Jake Pauls' Rebuttal to "A New Grip on Reality"

The Type II handrail has not yet been "approved for inclusion in the next draft of the standard" because, procedurally, it has not yet passed the formal Committee ballot and such formal ballot approval is uncertain. (The unofficial vote at a recent A117 Committee meeting did not include sufficient votes to pass the required 2/3 majority written ballot.) Type II handrails are not yet "accepted code language" as far as A117.1 is concerned.

It is incorrect to say that, "The dimensions limits [for Type II handrails] are based on the range of samples tested to be equivalently graspable or superior to those handrails currently allowed in the A117.1 standard." Only one handrail section—the least usable of the A117.1, complying round handrails (with a 2-inch diameter)—was used for comparison testing.

There is agreement that handrails "should be designed to accommodate more than one type of grip." Unfortunately, Type II handrails do not permit the most important type of grip, a true power grip—which is readily achievable with pickets underneath the handrail—contrary to Mr. Cooper's contention. Thus, to claim that Type 2 handrails provide more grip options is incorrect. There are good and bad brackets and pickets (or, more generally, handrail supports); the good ones work well with Type I handrails. (The photographs provided by Mr. Cooper regarding this depict functional handrail-support arrangements if the pickets or balusters are round.)

To claim that "Type II handrails provide new universal design options" is simply unfounded hype. The "hook grip" claimed for Type II handrails only works—and was only tested—with user' arms stretched out horizontally, a position that is not functional for arresting falls. Type I handrails permit a hook grip with many orientations—including those functional for usability and safety.

As a Certified Professional Ergonomist, I know there is not yet scientific proof that "Today's understanding of ergonomics today has proven that many objects designed to fit the hand in days of yore were well designed with little or no need of improvement." Thus it is incorrect to claim, "Such has been scientifically proven to be the case with many handrail profiles." Also, we do not yet know exactly what aspects of SMA's research have been accepted for publication in the journal Applied Ergonomics, so any claims in this regard are premature. The only peer-reviewed, published journal article of SMA-funded research, by Maki, et al, in 1998, was done with solely a Type I—not Type II—handrail. Moreover, the multi-bullet description given by Mr. Cooper about Maki's research is not completely correct.

Regarding Mr. Cooper's remarks about "New Opportunities," we need to keep in mind that those promoting Type II handrails sells such handrails and want the opportunity to sell more of them. Those opposing Type II handrails are not in the business of selling railings, but are solely devoted—in my case as an ergonomics and public health professional—to functional, reasonably safe design for all.

Finally, the citation for the Australian work on use of handrails by children with and without disability is as follows: Seeger, B.R. and Bails, J.H. Ergonomic Building Design for Physically Disabled Young People. Assistive Technology, 1990; 2: 79-92. While providing remarkable insights into handrail height, it did not compare various handrail shapes. A proper literature review in the SMA-funded research should have found this paper over a decade ago.