright spot may be caused by an unshaded light bulb, a window, or very shiny steps, for example, and it is called "glare" when it gets

uncomfortably bright. Check which stairways have

glare in your house:" (B-1, 1-2, 2-3). "Sometimes the

stairwalls and the steps have different colors that contrast very much with one another and one

returns much more light then the other. Check

which stairways have stairwalls that are much lighter than the steps:" (B-1, 1-2, 2-3).

Section F. For items F-2, F-3, and F-4, make two

items from each present item by separating out

"loose" from the other faults, e.g., (F-2) "Some

steps are loose on this stairway." and "Some steps are broken or badly patched on this stairway."

Retain the same categories of stairways for checking as in present items.

Delete item F-5 entirely.

Section G. For item G-1, provide a checklist of 5-7

potential hazards, and several blanks with "Other

(specify)." Retain the present wording. Add a column titled "Approximate cost," e.g.:

"1. Do you . . . safer? If so, what needs to be done?

Approximate cost: Handrails $

Coverings $

Other (specify) $

"

Delete items G-2 and G-3 entirely.

119
Retain the wording of item G-5, but provide space

so the rating may be made for stairways: B-1, 1-2,

2-3, Front and Back outside, separately.

Section I. Provide all items I-l through 1-9 with

spaces so number of times per week can be approximated, e.g.: "Please check approximately how many

times each week you do each of the following things at your house or apartment building:

"1. Hurry or run on stairways none 1-2

3-5 nj over 5."

Section j. For items J-1 and ]-5, replace the No" with " slipped grabbed the handrail

lost balance stumbled actually fell none of these," to get more specific kinds of information if possible.

Precede item J-9 with two new items of the same

form, but dealing with "during the last week," and

"during the last month." These two new items woulc

become items J-9 and J-10. J-9 becomes J-11.

Add a new section for respondents to give their housing preferences. Use the seven categories

shown table 38, and word the item as

follows: "Ideally, I would like my family to live in a."

s

120

}
S.114A (REV. I 1-77)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS BSS 108

2. Gov't Accession

No.

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Safety on Stairs

AUTHOR(S)

D.H. Carson, J,C. Archea, S.T. Margulis, and F.E. Carson

3. Recipient's Accession No.

5. Publication Date November 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20207

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 78-600036

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual surtunary ol most si^ilicant information. II document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) Stairways are commonplace in U.S. homes. Stairway design and construction standards

are based on custom, common sense, and experience. Stairways, however, are hazardous.

A large number of stairway accidents have been reported, raising questions about the

adequacy of stairway design and construction standards. This study is a first attempt

to rationalize stairway standards by applying well established statistical methods to

a significant sample of stairways and people using them. A pilot study on a sample of

253 residences in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was undertaken. The study included a survey of stairway use and behav:'.or and an inventory of residential stairways. This

information was obtained from the total sample. In a subsample of 54 residences,

direct field observations and physical measurements of stairways were obtained. The

results of the pilot study include a description of existing stairways, inferences

about interactions that produce accidents, and guidelines which address reasons for

accidents (hence should result in a reduction of accidents) , The best strategy for

making stairways safer, according to the study, is to remove factors that influence

accident rates. Specifically, by systematically reducing hazards, careless stairway

habits, and frequency of use, patterns of factors responsible for accidents can be

broken and accident rates can be reduced.

1 KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Accidents; architectural psychology; consumer products; environmental factors; home

safety; occupant behavior; survey technique.

AVAILABILITY S Unlimited

I ! For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

fxl Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-02026-5

I I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES,

122

22. Price

$3.00

USCOMM-DC 66039-P7e *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19^9-264-403/5225

Announcemenl of New Publicalioiis

of the

National Bureau of Slandarck

Superintendent of Documents,

Government Printing Oflrce,

Washington, D. C. 20402

Dear Sir:

Please add my name to the announcement list of new

publications as Issued by the National Bureau of Standards.

Name

Company

Address

City State Zip Code

(Notification Key N519)

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

FOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research

pi" the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research rid development in those disciplines of the physical and

'ngineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These

lude physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and

. mputer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects,

rtith major emphasis on measurement methodology, and

; e basic technology underlying standardization. Also in- ded from time to time are survey articles on topics closely

ated to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As

^pecial service to subscribers each issue contains complete

itions to all recent NBS publications in NBS and non-

*.S media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription:

. jmestic $17.00; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3.00 domestic;

$3.75 foreign.

'Note: The Journal was formerlj' published in two sections; ISection A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathebiatical Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS

This monthly magazine is published to inform scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers, students, and

consumers of the latest advances in science and technology,

with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire jprotection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution

^batement, health and safety, and consumer product per- •formance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau pro- |grams in measurement standards and techniques, properties

f matter and materials, engineering standards and services, itrumentation, and automatic data processing, nnual subscription: Domestic, $11.00; Foreign $13.75

NONPERIODICALS

^Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- lature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific nd technical activities. iHandbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and indusjtrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperakion with interested industries, professional organizations,

land regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special

publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, jDocket cards, and bibliographies.

'^pplied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manpals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers,

lichemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers,

'and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

jNational Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide program co- ordinated by NBS. Program under authority of National

Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPC'RD) published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of

Physics (ATP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements

available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St. N.W., Wash., D.C.

20056.

Buikiing S>^ience Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole stmctures. The series presents research

results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the

structural and environmental functions and thz durability

and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—-Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject.

Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose

of the standards is to establish nationally recognized require- ments for products, and to provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supple- ment to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and

illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Order following NBS publications—NBSlR's and FIPS from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register.

Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended. Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717

(38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Tide 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of

interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors (both government and non-government).

In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor;

public distribution is by the National Technical Information

Services (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

le following current-awareness and literature-survey bibli- iographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A litera- ture survey issued bi^ekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $25.00; Foreign, $30.00.

Liquified Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly.

Annual subscription: $20.00.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey

issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $30.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic

services to National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data

Center (275.02) Boulder, Colorado 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washingcon. D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, S300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM..215

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK