Safer Stairs in Public Places - C722

C722
Design and construction of safe stairs has a significant effect upon daily life and there
are specific requirements in the Building Regulations. Unfortunately, there are
innumerable accidents every day both in the home and in public places. Work at the
Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) and at BRE has identified the major causes of
these accidents.
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs

This guide is intended to provide sufficient information for non-experts to make an
initial assessment of stair safety leading, where necessary, to a more detailed
investigation. Its focus is upon the issues relating to existing stairs in public places and
advice is given that will inform any person carrying out an initial safety assessment of
an existing stair.
The importance of stair safety is emphasised and the main issues are outlined and
discussed. Advice is provided on how decisions are made on the need for improvement,
noting that stairs are not required to meet current regulations and standards
Safer stairs in public places
retrospectively but are required (under various health and safety regulations and legal
requirements) to provide a reasonable level of safety.
– assessment of existing stairs
CIRIA
C722 ' %&&$ %% #&

Who we are
Established in 1960, CIRIA is a highly regarded, industry-responsive, not for profit research and information
association, which encompasses the construction and built environment industries.
CIRIA operates across a range of market sectors and disciplines, providing a platform for collaborative projects
and dissemination by enhancing industry performance, and sharing knowledge and innovation across the built
environment.
As an authoritative provider of good practice guidance, solutions and information, CIRIA operates as a knowledge-
base for disseminating and delivering a comprehensive range of business improvement services and research
products for public and private sector organisations, as well as academia.
How to get involved

CIRIA manage or actively participate in several topic-specific learning and business networks and clubs:
zzCore membership zzLocal Authority Contaminated Land Network

Allows your employees to assist with the development of LACL helps local authorities address responsibilities
and access to good practice guidance, formal networks, under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
facilitation, conferences, workshops and training.
zzEuropean Marine Sand and Gravel Group
zzAssociate membership CIRIA provides secretariat support to EMSAGG, including
Allows your employees to access CIRIA’s services. management of the Group’s conferences, workshops and
Members are able to access exclusive content via the website and producing its newsletter.
CIRIA website.
zzSAFEGROUNDS Learning Network
zzCIRIA Books Club A forum for disseminating good practice guidance
Members can buy most CIRIA publications at half price and on the management of radioactively and chemically
can attend a range of CIRIA conferences at reduced rates. contaminated land on UK nuclear and defence sites.
zzThe CIRIA Network zzSD:SPUR

A member-based community where clients and professionals The initiative was developed to establish safe, socially,
meet, develop and share knowledge about specific topics economically and environmentally sustainable practices
relevant to construction and the built environment. arising from the decommissioning of nuclear sites.
zzProject funding zzLANDFoRM (Local Authority Network on Drainage

Project funders influence the direction of the research and Flood Risk Management)
and gain early access to the results. A platform for sharing knowledge and expertise in flood
risk management and sustainable drainage.
zzCEEQUAL
CIRIA co-manages this environmental award scheme, zzBRMF (Brownfield Risk Management Forum)
which promotes environmental quality in civil engineering Promoting sustainable and good practice in brownfield
and infrastructure projects. projects in the UK.
Where we are
Discover how your organisation can benefit from CIRIA’s authoritative and practical guidance – contact us by:
Post Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP, UK
Telephone +44 (0)20 7549 3300
Fax +44 (0)20 7253 0523
Email enquiries@ciria.org
Website www.ciria.org
(for details of membership, networks, events, collaborative projects and to access CIRIA publications through
the bookshop)
CIRIA C722 London, 2013
Safer stairs in public places –

assessment of existing stairs
Edited by A Gilbertson, CIRIA
Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN

Tel: 020 7549 3300 Fax: 020 7549 3349
Email: enquiries@ciria.org Website: www.ciria.org
Summary
Design and construction of safe stairs has a significant effect upon the daily lives of all the people and there
are specific requirements in the Building Regulations. Unfortunately, there are innumerable accidents
every day both in the home and in public places. Work at the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) and at
the Building Research Establishment (BRE) has identified the major causes of these accidents.
This guide focuses upon the issues relating to existing stairs in public places. The various issues are
discussed and advice is given, which will inform any person carrying out an initial safety assessment of an
existing stair. Advice is given to assist in deciding how to proceed where there are deficiencies in a stair.
Gilbertson, A (ed)
CIRIA
C722 © CIRIA 2013 RP964 ISBN: 978-0-86017-725-8
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record is available for this book from the British Library
Keywords
Health and safety, asset and facilities management, refurbishment, regulation, respect for people, risk and
value management, transport infrastructure
Reader interest Classification
Health and safety, risk Availability Unrestricted
assessment, materials Content Planning and design guidance
technology, design,
Status Committee-guided
specification, facilities
User Built environment specialists, project promoters, clients,
management, maintenance,
developers, project managers, architects, designers, planners,
flooring products
operators, facility managers, maintainers and other readers
Published by CIRIA, Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN, UK
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold and/or
distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any
other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty
or fitness is provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity
with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying
and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such
written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other CIRIA publication for use
in other documents or publications, please contact the Publishing Department for more details on copyright terms and charges at:
publishing@ciria.org Tel: 020 7549 3300.
ii CIRIA, C722
Acknowledgements
Editor
Alan Gilbertson
Alan Gilbertson worked as a designer for Atkins until 2002, and has since been a consultant to CIRIA.
His experience includes multi-discipline working and since the CDM Regulations came into force he has
developed an interest in health and safety issues. His work for CIRIA has covered a range of construction
topics and has involved people from all sectors of the industry, working together.
Lead contributors
The work was based upon research at the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) and at BRE. The lead
contributors from those organisations are:
Steve Thorpe BSc PhD MBA

Steve is a principal scientist in the Engineering and Personal Safety Unit of the Health and Safety
Laboratory (HSL), which is part of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). He has worked in the area of
slips trips and falls for several years and has been heavily involved in delivering training and awareness
raising packages on behalf of HSE. He represents HSE on several British and European standards
committees with an interest in slip resistance. He is the chair of the United Kingdom Slip Resistance
Group. Current research interests include stairs and escalators.
Mike Roys MSc(Arch) BSc

Mike has been working in the field of health and safety in buildings at BRE since 1990. The risk associated
with stairs has been the main focus of his research for the last 15 years. He is an internationally recognised
expert on stair design and safety, and chair of the BSI committee on stairs and walkways. He currently
leads a small team of social researchers with expertise in data collection, analysis and reporting.
Project steering group

Following CIRIA’s usual practice, the research was guided by a CIRIA project steering group (PSG)
comprising:
Michael Woods (chair) RSSB

Kevan Brassington NBS
Peter Caplehorn Scott Brownrigg
John Caves LU
Alan Gilbertson CIRIA
Bob Keenan Sheppard Robson
Jon Lawrence QBE European Operations
Cindy Marshall Tube Lines
Mike Roys BRE
Ian Smith Sports Grounds Safety Authority
Dan Tall Southeastern Railway
Steve Thorpe HSL
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs iii

All members of the PSG were active in contributing their experiences and information.
Contributors
CIRIA wish to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the guide in text, images and case
studies:
Cindy Marshall Tube Lines (Case study 1)

Ian Rowe Ian Rowe Associates Ltd (Case study 2)
Michael Woods RSSB (Case study 3)
Keith Bright University of Reading
CIRIA manager
CIRIA’s research manager for the project was Alan Gilbertson, assisted by Louise Clarke and Lee Kelly.
Project funders
The project was funded by CIRIA Core members, and by special contributions from RSSB, Transport
for London (TfL) and the Department of Health (DH).
iv CIRIA, C722
Executive summary
Although most stairs should be safe in normal circumstances, stairs can present the potential for
significant harm. Where there is a reason to look at a specific staircase, this guide is intended to provide
sufficient information for non-experts to make an initial assessment of stair safety leading, where
necessary, to a more detailed investigation.
The guidance is based primarily upon research by experts at the HSL and at BRE, together with inputs
from the PSG and other experts.
The importance of stair safety is emphasised and the main issues are outlined and discussed. Reference
is made to further detailed guidance.
A methodology for the assessment of stair safety is developed and a checklist is provided.
Advice is provided on how decisions are made on the need for improvement. Note that stairs are not
required to meet current regulations and standards retrospectively but are required (under various
health and safety regulations and legal requirements) to provide a reasonable level of safety.
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs v

Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
About this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
How to use this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
1 Stairs as a hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 About stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Use of stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Factors affecting safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1 Step dimensions and their consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.2 Step slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3 Stair appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4 Step condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.5 Adequacy of stair clear width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.6 Adequacy of headroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.7 Length of flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.8 Provision of handrails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.9 Suitability of handrails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.10 Visibility and design of nosings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.11 Guarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.12 Building layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.13 Corduroy “hazard warning” surfaces (commonly called “tactiles”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Relative importance of factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Regulations and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Measuring stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1 General advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3 Making a photographic record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4 Assessing issues of visibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5 Illuminance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6 Visual contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.7 Shadow, glare or transition as users move from daylight into a lit area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8 Using the crouch-and-sight technique to make an initial assessment of the stair . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.9 Using an A3 assessment board to measure rise and going . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.10 Using a plumb-line to measure handrail height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.11 Measuring other handrail dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
vi CIRIA, C722
4.12 Measuring guarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 Assessing stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 In-use experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3 Design features – location, layout and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5 Decisions about risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.6 HSE guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.7 Case law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.7.1 Case 1: Furness v Midland Bank (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.7.2 Case 2: McGivney v Golderslea (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.7.3 Case 3: Jaguar Cars v Alan Coates (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.7.4 Case 4: Alli v Luton & Dunstable NHS Trust (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.7.5 Case 5: Holtes v Aberdeenshire Council (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7.6 Case 6: Dobbs v Mitchells & Butler (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7.7 Case 7: Taylor v Wincanton Group (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7.8 Case 8: Widlake v BAA (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7.9 Case 9: Clark v Quantum (2012) and Case 10: Broadfield v Meyrick (2012) . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7.10 Case 11: Hannon v Hillingdon (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7.11 Case 12: Geary v Wetherspoon (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6 Stair fall checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7 Improving stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2 Focus on safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3 Heritage buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.4 Management and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.5 Examples of remedial activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8 Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.1 Case study 1: London Underground Interchange, London Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.2 Case study 2: Reduction of accidents involving stairs at York Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2.2 Stairs versus underpass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2.3 Improvement of the staircase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.2.4 Maintenance of handrails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.3 Case study 3: Footbridge at Willesden Junction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.3.1 The original problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.3.2 The improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.3.3 Safety outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A1 Statistics about accidents on stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

A1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A1.2 Data from RSSB (which researches risk events in the railway industry) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs vii

A1.3 Data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS): annual mortality statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A1.4 Data from the Home and Leisure Accidents Surveillance System currently hosted by the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A1.5 Under-reporting of deaths, information provided by Ian Rowe, Ian Rowe Associates . . . . . . . . . 42
A1.6 “World statistics” from a study by Anita Scott at HSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A2 Numerical risk assessment for size of goings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A3 Assessment of variations in rise and going . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figures
Figure 1 Showing the main elements and dimensions in section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Figure 2 Showing vertical stair clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Figure 2.1 Station stair viewed from the top of the flight, variation in stair geometry is clearly visible . . . . 4
Figure 2.2 Station stair viewed from the bottom of the flight, variation in rise (bottom step) is
clearly visible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2.3 Station stair where the bottom riser dimension has been reduced by the addition of
asphalt to the platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2.4 Variable-height bottom riser where stair meets pavement (Cannon Street Station
development) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2.5 Showing a good handrail with a hand gripping it (the ‘power’ grip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2.6 Example of good (a) and poor (b) stair nosing highlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2.7 Examples of poor (a) and effective (b) nosing positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2.8 Issues affecting a fall on stairs include the poor nosing and not being able to see the
edge of the stair or a landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 4.1 Template for an A3 assessment board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 4.2 Illustration of crouch-and-sight test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 4.3 Assessment board in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 4.4 Plumb-line markings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 7.1 The Pilgrim Steps, Rochester Cathedral, showing remedial work to make the steps safe
and avoid further degradation of the ancient fabric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 7.2 Use of paint to make nosings stand out visually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 7.3 Use of proprietary nosings to make nosings stand out visually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 8.1 View of the nosings at London Bridge, with post-applied aluminium extrusion nosings
incorporating contrasting slip-resistant inserts, applied over the original HDLT nosings . . . . . 33
Figure 8.2 Showing improved stair at York Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 8.3 Showing improved signage at York Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 8.4 Showing before (a) and after (b), Willesden Junction footbridge stair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Tables
Table A1.1 Raw data for train passengers expressed as FWI values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table A2.1 Risk on a 14-step flight where there is no variation between “going” dimensions of the
steps, expressed as the average period between large oversteps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table A2.2 Risk on a 14-step flight where a single going is reduced by 15 mm, expressed as the
average period between large oversteps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table A3.1 The acceptable maximum variation between the dimensions of the risers and goings
of adjacent steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
viii CIRIA, C722

Glossary
Stair Construction comprising a succession of horizontal “stages” (steps and, where

provided, landings) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Showing the main elements and dimensions in section
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs ix

Stair nomenclature
Handrail A horizontal, inclined, or vertical member normally grasped by hand for guidance
or support.
Headroom The clearance provided to a ceiling or other obstruction over the pitch line of a
stair (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 Showing vertical stair clearance
Guarding A barrier provided to prevent users from falling from the side of a stair or landing.
Nosing The leading edge at the front of a tread or landing, which may project beyond the
riser beneath.
Pitch The angle between the pitch line and the horizontal plane.
Pitch line The notional line that touches the nosings of a flight, on the walking line.
Proprietary A product manufactured to act as a nosing. It may be designed to form part of

nosing the tread and/or riser of a step and it should reliably fulfil the safety requirements
of a nosing.
Riser The vertical component of a step.
Step The part of a stair that consists of a horizontal surface (the tread) to support the
foot during ascent or descent and a vertical surface (or space or partial space) that
results from the change in level (the rise or riser).
Tread The horizontal component of a step. Normally the tread has a constant “width”
dimension (but on a winding stair it will be tapered, a “tapered tread”).
x CIRIA, C722
Stair dimensions
Clear width The unobstructed minimum distance on plan at right angles to the walking line
(of a stair) of a stair (to face of handrail where provided, although the current Building
Regulations ignore the handrail).
Going The horizontal distance between two consecutive nosings (measured along the
“walking line”).
Handrail height The vertical distance between the top of a handrail and the pitch line or landing.
Rise The vertical distance between the horizontal upper surfaces of two consecutive
treads, or between a tread and a floor, or a tread and a landing.
Stair height The vertical distance, normally between landings.
Tread width The front-to-back dimension of a tread.
Note that the following terms are not used without qualification: depth, length, breadth, width and height.
Other terms
Crouch-and-sight The term used by HSL for the visual assessment of a stair by looking down the pitch
line (described further in this guide) (Pauls and Harbucks, 2008).
Illuminance The level of lighting achieved.
Planned The term used to describe the use of screening to reduce the risk of people seeing
obscuration that (for example) there is a train at a platform, creating a sense of urgency and
risking a “rush-and-push” response.
Rush-and-push The term used to describe the behaviour of people who create additional risk on
a stair when they decide they need to rush up or down the stair and start to push
other users, who may then fall.
Visual contrast The visual variation in light reflectance between two adjacent surfaces.
Walking line The notional line taken by the average user, usually visible from wear marks and
typically about 270 mm from a handrail.
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs xi

Abbreviations and acronyms
ALARP As low as is reasonably practicable

FWI Fatality weighted index
LRV Light reflectance value
LU London Underground
PSG Project steering group
RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board
SFARP So far as is reasonably practicable
STF Slips, trips and falls
xii CIRIA, C722

About this guide
Requirements for safe stairs have been well researched and documented, with standards and guides
widely available, including recent UK guidance on stairs by Alderson (2010). However, existing stairs
may not be entirely compliant with current “good practice” recommendations. This guide addresses how
existing stairs may be assessed and what measures may be taken to improve them.
The information provided here is applicable principally to existing stairs used by the public, beyond the
domestic environment. These include areas used by the general public (where it should be assumed that
many or most may be unfamiliar with the location and layout) and back office areas that the general
public would not normally have access to, or industrial premises where staff generally familiar with the
location may be the only users. These more private areas may permit some lower quality finishes or, for
example, narrower widths, but the same broad principles of good design and compliance with minimum
statutory requirements should be achieved.
For domestic stairs, these are mainly used by people who know them well and are not normally managed
by owners who have a wider duty of care to other users. However, many of the issues discussed in this
guide are applicable to domestic stairs. For guidance focused upon domestic stairs, see Roys (2013).
There has been discussion about whether different standards should apply for different categories of
stairs (eg escape stairs, which may only be used during an emergency). For the purposes of this guide, it
was decided that whilst the use of a stair might affect its risk assessment, there were no specific features
that were identified as being consistently “different”.
Given the number of serious accidents on stairs, in 2011 the HSE (Health and Safety Executive)
commissioned the HSL (Health and Safety Laboratory) to research the subject to:
ªª identify what physical design features of a stair are likely to increase the risk of accidents when
design codes or relevant standards are not correctly observed
ªª provide practical guidance/tools to enable inspectors and duty holders to assess existing stairs and
make simple changes to improve safety where necessary
ªª provide practical guidance/tools to enable those involved in new-build construction to assess the
standard of design and construction, which has been achieved.
A review of the literature was conducted to identify the most important risk factors associated with
stairs. A toolkit had been produced and developed during trials with different users on a wide range
of stairs. This work has been drawn upon for the preparation of this guide, which is designed for the
non-expert user.
In preparing this guide the opinions and experience of the Steering Group have been important in
enabling an opinion to be provided about how to assess the consequences of deviations from the ideal.
This guide is not intended to provide full information about all aspects of stairs, but to provide
sufficient information for a non-expert person to make an initial assessment of stair safety,
leading where necessary to a more detailed investigation.
The base knowledge source for this guidance was the HSL, BRE and the PSG and included leading UK
experts on stair safety.
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs xiii

How to use this guide
The task in hand

The following types of activity have been identified:
ªª risk assessments as part of management activity, under the Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations 1999 (No. 3242) or (as far as the national rail sector is concerned) the Railways
and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (ROGS) 2006
ªª assessment of condition for a population of stairs, in response to specific reported faults or in
response to accident statistics for a population of stairs
ªª assessment of condition when there has been a specific accident
ªª due diligence at purchase of a building or other infrastructure.
Although this guide is focused on existing stairs, much of the guidance also could be used during
construction.
Assessment procedure
Assessment of an existing stair requires the following:
ªª an understanding of the main risk factors

ªª skill in making any necessary measurements
ªª skill in assessing the main factors
ªª knowledge of how to improve the stair, where required
and this guide assists as follows:
Understanding the main risk factors

Chapters 1 and 2 provide guidance on the main risk factors, explaining why these issues dominate.
Making measurements
Techniques for making important measurements are outlined in Chapter 4.
Making assessments
Chapter 5 discusses how to then make an assessment of the safety of a stair and identifies issues that may
call for remedial action. Chapter 6 provides a suggested method for recording the findings.
Potential improvements
Chapter 7 discusses measures that may be taken to improve the level of risk of a stair. Due to the wide
range of features, dimensions and materials involved, this chapter can only provide an indication of what
might be done and provide some pointers for remedial design and action.
The case studies in Chapter 8 give further supporting information.
xiv CIRIA, C722

1 Stairs as a hazard
significant harm. Because of the number of accidents, making stairs safer will have significant benefit.
A fall on stairs, particularly in descent, can lead to serious injury or even death. In addition to the
following overview, Appendix A1 provides available statistical information and context. This guidance
will assist in making existing stairs safer, in a proportionate manner.
Around 20 per cent of all major injuries reported to HSE in 2008/2009, which resulted from slips,
trips and “falls from height” occurred on stairs. Both RSSB and London Underground have identified
accidents on stairs as being statistically significant and are supporting work in this area.
Every year in the UK about 300 000 people are reported as being seriously injured and 500 people
killed in accidents involving stairs in the home (Roys and Wright, 2008a). The injuries sustained while
ascending stairs are generally less severe than those sustained while descending stairs. This is because in
ascent the forward momentum of a fall is arrested by the stair structure itself, while in descent there is
potentially a much greater distance to fall. The number of injuries sustained after a fall while descending
stairs grossly outweighs those while in ascent. Cohen et al (1985) reported that 92 per cent of injuries
were incurred during stair descent.
“To fall down stairs is not only to fall off a cliff, but to fall on rocks below, for the nosing of steps presents a
succession of sharp edges” (Scott, 2005).
This quote depicts how a fall on a staircase may be likened to falling from a great height, but also that
injuries may be made more serious by virtue of the bumpy landing that follows. The types of injuries
incurred in non-fatal stair accidents are bruises, fractures and sprains. These may occur to the legs and
feet, the trunk, the head, the arms and hands. For fatal accidents, common injuries are fractures to the
skull, the trunk and to the lower limbs. Fracture of the femur is a frequent lower limb injury that often
precedes fatality in the elderly. Fracture of this region may require a costly hip replacement procedure
(National Audit Office, 2000). Survival following a hip fracture is poor, with a mortality rate of 35 per
cent seen in the first year of injury (Janaway et al, 2005).
It is certain that the reporting of statistics underplays the seriousness of falls on stairs, because of the
ensuing health issues that may follow the fall. The “injury” statistic will include cases where death followed
either soon after or, in some cases, much later following medical complications arising from the fall.
An analysis of hospital statistics suggest that about 30 000 patients a year in England require hospital
stays because of falls on stairs. This accounts for about three per cent of the NHS bed days due to factors
other than a patient’s intrinsic condition (Roys and Wright, 2008b).
On average, one half of the UK population will have a minor fall on non-domestic stairs during
their lifetime and one in eight will have a serious fall (Roys and Wright, 2003). The risks involved
require owners to manage their stairs carefully to reduce both the levels of accidents per se and
the business costs of insurance, legal action and compensation.
Although not a “stair”, the “single step” in a floor presents particular danger of an accident, albeit
probably not a serious one. The danger lies in the fact that it may not be noticed, particularly if the floor
is crowded or people are preoccupied or their attention is distracted. Drawing attention to the nosing
of such a step, if it is unavoidable, is necessary. The issue is not pursued further in this guidance, but
falls identified in the statistics will almost certainly include falls in “single step” situations as there is no
separate category in the reporting systems in common use.
Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs 1

2 About stairs
2.1 Use of stairs

Walking on stairs requires a different style of gait to that required for walking on the level. In
addition, the transfer of weight vertically during stair walking requires extra effort in ascent or a
controlled fall in descent (Roys and Wright, 2005). Further discussion about the fall mechanism may
be found in Roys, 2001.
The main observation from research and from experience is that the bigger the going is (up to
450 mm), the safer the stair is.
Not surprisingly, the injuries sustained while ascending stairs are generally less severe than those
sustained while descending stairs. In ascent, the forward momentum of a fall is arrested by the actual
stair structure, whereas in descent there is potentially a much greater distance to fall. The number of
injuries sustained after a fall while descending stairs grossly outweighs those during ascent. Cohen et al
(1985) reported that 92 per cent of injuries were incurred during stair descent. In another study, serious
accidents were found to be five times more likely during descent (Barkow, 2003). However, there have
been fatal accidents when a user has fallen backwards while ascending a stair.
It has also been reported that about 70 per cent of accidents happen on the top and bottom three steps
of any flight (Templer, 1992). This is probably primarily because that is where a person entering a stair
is adjusting their gait (ie “learning” the stair) but also because a person about to exit a stair is looking
around to decide where they will go next. Within the length of the stair, variations in step dimensions
will upset their “learned” pattern of the stair, contributing to falls between the end zones (Barkow, 2003).
Further information about the effect of variations in step dimensions is given in Appendix A2.
Research and experience has shown that visibility has an important role to play in ensuring stair
safety. Good lighting, good colour contrast of the nosing with the stair covering and colour contrast
between the handrail and the wall have been identified as improving stair safety. Clear colour contrast
on the nosings of a stair aids users in identifying the edge of the stair tread, which is important for
accurate foot placement.
Stairs provide ingress and egress routes to and from buildings during emergency situations. If a
stair user should fall under emergency conditions the consequences could be disastrous, not only for
the individual, but for other stair users as well. Lighting conditions can be uncertain during many
evacuation conditions. In the UK, the normal approach is to provide emergency lighting but the use of
photo-luminescent material on nosings or LED lights may also be considered in high-risk situations.
Contributory behavioural factors (in additional to human physical frailty) include:
ªª hurrying
ªª failure to use or to be able to grab handrails, where they are provided
ªª inattention
ªª carrying luggage or other loads
ªª conflicting routes (especially up versus down)
ªª unsuitable footwear
ªª time of day (in transport half of all incidents occur after 5 pm).
2 CIRIA, C722
There are many individuals within the general population that find stairs a particularly difficult obstacle
to use. The term “vulnerable people” will be used to refer collectively to these individuals. Examples of
vulnerable people are:
ªª those with disabling conditions, for example of sight or mobility

ªª young children
ªª those carrying luggage or other loads
ªª people influenced by alcohol or other drugs.
Generally, members of vulnerable groups are less likely to identify a stair defect such as a change of
going and have greater difficulty in recovering their balance (Hemel et al, 2005). The elderly have been
identified as being particularly prone to falls on stairs and to suffering worse injuries in a fall (Templer,
1992). Visual and mobility problems become more common as people grow older.
When a large percentage of the anticipated stair users are vulnerable people (for example in a primary
school or a care home) particular attention to the design, construction and maintenance of the stairs is
required but note that public places (generally) are all accessed by people with disabilities and by children.
2.2 Factors affecting safety

This section discusses the complex mix of factors that may affect stair safety. The values given are
recommendations based on current knowledge at the time of writing, and are not “regulations” or
“standards”.
Factors that have been identified are as follows.
2.2.1 Step dimensions and their consistency

There are two issues, which are the notional dimensions and variation between the dimensions of the
as-built steps.
As far as the dimensions are concerned, there have been many recommendations in national standards
and other documents and a tendency for designs to be to minimum allowable standards.
Bearing in mind the statement “the bigger the going, the safer the stair” the following guidance is given.
Recent research has shown that for non-domestic stairs, the minimum going should be 300 mm
and the maximum rise should be 180 mm.
This is now recognised in BS 5395-1:2010 but is yet to be (at the time of writing) recognised in
the Approved Documents accompanying the UK Building Regulations.
In addition, a minimum rise of 100 mm is required to avoid presenting a “trip hazard” effect.
Considering variation between steps, studies of stair use suggest that people using a stair rapidly build
an internalised model of the stairs based on visual information and their experience of the first two or
three steps (Johnson and Pauls, 2010). Careful observation of stair users suggests that the exact position
of the foot on the stair tread varies slightly from step to step (Roys and Wright, 2005, and Muhaidat et al,
2011). Research suggests that this variation is of the order of 3 to 7.5 per cent of the shoe length.
It is unusual for the rise and going of every stair to be consistent throughout the whole flight, and for
some building techniques variations of 4 mm to 6 mm are routinely expected (Roys and Wright, 2005).
Also, differences as high as 25 mm (or even greater at the top and bottom, where floor levels have been
affected by the thickness of screeds and finishes) are not unknown. The variation between consecutive
steps effectively changes the amount of the user’s foot that overhangs the nosing in proportion with the
change in rise or going when descending.

Figure 2.1
Station stair viewed from the
top of the flight, variation in
stair geometry is clearly visible
When intrinsic variability in gait is coupled with variations in the dimensions of the stairs, the risk of a
misstep and a potential fall is drastically increased (Roys and Wright, 2008a). The effect is reduced as the
going size is increased.
Significant variation in as-built step dimensions, when combined with the intrinsic variability in the gait
of users, has been shown (Roys and Wright, 2008a) to dramatically increase the risk of a misstep and so
the risk of a fall is drastically increased (see Figure 2.1 for an example). The significance of the effect of
variation in as-built step dimensions is greater for a smaller going.
Analysis of actual stair falls suggest that the most significant contributing factor associated with the falls
was variability of the rise and going sizes (Cohen et al, 2009). Research indicated that in 60 per cent of
falls the rise varied by 9.5 mm or more and that in 34 per cent of cases the goings varied by 9.5 mm or
more. Improved accuracy of construction is desirable.
Where there are variations in rise or going between adjacent steps in excess of a few millimetres, the
chance of an accident is significantly increased.
Forensic analysis of accidents in the US and Canada has identified what appears to be a common stairs
defect in many buildings, particularly new homes (Johnson and Pauls, 2010). Analysis showed that
Figure 2.2
Station stair viewed
from the bottom of
the flight, variation in
rise (bottom step) is
clearly visible
4 CIRIA, C722
the first going below the top landing was larger than
the subsequent goings in the flight. It is suggested that
one reason that this defect is becoming more common
is the increased use of manufactured stair flights being
connected to the floor structure of the top landing.
Experts believe that the top of flight defect conveys
misleading information to stair users who then expect the
goings of subsequent treads to have similar dimensions
to that of the first going. This “top of flight” defect issue
has been brought to the attention of the relevant North
American regulatory authorities, but to date little action
has been taken. It is currently unclear how common the
top of flight defect is in the UK. However the increasing
popularity of prefabricated building methods and the use
of stairs manufactured off site means that there is a need
for vigilance for this type of systematic defect.
In the UK, it has been observed that the top or bottom

step riser dimensions are frequently compromised by the
depth of finishes applied to the adjacent landing or (more
Figure 2.3 Station stair where the bottom riser
dimension has been reduced by the
commonly) floor, such as where extra material has been
addition of asphalt to the platform placed on a platform (see Figures 2.2 and 2.3).
A related problem has been particularly noted where stairs meet the local street topography, for example
the recently rebuilt Cannon Street Station development in London (see Figure 2.4) where the bottom
riser varies along its length
Other situations where end riser dimensions may be compromised include the jacking-up of footbridges
for railway electrification and the modification of floors during refurbishment.
It has also been reported that where flights of stairs are pre-assembled in a factory, their incorporation
into the building structure may create variations at the top or bottom step.
Figure 2.4
Variable-height bottom riser where
stair meets pavement (Cannon
Street Station development)
2.2.2 Step slope

Steps should not slope in any direction by more than 1 in 40 and (for external stairs) should not obstruct
the free draining of rainwater. For older stairs, wear in use may cause problems. In the open air, water
may collect and freeze in cold weather.

2.2.3 Stair appearance
Steps should be free of distracting advertising, logos etc and finishes of landings and adjacent floors
should not have a striped finish that could be mistaken for another step.
2.2.4 Step condition

Stairs should be maintained in a clean and (internally) dry condition, to reduce the risk of slipping. The
issue of cleaning is explored in guidance by Lazarus et al (2006).
There should be no obstruction of a stair or its landings and immediately adjacent floors by, for example,
storage or plant-pots unless the incorporation of decorative furniture etc has been catered for in the
overall design and has been risk-assessed taking account of experience in use.
2.2.5 Adequacy of stair clear width

Adequacy of stair width depends on the types of users and the predicted maximum rate of throughput of
users. Stair clear width should not normally be less than 1000 mm between handrails. A minimum width
of 1200 mm is normally required for a hospital.
Clear width between handrails should not normally exceed two metres, to avoid users being too far from
a handrail.
In many cases it will be apparent from experience in use whether there are any width issues. For a fire
escape in a public building the statutory requirement for a fire risk assessment and the preparation
of a “fire and emergency risk assessment and procedures manual” must include an assessment of the
adequacy of stairs for the number of people involved.
Adequacy may be affected by the behaviour of vulnerable users (particularly people with disabilities) or
by the need to carry large pieces of luggage, pushchairs, folding cycles etc. Where there is a safer route,
eg using a lift or ramp, adequate clear signage should be provided.
Where there are concerns about the adequacy of stair width, making physical changes will
not normally be easily possible or even feasible. In such cases consideration may be given to
the re-direction of users or the provision of additional capacity.
2.2.6 Adequacy of headroom

Headroom clearance should be a minimum of two metres and clear signage should be provided where
it is less than this dimension. Normally it will be apparent from experience in use whether there are any
headroom issues.
2.2.7 Length of flight

A stair with many steps between floors or landings can be challenging to climb, particularly for the
elderly. Some people may need to rest in the middle of such a flight making it more difficult for other
users to use them safely. If a fall occurs during descent, a longer flight might be expected to increase the
chance of falling a large distance and suffering a more serious injury. However, accident statistics suggest
that there is no significantly higher level of risk associated with longer flights of stairs. This may be
because (Templer, 1992) users take more care when they are uneasy about the length they might fall.
2.2.8 Provision of handrails

Handrails serve three important functions for stair users:
1 A guide to where the staircase begins and ends.
6 CIRIA, C722
2 An aid to movement up and down stairs.
3 A method of preventing a fall if a loss of balance occurs. In the event that a person using the
stairs does lose their balance, a secure, easy to grasp handrail at the appropriate height offers an
opportunity to aid the user in recovering their balance and mitigating damage from a fall, or at
least, to suffer a less severe accident.
Handrails should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm above, and parallel with, the pitch line of the stairs.
Not all users will have their hand on the handrail but the ability to grab the rail if there is a loss of
balance is beneficial. To that end, London Underground (LU) requires a minimum clear spacing above a
handrail, so that even if it is not being used it can easily be grabbed quickly.
In order to serve these functions appropriately handrails need to be well designed and properly located.
Building Regulations suggest that where stairs are wider than 1800 mm to 2000 mm they should be
subdivided into channels (minimum clear width 1000 mm) by providing additional handrails, which
may also be beneficial in controlling pedestrian traffic flow. These additional handrails may need to be
continuous across any landings.
Any stair up to one metre in width requires a handrail on at least one side. It requires a handrail on both
sides if it is wider than this. Having a handrail on only one side may discourage handrail use as people
have a preferred hand and may prevent some users from using the handrail, especially on wider stairs or
where users are unable to use one arm effectively, for example stroke patients or users carrying items. It
is advisable that all stairs have at least two handrails.
Summary
ªª a handrail should be provided on each side of a stair
ªª where stairs are wider than 2000 mm they should be subdivided into channels (minimum
width 1000 mm) by providing additional (double) handrails.
2.2.9 Suitability of handrails

Considerable research efforts have been made to establish the preferred size, shape and placement of
handrails to improve stair safety (Maki et al, 2006, Roys, 2011, and Sinisammal and Saaranen, 2010).
The handrail shape and dimensions are important. The general consensus in available literature
suggests that for a handrail to be effective it should allow the user to make a firm grasp (“power” grip),
which would allow them to hold the rail with sufficient strength to prevent a fall. Researchers suggest
that the rail should have a perimeter of 100 mm to 160 mm (Roys, 2011). So, circular handrails should
have a diameter of 32 mm to 50 mm (ideally 40 mm to 45 mm) and elliptical or oval handrails should
be roughly 50 mm wide and 40 mm high, to meet the perimeter criteria, circular handrails being
preferable. See Figure 2.5 for a suitable handrail.
The optimum height for handrails on stairs has also been researched in depth (Roys, 2011, Maki
et al, 2006, and Sinisammal and Saaranen, 2010). Researchers are generally in agreement that the
handrails should be about 900 mm above the pitch line of the stairs. This is in accordance with most
recent standards, which now recommend a handrail height of between 900 mm and 1000 mm above
the pitch line.
Research suggests that most people do not keep their hand in contact with the handrail throughout
their ascent or descent of the stairs. The implication of this is that in the event of a fall they will make a
grab for the handrail in an attempt to stop themselves from falling (Maki et al, 2006). Handrails need
to be positioned so that the user will reach for the correct location, will not catch their hand and will
have sufficient clearance to grab the handrail in an emergency. Having handrails pitched at a consistent
height on different stairs will be advantageous for reactive use.

Figure 2.5
Showing a good handrail with a
hand gripping it (the ‘power’ grip)
There is some debate about how far the handrail should be positioned from the wall. Smaller dimensions
increase the difficulty of grabbing the rail while larger distances raise concerns about the stabilising
forces required through the brackets supporting the handrail. This increases the risk of the user’s arm
being trapped on the wrong side of the rail in the event of a fall (Roys, 2011). A gap of 50 mm to 75 mm
is recommended.
Handrails should be mounted securely and should be designed so as not to snag clothing or carried
items, particularly at the ends.
Ideally, handrails should extend a minimum of 300 mm beyond the end of the top and bottom riser.
If handrails do not extend to the top of the stair it may be difficult to use the handrail in descent until
some way down the stair. In ascent, a handrail that does not extend above the top step can make it
difficult for some users (eg people with disabilities) to climb the stair safely. Also, handrails extending
beyond the stair will provide a visual signal that one is approaching a stair, alerting users to the need
to concentrate. Users with visual impairment rely on handrails to signal where they are on the stair.
The handrail at the top and bottom should be level, sloping away where the stair starts, and it should
continue at landings
The material used for a handrail should not be prone to becoming slippery in foreseeable circumstances
and (ideally) not become excessively hot or cold to the touch if it is exposed to the elements.
The provision of tactile signage on handrails or elsewhere on stairs is not currently good practice but
may become so.
Summary
ªª a handrail rail should have a perimeter of 100 mm to 160 mm. Circular handrails should
have a diameter ideally of 40 mm to 45 mm and elliptical or oval handrails should be
roughly 50 mm wide and 40 mm high
ªª there should be a continuous free gap between a handrail and any nearby construction
ideally of between 50 mm and 75 mm, with the handrail being supported from beneath
ªª the ends of handrails should extend sufficiently and be well-detailed to give users a clue
that the end of a flight has been reached and to avoid clothing being snagged
ªª the material used should not be at risk of becoming slippery.
2.2.10 Visibility and design of nosings

Guidance on the effect of nosings is provided in Roys and Wright (2003) and the following information is
based upon their research.
8 CIRIA, C722
b
Figure 2.6
Example of good (a) and poor
(b) stair nosing highlight
The leading edge of the tread is described as the nosing. Some stairs will have material added to the
leading edge, usually to add visual contrast or to protect the edge of the step from wear. This is known as
a “proprietary” nosing because it is usually a product.
For shorter goings (less than 300 mm) during descent each foot will land with some degree of overhang at the
nosing, and the contact between the foot and the nosing will be crucial. The risk of an accident is increased if:
ªª there is a risk of slipping because the tread surface and particularly the nosing are smooth and
there is a risk of the stairs becoming wet either directly or through wet footwear
ªª lighting is poor by day and by night
ªª the nosing does not have good visual contrast
ªª the nosing is damaged or coming loose.
Figure 2.7
b
Examples of poor (a) and effective (b) nosing positioning

Examples of nosings are shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7. Nosings need to be clearly highlighted to help
users to judge where the very edge of each tread is and place their feet accurately both during descent
and ascent. The colour of the nosing should contrast with the main body of the tread as well as any floors
or landings. The nosing highlight should be present on the top and front face of the step and extend
all the way to the edge to prevent giving a misleading impression of where the nosing finishes. The
nosing highlight can be assessed visually. However, it should be considered that visual perception differs
between individuals and many stairs will be used by people who have impaired vision.
Having a rounded nosing should reduce the severity of injury in a fall, but an excessive radius will
reduce the amount of going available to land on. A 5 mm radius is normally considered appropriate.
Having a very smooth surface on the edge of a nosing is of particular concern, especially when a stair
is external or where water may be carried into a building (so that there is a greater risk of slipping).
Lazarus et al (2006) and BS 8300:2009+A1:2010 provide guidance on suitable materials.
The size of the nosing will depend upon its design, but the part of it that is visibly different should not be
too far away from the edge of the step, or the nosings will appear to merge into one when looking down
(or up) the stair. Although this effect will reduce when looking directly at the next few treads, the signal
provided to users will be less affective. The width of highlight should be about 50 mm.
Nosings should be the same throughout the stair, and there is no good reason to make the top and
bottom nosings a different colour.
Summary
ªª nosings should be in good condition and to the full width of each tread
ªª when the going dimension is less than 300 mm, the design of nosings is particularly important
because during descent the foot will land on and rotate about the edge of the nosing
ªª the risk of injury should not be unnecessarily increased by a sharp-edged nosing
ªª the effective going should not be reduced by a large radius on the nosing
ªª nosings should be easily seen both when descending and ascending, with good lighting
and visual contrast relative to the rest of the stair
ªª nosing highlighting should stand out to allow individual steps to be recognised when
viewed from the top or bottom of the stair
ªª the tread and the nosing material should provide suitable slip resistance, allowing for the
likelihood of the steps or users’ footwear being wet.
2.2.11 Guarding
Guarding is the term for the barriers at the edges of stairs, acting to prevent a fall off the side of the stair or
through open risers (see summary box). Handrails may form part of the guarding. The guarding should always
be sufficiently “solid” to prevent a ball of 100 mm diameter passing through (representing a small child’s head).
Extra low-level handrails for children may be provided but the benefits probably only exceed the risks
when there is zero risk of the rail being used to climb on and then falling over the guarding.
The use of open risers (albeit with adequate guarding) is increasingly criticised based on:
ªª the risk of a foot or walking aid becoming trapped under a step, causing a fall
ªª the risk of users feeling insecure or distracted as they look “through” the stair
ªª the risk of debris falling onto those below.
The risks posed will vary greatly, depending on the circumstances.
10 CIRIA, C722
Summary
ªª adequate guarding must be provided, to avoid risk of falling or of a child’s head being trapped
ªª guarding should not be easy to climb and the guarding function should not be
compromised by the provision of an extra low-level handrail for children, bearing in mind
that children will climb
ªª open risers normally should be avoided.
2.2.12 Building layout

At the top and bottom of flights of stairs it is important that the movement of people is free-flowing and
unimpeded by obstructions. In complex areas, such as the top of stairs in transport interchanges, cross-
flows can exist where people will get in each other’s way and cause blocking. This can be remedied by
careful design, or if existing areas become overcrowded, by careful signing (ensuring that people do not
stop to read signs at inappropriate locations) and good lighting.
In extreme cases people should be routed via alternative stairs or other facilities, or one-way flows may
be enforced, especially at peak times. At very busy times it may be necessary to provide staff to keep
people moving and help stop obstructions, but this is expensive and in some cases causes bunching
as people may stop and ask for information. If none of these solutions appear to be working it may
be necessary to undertake a passenger flow modelling exercise that should suggest remedies, either
temporary or permanent.
Free-flow of people at the top and bottom of stairs is very important, especially at busy times.
2.2.13 Corduroy “hazard warning” surfaces (commonly called “tactiles”)

Corduroy “hazard warning” surfaces are now widely provided to assist users with visual impairment by
providing the correct “message” about a stair. BS 8300:2009+A1:2010 provides further detail. However,
there is a lack of evidence that they are effective and significant concern about the following issues:
ªª visually impaired users are not always aware of their meaning

ªª not all installations are made correctly and consistently
ªª there is a mismatch between external provision and internal provision
ªª systems vary between different nations.
Risk of tripping by all users is increased if the raised pattern is high (a maximum of 6.5 mm has been
suggested) or if paviours are laid so that there is a “lip” at their edges.
Further guidance can be found in DfT (1998) and RSSB (2005).
Summary
Tactiles should comply with BS 8300:2009+A1:2010, and should not present a risk of
tripping at the top of a stair.

2.3 Relative importance of factors
Ranking the issues cannot be easily achieved. However, Barkow (2003) reported that after a fall people
rated the issues involved in their accidents and the factors that were mentioned were then ranked as
follows (the highest listed first):
1 Personal factors such as hurrying or day-dreaming.

2 Wet, icy or slippery steps.
3 Personal factors such as carrying something so that there was no free hand to grab the handrail.
4 Adequacy of handrail.
5 Types of shoes.
6 Sloping steps and nosings.
7 Visual distraction and visibility of nosings.
8 Personal factors such as being tired or fatigued.
9 Lighting problems.
10 Stair steepness.
Issues relating to people cannot easily be changed or influenced. Likewise, people would not always
realise why they had fallen. It is significant that variation in step dimension does not appear in this list,
whereas “wet icy or slippery steps” does. This suggests that falling was associated with slipping and so (in
the mind of the person involved) the accident was associated with a slippery surface.
Based on the most recent research, experts suggest that the three main issues that need to be
addressed are:
1 Stair dimensions and consistency (particularly goings).

2 Provision and suitability of handrails.
3 Visibility and design of nosings.
But other factors (as discussed in this section) should not be ignored.
12 CIRIA, C722
3 Regulations and standards
For “new build” stairs, the UK Building Regulations and supporting British Standards provide
minimum design requirements for safety. The UK Building Regulations are updated periodically.
Building Regulations do not apply retrospectively and so comparison with specific requirements of
current standards, when assessing an existing stair, is not necessarily appropriate. There are numerous
UK staircases that pre-date the current Regulations and so may have been built to a previous standard
with regards to safety. Also, it is notable that some stairs are built to the minimum requirement, rather
than being designed with more “generous” dimensions, reflecting the commercial reality that stairs with
a shorter going and a greater pitch take up less space.
Forensic investigations into the causes of stair accidents have often found the incident to be wholly or
partly caused by poor stair design. Also, some accident investigations have identified stairs that would
not have met the required standard at the time of construction and this may apply equally to new
build stairs.
Summary
This guidance highlights the main safety features and demonstrates how the safety of
an existing stair may be assessed. It suggests how, taking account of in-use experience,
appropriate decisions can be made. However, it is not intended to examine the precise
requirements of past or present standards.

4 Measuring stairs
When assessing the risks posed by a stair, experts make a range of measurements including the height
and perimeter of the handrails, the clear width of the stair and the size of each rise and going. The
size of the rise and going is obtained by measuring the distance and angle between adjacent nosings
and calculating the dimensions using trigonometry. This gives a more accurate measurement than
attempting to directly measure the rise or going with a ruler or tape measure (Johnson, 2006).
For the toolkit method described in this chapter, the aim was to develop methods that allowed an
investigator to make basic assessments of critical stair features without the need for complex calculations
or specialist equipment.
The following methods are described:
ªª making a visual record

ªª assessing issues of visibility
ªª using the crouch-and-sight technique to make an initial assessment of the stair (Pauls and
Harbucks, 2008)
ªª using an assessment board to measure risings and goings
ªª using a plumb-line to measure handrail height
ªª measuring other handrail dimensions.
4.1 General advice

When assessing stairs it is helpful to start in the same place each time so that results from different stairs
can be compared easily and stair features such as handrails can be identified correctly. After the initial
crouch-and-sight from the top of the stair (see Section 4.8), always start the assessment from the bottom
of the stair looking up, with the first nosing up from the floor or landing being recorded as nosing 1.
The handrails should be described as left hand rail or right hand rail looking up the stairs.
When undertaking an assessment on stairs:

ªª make sure that the stairs are not busy or about to become busy, so that people could be affected
ªª take care to avoid losing balance and falling down the stairs
4.2 Equipment
The following equipment will be required:
ªª camera
ªª tape measure
ªª plumb-line
ªª A3 assessment board* and set square.
Note
* the “assessment board” could equally be a whiteboard, a Perspex sheet, or a paper version glued to a stiff card. A template is provided on
page 16 of this guide (Figure 4.1). It is recommended that the board be made of a material that can be cleaned and re-marked.
By using a double-sided assessment board the rise and going of a stair can be recorded on one side using
a non-permanent marker pen, and important dimensions can be marked on the reverse to allow quick
checks to be made.
14 CIRIA, C722
4.3 Making a photographic record
Photographs provide a good visual record and reminder of the points noted during the assessment.
It is important to make sure that the photographs capture the relevant details. For example when
investigating a fall down stairs take some photos looking down from the top. Many cameras will give a
misleading impression of the lighting levels on a stairway if using a flash so take photographs without a
flash (unless a particular detail is being recorded that needs to be clearly visible).
4.4 Assessing issues of visibility

Apart from the need for good lighting on a stair, the main issues are whether the nosings and the
handrails can be seen clearly.
The points to consider are:
ªª whether there is adequate lighting, or “illuminance” measured in “lux”

ªª whether there is adequate contrast between surfaces so that the nosings and handrails stand out, or
“visual contrast” measured as the difference in “light reflectance value” (LRV)
ªª particular issues such as shadow, glare or transition as users move from daylight into an artificially
lit area.
Remember that lighting levels may not always be the same as during the assessment. They may vary with
the weather, the season and time of day. Consider how shadows and glare may vary in different conditions.
4.5 Illuminance
Illuminance should be at least 100 lux as assessed at the level of the treads.
If using a light-meter, measure at the walking routes, on the top, middle and bottom steps. If the
illuminance is assessed as “good” (or better) it may be accepted as satisfactory.
4.6 Visual contrast

Visual contrast should be assessed as the difference in LRV between:
ªª nosings and the adjacent tread

ªª nosings and the adjacent riser
ªª handrails and the adjacent background
ªª treads and adjacent walls.
A difference in LRV of at least 30 is required.
An LRV meter may be used, but for normal assessment purposes an assessment may be made by taking
photographic images. If using a digital camera, turn off “auto correct” setting or the results will be
misleading. Take photographs without the flash to get a more realistic impression of the lighting level at
the time of the assessment. Take a monochrome photocopy of a colour photograph of the stair, or convert
colour photographs into black and white on a computer. Examine the images to ascertain whether there is
adequate visual contrast. If the contrast is assessed as “good” (or better) it may be accepted as satisfactory.
Alternatively, a colour-card swatch supplied with LRV values may be used.

50 75
Handrail clearance
50 mm to 75 mm
100 160
Handrail perimeter
100 mm to 160 mm
Maximum rise 190 mm

190 mm
Cut corner for radius

at step root
50 mm
50 mm
250 mm
Guarding spacing
max 100 mm
100 mm
Minimum going
250 mm
Figure 4.1
Template for an A3 assessment board
4.7 Shadow, glare or transition as users move
from daylight into a lit area
Assess the stair to ascertain whether there is adequate visual difference. If the situation is assessed as
“good” (or better) it may be accepted as satisfactory.
4.8 Using the crouch-and-sight technique to make

an initial assessment of the stair
A simple initial visual assessment of the stair can be done by crouching at the top of the flight and
sighting down the nosings. When undertaking this technique it is important to ensure the environment
is safe. Do not undertake the assessment in peak times.
First, look down the stair to see what users will see. By lowering the point of view, the nosings begin to
merge. If there are any significant differences in rise or going throughout the flight some nosings may
appear projected or set back from those around them. See Figure 4.2 for a demonstration of the crouch-
and-sight test. This technique is not infallible as an error in both rise and going can result in a crouch-
and-sight view that looks good on a stair with significant defects. Looking down the stairs where they
meet the wall can help with this assessment.
The crouch-and-sight technique is a good start to a stair assessment and may also help identify issues such
as any damage or wear on stair treads and whether nosings stand out clearly (Pauls and Harbucks, 2008).
Figure 4.2
Illustration of crouch-and-
sight test
4.9 Using an A3 “assessment board” to measure

rise and going
The “assessment board” is held at each step to record the rise and going. See Figure 4.3.
Mark a line on the “assessment board” at 250 mm for the minimum going and 190 mm for the
maximum rise so that a quick check of the approximate dimensions can be made.
A set square may be used to ensure the card is square on to the step being measured.
Take two sets of measurements per stair, one per side, where people walk (about 270 mm inside the
sidewall/guarding or the handrail if provided). This should then help to see how much variation there
is in rise and going throughout the flight of each stair. The larger the range obtained on the assessment
board the more the rise and/or the going varies.
18 CIRIA, C722
Figure 4.3
Assessment board in use
After finishing marking the board, record the range of rise and going. Now go back to each tread and
see if any of the extremes of rise or going are next to each other. If they are, this may be an area of
concern on the stair. Concerns such as this may already have been identified during the crouch-and-sight
test (Pauls and Harbucks, 2008).
If the goings are bigger than 420 mm it will not be possible to study variation in going with the A3
assessment board technique. Variations in going are more dangerous on stairs
with smaller goings, especially those under 300 mm.
On helical or spiral stairs it is important to measure

between similar points on each step. Measure and mark
the middle of each nosing with a temporary indicator
(eg chalk), and place the board against each mark when
recording rise and going.
If using a double-sided assessment board, mark important

dimensions on the reverse in permanent marker. This
allows a quick check to be made of important dimensions.
4.10 Using a plumb-line

to measure handrail
height
Using a marked plumb-line is a way to quickly assess handrail
height. Mark the string of the plumb-line between 900 mm
and 1000 mm above the ground. The top of the handrails
should sit in this zone. Also, mark the area above 1100 mm
to gauge the height of guarding on landings, the top of the
guarding should be in or above the 900 mm to 1000 mm zone.
Figure 4.4 shows the marking of the plumb-line.
When marking the string it is important to make sure that it

is done from the bottom of the plumb-line weight while the
string is under tension or the assessment will be inaccurate.
The string may stretch with use so check the string against
a tape measure before this to ensure the coloured zones still
Figure 4.4
correspond to 900 mm to 1000 mm and 1100 mm and greater.
Plumb-line markings

To measure the handrail height hold the plumb-line over the nosing (ie at the edge of the step) with the
weight in contact with the step, and observe where the top of the handrail is. Avoid parallax error by
looking at the string with your head level to the top of the handrail but make sure to be secure on the
stair to avoid losing balance.
4.11 Measuring other handrail dimensions

Dimensions of interest that could be marked/recorded include:
ªª handrail clearance from the wall (target 60 mm to 75 mm)

ªª quick check of handrail perimeter as measured with string (target 100 mm to 160 mm)
ªª distance between handrails.
Dimensions marked on the assessment board may assist.
4.12 Measuring guarding

Guarding spacing can be checked using the assessment board and should not allow a sphere of 100 mm
through, to prevent small children falling through or getting their heads caught. The 100 mm dimension
can be marked on the assessment board (see Figure 4.1).
20 CIRIA, C722
5 Assessing stairs
5.1 Introduction
Assessment of a stair requires that:
ªª in-use experience is understood

ªª critical properties are measured and assessed
ªª other features are observed and assessed.
This guide identifies in the stair fall checklist (see Chapter 6) the main dimensions and features and
provides information to help make a basic assessment. Where the basic assessment described identifies
significant issues with the stair that require expert opinion or where it is considered that more information
is required, a comprehensive assessment of the stair should be undertaken by a qualified expert.
When making assessments, the UK Building Regulations set out current minimum requirements, not
optimum values. Also, it should be noted that the Regulations are not retrospective so many older stairs
may not conform to the current regulations. BS 5395-1:2010 reflects the most recent understanding of stair
design. However, this is a developing area of expertise and anomalies between BS 5395-1:2010 and the
Building Regulations (that are under review at the time of writing) remain to be resolved.
Technical issues are examined in Chapter 2. However, bearing in mind the wide range of topics, there
are three main issues of note.
Main technical issues

1 Stair dimensions and consistency (particularly goings)
2 Provision and suitability of handrails
3 Visibility, position and condition of nosings.
5.2 In-use experience

Assessment should take account of in-use experience:
ªª have users reported accidents or incidents?

ªª have responsible managers (or users) any concerns?
When taking account of experience and opinion, note that the reported causes of accidents/incidents
may not have resolved the issues.
Reported in-use experience and concerns must be taken seriously, recorded and properly dealt with.
Ideally they should have been investigated using the techniques outlined in this guide.
5.3 Design features – location, layout and use

The first part of the physical assessment should be the location, layout and use of the stairs. Consider
vulnerable people who may use the stair (such as children or people with disabilities) and how busy the
stair is. A small defect on a very busy stair (eg a staircase in a transport interchange) could cause more
accidents than a more significant defect on a little used stair (eg access to a plant room).

Also, the behaviour of people using the stair may be important. For example carrying objects on stairs
can increase the risk of a fall by limiting a user’s view of the stair. This may compromise their balance
and prevent the use of handrails to stop a fall.
To check the suitability of handrails, use the stair and see how easy it is to grab the rails at various points.
Initial visual impressions are very important. Look for any evidence of damage or wear that may affect
stair use. What are the lighting levels like and are they likely to be better or worse at different times of
day or year? Are any aspects of the stairway misleading or distracting, for example the use of mirrors,
distracting shadows cast by light sources or advertising on the stairs?
How people access the stairs is important. Can the stair be seen when approaching or is there a door
to walk through leading immediately onto the stairway? If the stair is near an external entrance where
moisture may be present, or other source of contamination, such as a kitchen area, the tread material
will need to be considered carefully to provide sufficient slip resistance in normal use.
Can the target destination be seen meaning that users can move quickly towards it, for example rushing
to catch a train leading to the rush-and-push behaviour where accidents are likely to occur. This may
then require the recommendation of a remedial solution such as “planned obscuration”, preventing the
destination, ie the train, from being seen from the stair.
Is there a risk of confusion (eg “conflicting pathways”) at the top or bottom of a stair, obstructing free flow?
5.4 Assessment
significant harm. Where there is a reason to look at a specific staircase, the stair fall checklist in Chapter
6 will assist in recording what is found. The following questions have to be considered:
1 What are the concerns at this location, historic and current?

2 How strong are they?
3 How do they tally with in-use experience?
4 What remedial work can be done easily that will give significant benefit?
5 Is more extreme remedial action required?
5.5 Decisions about risk

In all risk assessments, hazards that have been identified need to be removed or, if that is decided not
to be reasonably practicable, residual risks need to be reduced as far as is reasonably practicable. It
is appreciated that many people struggle to gain an understanding of what is reasonably practicable
because in retrospect:
ªª there is a feeling that after an accident it is always obvious what more could have been done to
prevent it occurring
ªª any decision where costs plays a major part are likely to be (in retrospect) criticised.
When decisions are made it is necessary to bear in mind the test of reasonable practicability in UK law.
This is where the likelihood and severity of injury is compared with other issues (including the costs
involved) in removing the hazard or minimising the likelihood or severity of residual risk. However,
this apparently simple decision making is complicated by the inevitable fact that after an accident,
perceptions of risk will be profoundly affected by what has happened. So only the remotest of risks
can be envisaged as being acceptable. Taking risks that could reasonably be seen to lead to death or
serious injury under a foreseeable scenario cannot be countenanced and a high level of endeavour to
control identified residual risks is sensible. Nowadays, people are not normally expected to walk near
22 CIRIA, C722
unprotected edges or climb long ladders and equipment, such as lifts, is maintained and operated
to a high standard of performance. What was once seen as a reasonable level of risk is now no longer
countenanced, particularly after there have been accidents. This improvement of standards is central to
the goal setting legislation, which applies to risk assessment and can be likened to the raising of the cross
bar on the high jump as athletes improve over time.
Making reasonable decisions tends towards a cautious approach to decision making, as the law intends,
in which they:
ªª should be made by reasonable, competent people, and based on evidence not hearsay
ªª should be made as a team, involving communication and co-operation, and allowing discussion and
exchange of ideas. This reduces the risk of inappropriate influence by strong personalities – teams
usually perform better than individuals
ªª should not be rushed so that second thoughts can have time to occur and be addressed
ªª should consider the end users and involve the people managing and maintaining the facility concerned.
In making a risk assessment for a stair and deciding how to proceed afterwards, these messages will apply.
More specifically, in the railway industry in Great Britain, the policy has been interpreted as “almost
every policy, investment or operational decision taken by the industry has an effect on safety. So it is vital
that safety considerations are embedded effectively into the decision taking process.”
Guidance by RSSB (2009) states that in the Great Britain railway industry duty holder decisions that
affect safety are taken:
ªª to meet legal requirements

ªª because they are sensible from a commercial perspective.
The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 places duties on employers in the UK to ensure safety so far
as is reasonably practicable (SFARP). When these duties are considered in relation to risk management,
the duty is sometimes described as a requirement to reduce risk to a level that is as low as is reasonably
practicable (ALARP).
To determine what is reasonably practicable, a reasoned judgement needs to be made that balances
estimates of safety benefits against estimates of costs (time, money and inconvenience). There are various
ways to determine whether or not this test has been met. If there is established good practice, and it is
valid and appropriate in the circumstances, the practice is likely to be reasonably practicable. Established
good practice takes several forms. For example, the rail industry maintains a suite of Railway Group
Standards (see box) using a process of continuous review and update.
RSSB Railway Group Standards:

www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Forms/Live_Documents.aspx
Where no established good practice exists, judgement may be based on an estimation of costs and
benefits. Balancing costs and safety benefits can be undertaken qualitatively or quantitatively. In many
cases, simple inexpensive controls can be adopted based on qualitative analysis, using professional
judgement. However, a quantitative approach, using formal cost-benefit analysis, may be used to support
a judgement when:
ªª the risks and/or controls are complex

ªª the costs are high, either for a single location or when applied to similar situations across the
whole network
ªª there are several alternative options and it is not immediately clear which is the most effective
and efficient.

Followed consistently, the principles in “Taking safe decisions” (RSSB, 2009) result in sensible decision
making. This means that duty holders are helped to continually strive to reduce risk while not allowing a
culture of risk aversion to affect decisions.
5.6 HSE guidance

HSE (2009) states that: “some health and safety duties are specific and absolute. Others require action so far as is reasonably
practicable. Enforcing authorities should apply the principle of proportionality in relation to both kinds of duty.”
Deciding what is reasonably practicable to control risks involves the exercise of judgement. Where duty
holders are seeking to control risks so far as is reasonably practicable, enforcing authorities considering
protective measures taken by duty holders take account of the degree of risk, and the sacrifice, whether
in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk.
Unless it can be shown that there is gross disproportion between these factors and that the risk is
insignificant in relation to the cost, the duty holder should take measures and incur costs to reduce the risk.
The authorities will expect relevant good practice to be followed. Where relevant good practice in
particular cases is not clearly established, health and safety law effectively requires duty holders to
establish explicitly the significance of the risks to determine what action needs to be taken. Ultimately,
the courts determine what is reasonably practicable in specific cases.
Some irreducible risks may be so serious that they cannot be permitted.
5.7 Case law

To demonstrate how events may be judged after an accident, it may be helpful to refer to recent case
law. Typical cases are outlined in the following sections and it is encouraging to note that in each case
what appear to be sensible decisions were reached. In every case, people who had an accident were
seeking damages from the occupier of the premises or their employer and the judgements demonstrate
how their own behaviour was, where relevant, taken into account as well as the physical attributes of
the stair involved.
5.7.1 Case 1: Furness v Midland Bank (2000)

Following an accident on stairs said to be occasioned by a few drops of water, the plaintiff held that the
bank should have kept the stair dry. The judge did not agree that this was reasonable, so no damages
were payable.
5.7.2 Case 2: McGivney v Golderslea (2001)

Visiting a block of flats, the plaintiff slipped while descending stairs and as he fell, put his hands through
a glass door panel. The glass panel had met current legal requirements in force when the flats were built,
but not those obtaining when the accident occurred. It was proposed that the glass should have been
upgraded in force because such an accident was foreseeable. The judge (and the appeal court judge)
disagreed, based on reasonableness.
5.7.3 Case 3: Jaguar Cars v Alan Coates (2004)

This was a factory workplace accident involving four steps that were generally satisfactory, but had
no handrail. There was an initial judgement against Jaguar (but with contributory negligence by the
plaintiff) that was overturned on appeal, mainly because there was no regulation requiring a handrail
for this type of stair. Note that the precise reason for the fall was not actually determined. Also, note that
there had been no previous reported accidents, and after the accident a handrail was provided.
24 CIRIA, C722
5.7.4 Case 4: Alli v Luton & Dunstable NHS Trust (2004)
While descending a stair, a nurse fell and injured her leg. The case revolved around the adequacy of
lighting, whether lights had failed and whether the nurse should have switched the lights on. Also,
there were various disagreements about who had said what immediately after the accident. The judge
cut through the complexity and awarded damages simply because the stair was not well lit where the
accident happened.
5.7.5 Case 5: Holtes v Aberdeenshire Council (2006)

An employee broke a femur during a fall down a carpeted stair. The claimant criticised the stair based
on its steepness and the condition of the carpet, which had developed a “bulge”, on which she caught
a foot, triggering an accident. Damages were awarded solely on the basis that the carpet had not been
properly inspected and maintained.
5.7.6 Case 6: Dobbs v Mitchells & Butler (2007)

This case involved a man who “had taken drink” and been ejected from a pub. Returning, he tried to
visit the lavatory but instead opened a door leading to the cellar. He fell down steps, into the cellar and
was seriously injured. The door to the cellar was normally locked. Leaving aside these complexities, the
stair was not deemed to be unsafe and was well-lit, so the claim failed.
5.7.7 Case 7: Taylor v Wincanton Group (2009)

The claimant had fallen while carrying boxes into a Portakabin, which was accessed from the factory
floor. The case concerned the transition from the floor into the Portakabin. There was a 200 mm step-
up from a floor to the threshold and a 60 mm gap beneath the threshold – the gap being the cause of
the fall when a foot became trapped in it. The question was should the gap have been recognised as
a significant hazard and rectified or at least taped over with a bright tape? The original judgement
decided that it should have, however on appeal it was decided that this was unreasonable because it
suggested that there should never be a gap under a threshold.
5.7.8 Case 8: Widlake v BAA (2009)

A security guard at Stansted airport injured his back when he fell down a stair that had a “loose riser”,
which was agreed to have caused the accident. BAA had made an offer, which the plaintiff had turned
down. In court, it was learnt that the plaintiff had a previous back injury, which he had hidden. Damages
were awarded because the fault was agreed. However, because of the dishonesty, costs were not.
5.7.9 Case 9: Clark v Quantum (2012) and Case 10: Broadfield v

Meyrick (2012)
Both these cases involved a fall on workplace stairs that had less-than-perfect handrail provision and
there was much discussion about exactly what the regulations required. However, in both cases it was
decided that the fall was not affected by the handrail provision so the employer was not liable. It is of
interest that in neither case was the reason for the fall actually determined.
5.7.10 Case 11: Hannon v Hillingdon (2012)

This case involved a heating engineer working in a property with an open-sided staircase in a
maintenance area. The banister of this staircase had been missing for many years but others had used it
without incident, despite the obvious risks. On this occasion, the engineer heard a noise that caused him
to rush down the stair. He slipped and fell over the unprotected edge, badly injuring his ankle. It was
decided that damages were payable to the engineer because the stair was unsafe. However the argument
that he should not have used the stair was rejected by the judge, on a test of reasonableness.

5.7.11 Case 12: Geary v Wetherspoon (2012)
A young lady, following consumption of alcohol, attempted to slide down a pub banister and fell four
metres. Unfortunately, her injuries led to her becoming tetraplegic. It had already been realised
that the banister in question (which was in a listed building) was “an accident waiting to happen” but
English Heritage had not agreed to suggested changes. A rope had been coiled around the handrail to
discourage horseplay but clearly in this case it had not dissuaded the woman from trying to slide down.
Sadly for her, the judge ruled that she was the author of her own misfortune and damages were refused.
Summary
It is notable that in some cases the reason for the fall was not known. HSL have advised
that from their experience of investigating accidents, people may initially blame themselves.
In courts, where recovery of damages is sought, when the exact reason is not known, the
emphasis then appears to be on the precise wording and meaning of “regulations”. However,
overall the decisions reached appear to be “reasonable”.
It is clear that all accidents have to be considered on their individual merits. If a staircase
does not meet best practice, it cannot be assumed that the owner will be liable for any
accidents on it. However, best practice should be aimed for and appropriate modifications
made where practicable, making sensible decisions.
26 CIRIA, C722
6 Stair fall checklist
The following checklist may be used for the assessment of a stair, for example where there is a concern,
but remember that it is important to ask in each particular circumstance “is there anything else?”
In many cases judgement will be required as to “adequacy” or “acceptability” etc. If uncertain as to

adequacy etc a concern should be raised and the matter can then be pursued when decisions are being
made (see Section 5.5).
No. Check item Yes/no Comments
1 Stair being assessed
1.1 Location/reference known/recorded
1.2 User community known/recorded
2 Reported concerns
2.1 Have users reported accidents or incidents?
2.2 Have responsible managers any concerns?
2.3 Have any issues been resolved?
3 Initial visual assessment
3.1 Is there anything clearly “wrong”?
3.2 Does crouch-and-sight suggest any problem?
3.3 Do particular steps appear larger or smaller?
3.4 Are the steps consistent across their width?
3.5 Do the nosings look adequate?
3.6 Is there damage or wear?
3.7 Are there proper handrails and guarding?
3.8 Is the stair clean and clear of obstructions?
3.9 Do the adjacent floors present any problems (eg slipping, tripping)?
4 Environment
4.1 Is there visual complexity that may distract users?
Is there added risk due to distracting signage or advertising on the stair

4.2
or near the top?
4.3 Do users include people (eg tourists) who may linger?
5 Access
5.1 Are the potential access routes to the stair likely to cause a problem?
Are the stairs external or next to an entrance where water may be
5.2
tracked onto the stairs?
Are there any doors opening on to the landings that (when open) might
5.3
obstruct the landing?
5.4 Are the landings of adequate size?
5.5 Is there alternative lift access?
6 Materials and condition

Is the stair material or stair covering suitable and adequately slip
6.1
resistant?

6.2 Is there evidence of significant wear, damage or poor installation?
6.3 Do treads slope excessively (> 1 in 40)?
7 Illuminance and visual contrast
7.1 Is the stair adequately lit during all hours and weather conditions?
7.2 Are there any visibility problems (glare, shadow, transition etc)?
7.3 Does the lighting highlight the shape of the stairs?
7.4 Is there good contrast between nosing and tread?
7.5 Is there good contrast between tread and adjacent wall surface?
7.6 Is there good contrast between nosing and riser?
7.7 Is there good contrast between handrail and background?
7. 8 Do nosings stand out visually?
8 Stair dimensions
8.1 Is the stair width adequate?
8.2 Is the stair headroom adequate?
9 Step dimensions (using the “assessment board”)
9.1 Have the step sizes been recorded?
9.2 Are the dimensions acceptable?
9.3 Are any of the extremes next to each other?
9.4 Are the variations of concern?
10 Nosings
10.1 Are the steps fitted with proprietary nosings?
10.2 Is the nosing shape acceptable?
10.3 Is the nosing construction and material acceptable?
Do the nosing highlight the very edge of the steps (nosings may be set
10.4
back or misleading)?
When looking down or up the stair, can the individual nosings be easily
10.5
identified?
10.6 Can the nosings be clearly seen in all likely lighting conditions?
Is the colour contrast between nosings and treads effective (this can be
10.7
confirmed using the photo techniques)?
Is the colour contrast between nosings and risers effective (this can be
10.8
confirmed using the photo techniques)?
10.9 Is there any concern about slipping on nosings?
11 Handrails
11.1 Are useable handrails provided both sides?
11.2 Are useable handrails provided on one side?
11.3 Is there more than two metres between handrails?
Are handrails between 900 mm and 1000 mm above the pitch line (test
11.4
using marked plumb-line)?
11.5 Do the handrails extend the full length of the flight?
11.6 Are they continuous throughout the flight?
At the top and bottom, is the handrail adequate (is it level, and does it
11.7
extend far enough and does it signal the end of the stair)?
28 CIRIA, C722
11.8 Could handrails snag bags or clothing?
11.9 Are handrails well secured?
Is the handrail perimeter within recommended limits (check the

11.10
perimeter using string, should be 100 mm to 160 mm)?
11.11 Does the shape allow you to form a comfortable “power grip”?
Do other design elements (eg closeness to walls or guarding) prevent

11.12
you from grasping the handrails easily?
Are handrails mounted an appropriate distance from the wall (check

11.13
using the marked side of the assessment board)?
Can you freely run your hand down the handrails from top to bottom
11.14
without removing your hand from the rail?
Is it easy to see where the handrail is located (or does the colour,
11.15
location or design make it hard to spot)?
Does the handrail colour contrast with the wall (or other background)
11.16
behind it?
11.17 Is there a risk of children climbing, using the handrails?
11.18 Overall, is the handrail satisfactory?
12 Guarding
12.1 Is the stair provided with guarding where necessary?
12.2 Is guarding of adequate height?
12.3 Is there a risk of children climbing the guarding?
12.4 Are there open risers?
Where stairs could be used by children, is the guarding (including at

12.5 open risers) adequate to stop the passage of a 100 mm sphere through
any gaps (check using the marked side of the assessment board)?
13 Tactiles
13.1 Are there tactiles present?
13.2 Are they appropriate (type and location)?
If so, is there any risk of slipping or tripping, particularly at the top of the
13.3
stair?
14 Anything else?
Is there any specific concern about the stair that has not been dealt with
14.1
above?

7 Improving stairs
7.1 Introduction
This chapter provides assistance with stair assessment, indicating options that may be considered. Each
situation will be different, taking account of issues of practicality, cost and other constraints such as
heritage issues.
7.2 Focus on safety

The focus should be on improving safety in an effective and cost-effective way, although client plans may
need to be taken into account. There is no imperative for every provision and dimension to follow the
current regulations and recommendations.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the three most important issues are:
1 Stair dimensions and consistency.

2 Provision and suitability of handrails.
3 Visibility and design of nosings.
Note that there may be other particular issues highlighted by the risk assessment that will have to be
dealt with.
Normally, changes to stair dimensions and consistency will be difficult and costly to make. However, if
there have been reported accidents due to mis-stepping with no other apparent cause, remedial work
may be required, for example, by constructing a new stair over the existing construction or by making
local adjustments.
However, the provision of proper handrails will be comparatively easy and cheap to achieve and should
be done where there are significant defects in provision. Simply relocating an existing handrail may
create a significant benefit.
Improving the visibility and design of nosings may be easy to achieve through improved lighting or by
painting onto concrete steps (although a special “slip resistant” product will be required where steps or
footwear may be wet). There may be a need to provide proprietary nosings, the choice of which depends
on individual circumstances. For stairs that are in regular use, often a robust solution (albeit more
expensive up-front) will be cheaper (and safer) in the long-run. For stairs that are used less frequently,
cheaper alterations may be appropriate.
7.3 Heritage buildings

When assessing risks and deciding how to respond in situations where there are constraints on what
might be done, such as those found in heritage buildings, other local concerns should be included in the
decision making process.
For a stair where there have been incidents, or there appears to be a risk of future incidents the remedial
action will naturally be focused upon the aspects of the stair that need improving, but tempered by what
is practical given the inherent restrictions. In the case of a heritage building, for example, the scope for
physical improvement will most likely be constrained forcing the response to focus upon management
solutions such as:
30 CIRIA, C722
ªª providing an alternative route
ªª advising of the risks on notices as the stair is approached in a manner that does not act as a
distraction from the negotiation of the stairs
ªª providing verbal guidance to users
ªª providing extra measures that are not visually intrusive and can be removed without destroying the
building fabric.
For example, at Rochester Cathedral, the stair known as “The Pilgrim Steps” have been used by
countless thousands of pilgrims and had become so worn that timber treads were needed (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1 The Pilgrim Steps, Rochester Cathedral, showing remedial work to make
the steps safe and avoid further degradation of the ancient fabric
7.4 Management and maintenance

In addition to the purely physical aspects of stairs, management and maintenance will potentially
influence the risks. Case study 8.2 concerns how addressing these issues can reduce accident statistics.
The following points may be useful:
ªª route choice: users may be directed to other stairs or (particularly where luggage is involved) to
lifts or ramps
ªª maintenance: regular cleaning should reduce the risk of slipping both on steps and handrails
ªª management: of the degradation of surfaces or nosings (particularly proprietary nosings) is
essential
ªª control of maintenance or modifications that change stair dimensions: there is a major issue with
stairs that have significantly different riser heights at the top or bottom steps, due to changes in the
detailing and depth of surfacing on the adjacent floors. Such changes should not be made without
careful consideration of their effect on stair safety.

7.5 Examples of remedial activity
In addition to the activity described in the case studies (see Chapter 8), two examples of improved nosing
contrast are shown in Figures 7.2 and 7.3.
Figure 7.2 Use of paint to make nosings stand out visually
Figure 7.3 Use of proprietary nosings to make nosings stand out visually
32 CIRIA, C722
8 Case studies
8.1 Case study 1: London Underground

Interchange, London Bridge
The traditional Heavy Duty London Transport (HDLT) cast nosings, commonly seen on many London
Underground (LU) public stairs, are 140 mm wide on the tread and 16 mm on the rise, and do not
comply with the dimensions set out in current standards and regulations. Many solutions have been
developed by LU to achieve the requirements for visual contrast on stair nosings.
For example, LU has developed modern equivalents of the HDLT nosings that have resin inserts to
provide contrast at the front of the nosing. Also, there is a cast nosing that corresponds dimensionally to
Part M of the Building Regulations requirements (ie 55 mm x 55 mm) (HM Government, 2010).
Where stairs have the traditional HDLT nosing installed, LU typically paints a contrasting stripe on
to the existing nosing of the steps. This usually results in a significant maintenance liability. In heavily
trafficked stations the paint wears off in a matter of weeks and requires regular repainting.
LU has also applied resin-based products at several stations. Different colours are being reviewed to
optimise contrast and to assess their performance in relation to accumulation of dirt.
At a trial at London Bridge Underground Interchange, aluminium extrusion nosings incorporating

contrasting, slip-resistant inserts were applied to the HDLT nosing. These were ultimately unsuccessful
as the aluminium extrusion suffered from metal fatigue cracking around fixings, fixings pulling
through the metal and the nosing working loose. The trial was removed. These stairs have now had a
resin finish applied.
Figure 8.1
View of the nosings at London Bridge,
with post-applied aluminium extrusion
nosings incorporating contrasting
slip-resistant inserts, applied over the
original HDLT nosings

8.2 Case study 2: Reduction of accidents
involving stairs at York Station
8.2.1 Introduction
This case study contains details of a programme that was designed and carried out at York Station to
reduce the occurrences of slips, trips and falls (STFs). It concentrates particularly on the elements of the
programme involving stairs.
York Station is a Grade 1 listed building and contains classic Victorian railway architecture. The station
is a major interchange on the East Coast Main Line and has 11 platforms. These are linked by an
overbridge that is accessed via stairs, as well as an underpass that is accessed via stairs or lifts.
The programme consisted of a study to establish baseline accident and incident information followed by
an intervention designed to reduce occurrences of STFs.
The study phase of the programme concluded that many of the STF occurrences involved the stairs
serving the overbridge. Investigations into these showed a high proportion involving people with
disabilities as well as users encumbered with heavy luggage.
The stairs serving the overbridge was highlighted as a focus area for intervention.
The basic approach for the design of the intervention was to:
ªª decrease overall use of the stairs leading to the footbridge

ªª improve the staircase serving the footbridge.
8.2.2 Stairs versus underpass

It should be noted that although the underpass can be used as an alternative to the overbridge, a study
of the underpass showed extremely low use.
The underpass is a relatively new addition to the station as are the lifts that serve it. As it was necessary
to preserve the original overbridge and stairs according to heritage rules, when the underpass and lifts
were added these were not placed in as prominent a position as the stairs serving the overbridge. It was
concluded that this was one of the primary reasons for lack of use.
Interviews with users that were about to climb the stairs to the overbridge concluded that:
ªª these users were not aware of the underpass at all

ªª those that were aware of the facility stated they did not choose to use it due to fear or a general
dislike of the route.
When asked about the lifts, users stated:
ªª they were confused about the destination of the lifts. The lifts were not near the bridge and were
just signed “lift” instead of “lift to platform X”.
ªª those that had tried to use the lifts had low confidence in their reliability. Users stated that they
had pressed the “call” button but it either did not seem to work or the lift did not arrive in a timely
manner.
At the time of the study, the underpass had just undergone a significant refurbishment. The underpass,
previously damp, dark and smelly with graffiti, had now been transformed into an altogether more
pleasant environment, fully cleaned and painted with good lighting and displaying dynamic train
information. However, it was noted that while the refurbishment had been carried out to a high
34 CIRIA, C722
standard, passengers were not informed of the “new” option. In fact, the study concluded that generally
signage for the underpass was lacking.
Observations of the use of the stairs to the overbridge concluded that passengers would struggle up and
down with heavy luggage when in fact a lift was available (albeit the lift served the underpass only). As
the carrying of luggage was one of the contributory factors identified for stair accidents, this became a
major focus in terms of intervention.
If it was possible to influence users in high-risk groups, such as those with disabilities or carrying heavy
luggage, to use the lifts and underpass instead of the stairs then this could have a significant effect on
whether accidents occurred.
Following these findings, an experiment was conducted that proved a significant influence on
route choice could be achieved simply by changing contents of signage. Adopting new signage alone
demonstrated that a 23 per cent shift in route choice could be achieved. Further influencing, through
direct staff intervention (as is current practice on the MTR in Hong Kong), could result in an even
greater shift.
8.2.3 Improvement of the staircase

The initial finding when looking at the staircase was that while there were rails that could be held by
users during ascent and decent of stairs, these rails were actually guard rails and inappropriately placed
for use as a handrail.
The first recommendation was to fit handrails to the latest standard.
For the steps, it was noted that while the “going” was covered with a high grip material, the nosings of
each step were constructed using an aluminium strip. It was apparent that this strip had been ridged
when installed, but with constant wear most of these strips were now worn smooth. Also, it was noted
that the size of the step “going” meant that when descending the stairs, the contact point on the next
step down was actually in the region of the “going” with the aluminium strip. It was concluded that this
could be another causation factor as users would have experienced a high grip surface on the footbridge,
witnessed the same material on the step going but would then encounter a low co-efficient of friction
when the foot was placed on the smooth aluminium strip.
It was recommended that the stairs be refurbished and that high grip materials used for the whole
length of the “going”.
8.2.4 Maintenance of handrails

Some users were observed using the stairs but not holding the handrails. Interviews with many of these
users concluded that some were unhappy with the cleanliness of the handrails stating that they had
found them “sticky” or had pigeon droppings on them.
It was recommended that the inspection regime for the handrails be modified and all staff members
when walking around the station, as well as the cleaners, should more carefully monitor the handrails.
When detected, contamination should be immediately cleaned off.

8.2.5 Conclusions
This programme very quickly resulted in a 50 per cent decrease in STF accidents at York Station. Many
of these had been stair related. This was achieved by:
ªª encouraging users to take safer routes rather than using the stairs (improving station signage and
maintenance of lifts)
ªª ensuring that the stairs had appropriate handrails
ªª ensuring that the steps were even and finished with the appropriate materials to ensure a good grip
ªª ensuring that the stairs were adequately maintained including increased cleaning of handrails.
Figure 8.2 Showing improved stair at York Station
Figure 8.3
Showing improved
signage at York Station
8.3 Case study 3: Footbridge at Willesden Junction
8.3.1 The original problem

Figure 8.4 is an example of an external stair at a suburban railway station served by National Rail and
LU. The stair leads to a busy and often challenging high street via a long dark pathway. The area has a
36 CIRIA, C722
high crime rate. The station is located on a boundary between three different local authorities. At the
time of the first image (Figure 8.4a) the stair was owned by Railtrack.
The lighting provided to the stair was often inadequate. The nearby lights were on timer switches that
appeared to be not working correctly, as the lights were often on in full daylight and off at night. High
security fencing had been installed preventing easy access to the lighting controls.
The responsibility for cleaning the pathway and the stairs was in dispute between the boroughs,
Railtrack and the local rail franchisee. After major events, such as the nearby Notting Hill Carnival,
huge amounts of litter and waste went unattended for days.
The handrails were old but adequate, and the surface of the stairs was crumbling. Users could not agree
whether to keep left or right on the path and stairs, leading to some angry exchanges and distractions.
A busy bus stop at the top of the stairs was a magnet for people in both directions, some of whom were
rushing up to the buses, which were visible from below, and others running down to the station with its
relatively infrequent train services.
8.3.2 The improvements

Control of the station and its assets were transferred to London Overground who began refurbishing
this station along with many others that came with the franchise. The stairs were resurfaced with a GRP
cover that was colour coded to the London Overground colour scheme, providing good contrast at the
nosings. The stair was also equipped with new contrasting handrails that were easier to grasp. Lockable
gates have been installed from the path to where the lighting controls are located.
The stairs and path are now cleaned regularly. The frequency of trains on one of the main lines has
been doubled and new trains with greater capacity have been provided. This had led to big increases in
the use of the stairs and path, and the overall feeling of insecurity has been reduced. The “high street”
environment is probably unchanged but the overall impression is improved.
8.3.3 Safety outcome

The stair appears to be much improved. Unfortunately there is no record of the number of injuries or
physical assaults that have occurred on the stair either before or after the refurbishment. So it is unclear
as to whether the safety of the users has improved since the refurbishment. However, the increased level
of use would suggest that the risk is perceived to be lower by the users
a b
Figure 8.4 Showing before (a) and after (b), Willesden Junction footbridge stair

References
ALDERSON, A (2010) Stairs, ramps and escalators: inclusive design guidance, Centre for Accessible
Environments, Riba Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-85946-365-9)
BARKOW, B (2003) “Personal and building factors in stair safety”. In: Proc int conf on building use and
safety technology, March 1985, Los Angeles, Behavioural Team, A Corporation, Ontario.
Go to: www.bteam.com/reports/Stair_accident_LA_paper.pdf
CIRIA (in press) Guidance on escalator safety, CIRIA, London. Go to: www.ciria.org
COHEN, J, LARUE, C A and COHEN, H H (2009) “Stairway falls an ergonomics analysis of 80 cases”,
Professional Safety, vol 54, 1, American Society of Safety Engineers, USA, pp 27–41
COHEN, H H, TEMPLER, J and ARCHEAB, J (1985) “An analysis of occupational stair accident
patterns” Journal of Safety Research, vol 16, 4, Elsevier Science BV, UK, pp 171–181
DfT (1998) Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces. Department for Transport, London
Go to: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3622/tactile-pavement.pdf
HAMEL, K A, OKITA, N, BUS, S A and CAVANAGH, P R (2005) “A comparison of foot/ground

interaction during stair negotiation and level walking in young and older women” Ergonomics, vol 48, 8,
Taylor and Francis, UK, pp 1047–1056
HEMENWAY, D, SOLYNICK, S J, KOECK, C and KYTIR, J (1994) “The incidence of stairway injuries
in Austria”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol 26, 5, Elsevier BV, UK, pp 675–679
HM GOVERNMENT (2010) Building Regulations. Approved Document. Part M Access to and use of
buildings, RIBA Enterprises Ltd, UK (ISBN: 978-1-85946-211-9)
HSE (2009) Enforcement Policy Statement, HSE41 rev 1, Health and Safety Executive, London
Go to: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf
JANAWAY, D, O’RIORDEN, S and KNOX, A (2005) “Setting up an integrated falls and osteoporosis
service in East Kent” Contemporary Ergonomics, Taylor and Francis, UK, pp 480–484
JOHNSON, D A (2006) “An improved method for measuring stairways”. In: Proc IEA 2006 16th world
congress on ergonomics. Slips trips and falls congress, Maastrictcht, 10–14 July 2006
JOHNSON, D A and PAULS, J (2010) “Systemic systemic stair step geometry defects, increased injuries,
and public health plus regulatory responses”. In: M Anderson (ed) Proc int conf on contemporary ergonomics
and human factors 2010, Keele, UK, Taylor and Francis, UK (ISBN: 978-041558-446-3) pp 453–461
LAZARUS, D, PERKINS, C and CARPENTER, J (2006) Safer surfaces to walk on – reducing the risk of
slipping, C652, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-652-7). Go to: www.ciria.org
MAKI, B E, PERRY, S D, SCOVIL, C Y, MIHAILIDIS, A and FERNIE, G R (2006) “Getting a grip on

stairs: Research to optimize effectiveness of handrails”. In: R N Pikaar, E A P Koningsveld, P J M Settels
(eds) Proceedings IEA2006 Congress: Meeting diversity in ergonomics, Maastricht, The Netherlands, Elsevier
BV, Amsterdam, pp 4669–4674
MUHAIDAT, J, KERR, A and SKELTON, D (2011) “Measuring foot placement and clearance during stair
descent” Gait and Posture, vol 33, 3, Faculty of Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, pp 504–506
ODPM (2000) The Building Regulations 2000, Protecting from falling, collision and impact. Approved Document
K1 Stairs, ladders and ramps, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London
Go to: www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADK_1998.pdf
38 CIRIA, C722
PAULS, J L and HARBUCKS, S C (2008) “Safety 2008”. In: Proc ASSE Professional development conference
and exhibition, 9–12 June 2008, Las Vegas, NV, USA. Go to: www.asse.org/education/pdc08/index.php
ROWE, I (2007) “Creating safer stations” Railway Strategies, Schofield Publishing Ltd, UK
Go to: www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=1018&issueid=53
ROYS, M (2001) “Serious stair injuries may be prevented by improved stair design” Applied Ergonomics,
vol 32, 2, Elsevier BV, UK. pp 135–139
ROYS, M (2011) “Better handrails for safer stairs”. In: Proc IEA int conf on slips trip and falls, 6–8 April
2011, HSL Buxton, UK
ROYS, M (2013) Refurbishing stairs in dwellings to reduce the risk of falls and injuries, BRE Report FR53, IHS
BRE Press, Berkshire, UK (ISBN: 978-1-84806-299-3)
ROYS, M and WRIGHT, M (2003) Proprietary nosings for non-domestic stairs, BRE Information Paper (IP)
15/03, IHS BRE Press, Berkshire, UK (ISBN: 978-1-86081-652-9)
ROYS, M and WRIGHT, M (2005) “Minor variations in gait and their effect on stair safety”. In: P D
Bust and P T McCabe (eds) Contemporary Ergonomics 2005. Proc of the int conf on contemporary ergonomics
(CE2005), 5–7 April 2005, Hatfield, UK, Taylor and Francis, UK, pp 427–431
ROYS, M and WRIGHT, M (2008a) “Accidents on English dwelling stairs are directly related to going
size”, Chapter 101. In: P D Bust (ed) Contemporary Ergonomics 2008. Proc of the int conf on contemporary
ergonomics (CE2008), 1–3 April 2008, Nottingham, UK, Taylor and Francis, UK (ISBN: 978-0-41546-575-
5), pp 632–637
ROYS, M and WRIGHT, M (2008b) “The minimum cost of non-fatal fall accidents to the NHS
in England”, Chapter 109, In: P D Bust (ed) Contemporary Ergonomics 2008. Proc of the int conf on
contemporary ergonomics (CE2008), 1–3 April 2008, Nottingham, UK, Taylor & Francis, UK (ISBN: 978-0-
41546-575-5) pp 681–686
RSSB (2005) The use of tactile surfaces at rail stations, Report T158, Rail safety Standards Board, UK
Go to: www.rssb.co.uk/RESEARCH/Lists/DispForm_Custom.aspx?ID=290
RSSB (2009) Taking safe decisions – how Britain’s railways take decisions that affect safety, Ref GD-0001-SKP,
Rail Safety Standards Board Ltd, UK. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/cc2xt97
SCOTT, A (2005) Falls on stairs – a literature review, Report no HSL/2005/10, Health and Safety
Laboratory, Derbyshire. Go to: www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0510.pdf
SHAW, R, LOO-MORREY, M and THORPE, S (2011) Development of a stair fall toolkit, PED/11/05, Health
and Safety Laboratory, Buxton, UK (available on request from HSL)
SINISAMMAL, J and SAARANEN, P (2010) “Preferred handrail height for spiral stairs – a fitting trial
study” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol 16, 3, The International Ergonomics
Association, Poland, pp 329–35
TEMPLER, J (1992) The staircase: studies of hazards, falls, and safer design, The MIT Press, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, USA (ISBN: 978-0-26270-056-6)
THORPE, S C, SHAW, R W and HALLAS, K A (2012) “Investigating stair accidents”, In: Proc XXIV annual
international occupational ergonomics and safety conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 7–8 June 2012
WRIGHT, M and ROYS, M (2005) “Effect of changing stair dimensions on safety”. In: P D Bust and P T
McCabe (eds) Contemporary Ergonomics 2005. Proc of the int conf on contemporary ergonomics (CE2005), 5–7
April 2005, Hatfield, UK, Taylor & Francis, UK (ISBN: 978-0-41537-448-4), pp 469–474

Statutes
British Standards
BS 5395-1:2010 Stairs. Code of practice for the design of stairs with straight flights and winders
BS 8300:2009+A1:2010 Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people. Code of practice
Acts
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 9 (HASAW) 1974
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (No. 3242)
The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (ROGS)2 006 (No. 599)
40 CIRIA, C722
A1 Statistics about accidents on
stairs
A1.1 Introduction
The collection and analysis of statistics about falls on stairs in public places presents difficulties:
ªª accidents (and near-accidents) on stairs are hugely under-reported. They are seen as a normal life-
risk that people accept, and often may be blamed on their own lack of care, agility etc
ªª people may fail to report incidents because there is no mechanism to report them unless a visit is
made to hospital. Also, there is a fear of being “labelled” due to stereotyping or concern about a
potential loss of independence
ªª the full consequences of a fall may not be known for many months after data about the event is
collected. Death after a month due to medical complications would not be associated with the
event, so the numbers of deaths because of falls on stairs is also under-reported as a fraction of falls
that are identified as being on stairs
ªª data collection may not include details of where an incident occurred, or the categorisation of
incidents may not be adequate or understood by those making the records. For example in the NHS
the fall may be categorised as “fall” instead of “fall on stair”, based on the information available.
The available data indicates the sheer size of the problem. Typically, for an individual, the probability
of falling on any stair is low. However, on major public stairs where the stair serves a large number of
people every day, even a low incident rate can lead to many fall events over the course of a year. So there
is a real opportunity to improve the accident rate on well-trafficked stairs.
The particular data mentioned in Chapter 1 is provided to highlight that falls on stairs are of significance,
can have serious consequences and are sufficiently common to be worth seriously addressing.
This appendix provides access to further statistical data that may be of interest.
A1.2 Data from RSSB (which researches risk

events in the railway industry)
The RSSB Safety Risk Model (SRM) reports categorises events both as raw percentages and also using a
weighted model that factors in non-fatal events so that events can then be viewed as equivalent fatalities.
The latter values are described as fatality and weighted index (FWI) values.
Table A1.1 shows raw data for STFs data for national rail passengers (ie excluding staff and members of
the public otherwise present on railway property) expressed as FWI values.

Table A1.1 Raw data for train passengers expressed as FWI values (from
RSSB Annual Safety Performance Report 2011/2012)
Minor injuries
Major injuries
Shock and
Fatalities
trauma
Total
2007/08 6 2.08 0.012 8.09
2008/09 6 2.18 0.010 7.79
Stairs 2009/10 6 2.22 0.004 8.12
2010/11 5 2.23 0.004 7.53
2011/12 8 2.54 0.007 10.15
2007/08 4 1.41 0.014 5.73
2008/09 1 6 1.49 0.010 8.00
Platform 2009/10 4 1.63 0.007 5.44
2010/11 1 6 1.72 0.012 8.23
2011/12 4 1.78 0.008 5.99
2007/08 2 0.99 0.012 3.10
2008/09 3 0.82 0.010 3.53
Concourse 2009/10 3 0.71 0.009 3.82
2010/11 3 0.75 0.003 3.26
2011/12 3 0.93 0.007 3.74
2007/08 1 1 0.97 0.034 3.10
2008/09 1 1 0.98 0.025 3.40
Escalator 2009/10 1 1 0.92 0.009 2.83
2010/11 2 0.99 0.012 2.70
2011/12 1 1 1.06 0.018 3.18
2007/08 0 0.19 0.006 0.60
2008/09 1 0.22 0.005 0.72
Other 2009/10 1 0.22 0.001 0.92
2010/11 1 0.19 0.001 0.79
2011/12 1 0.16 0.002 0.76
Currently, RSSB estimate that STFs in stations account for about half of passenger risk events. In the
past five years, the greatest proportion of harm from STFs in stations occurred on stairs, with platforms
being the next most common location. Escalators typically contribute a lower level of harm, although this
is not normalised by use. There are many fewer escalators than stairs on the rail system. In four of the
past five years, falls on escalators led to the death of a passenger. In all cases, the person was elderly. The
significant risk posed by escalators has been recognised and guidance is due to be published (CIRIA, in
press) on the particular risks involved.
A1.3 Data from the Office of National Statistics

(ONS): annual mortality statistics
Although the data provided for causes of mortality in the ONS includes all locations, the number of
deaths attributed to “fall on/from stairs and steps” as reported by doctors and/or coroners is substantial,
typically 640 per annum.
42 CIRIA, C722
A1.4 Data from the Home and Leisure Accidents
Surveillance System currently hosted by the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
(RoSPA)
While not directly applicable to this guide, it is noted that RoSPA’s surveys report substantial numbers of
accidents on stairs, typically 2.7 m falls per annum, of which 415 000 were on stairs. However, about half
the accidents assessed by RoSPA were in public places, ie outside the home. It is clear that a substantial
number of falls on stairs are in public places.
A1.5 Under-reporting of deaths, Information

provided by Ian Rowe, Ian Rowe Associates
“A recent interview I conducted with a spinal injuries surgeon suggests that falls are the usual cause of broken
hips in the elderly. NHS statistics show that 30 per cent people suffering broken hips actually die within the first
30 days of the original incident and a further 30 per cent die within 60 days. In the statistics collected by the
NHS and others the cause of death will often be other causes which ensue (such as pneumonia) but the ‘ latent’
cause is actually a fall.”
A1.6 “World statistics” from a study by Anita Scott

at HSL
The following information is taken from work undertaken by Anita Scott for HSL (Scott, 2005). Details
of the references quoted may be found in her paper.
In Japan during 1976, almost as many people died from falling on steps or stairs (541) as from fires (865)
– and this in a country with many wooden structures (Kose, 1982 cited in Templer, 1992). In Canada,
injuries and fatalities on stairs greatly outnumber those from all natural disasters, by about one order of
magnitude (Pauls, 1985).
Studies in the US, Japan and Sweden have also shown that most stair accidents occur in the home (US
80per cent, Japan 68 per cent and Sweden 72 per cent). In Sweden most of these stair falls occur in the
victims’ own homes. In Japan, of those accidents that do not occur at home, more than half occur in
shops, restaurants or railroad stations.
In the workplace in the US, falls on stairs have become one of the major causes of compensation claims
and lost work hours (Templer, 1992). Cohen et al (1985) identified from an analysis of state workers’
compensation claims for New York and Ohio that high risk industries included police, fire protection,
public health administration, building construction, trucking and membership organisations (social,
fraternal and religious). Highly ranked industries often involved service functions or transitory
conditions away from the employers’ premises and so were not directly controllable by the employer.
These statistics demonstrate that falls on stairways are a common source of injury, and occasionally may
result in fatalities to stair users. Some researchers have even gone so far as to say that “Stairs are the most
serious accident hazards that individuals encounter in the everyday environment” (Merril et al, 1957 cited in
Cohen et al, 1985).

A2 Numerical risk assessment for
size of goings
Tables A2.1 and A2.2 demonstrate the effects that the size and variation of goings have on the risk of a
large overstep (such as might cause a fall) occurring during the descent of a stair.
Note that Roys and Wright (2003) recommend action is considered on stairs where the risk of a large
overstep is “once in a period of 50 years or less” (shown in bold).
The tread dimensions and the variation in rise and going can be assessed using an assessment board as
described in Section 4.9.
Table A2.1 Risk on a 14-step flight where there is no variation between “going” dimensions of the steps, expressed as
the average period between large oversteps (from Roys and Wright, 2003)
Occurrence 1 in Average time between occurrences of a large overstep for:

Going (mm)
x uses, x is: 5 uses per day 25 uses per day 100 uses per day 2000 uses per day
225 8000 4 years 298 days 75 days 4 days
250 20 000 11 years 2 years 198 days 10 days
275 266 000 145 years 29 years 7 years 133 days
300 53 m >1000 years >1,000 years >1,000 years 73 years
325 417 m >100 000 years >1000 years >1,000 years 568 years
Table A2.2 Risk on a 14-step flight where a single going is reduced by 15 mm, expressed as the average period
between large oversteps (from Roys and Wright, 2003)
Occurrence 1 in Average time between occurrences of a large overstep for:

Going (mm)
x uses, x is: 5 uses per day 25 uses per day 100 uses per day 2000 uses per day
225 1500 292 days 58 days 15 days 1 day
250 3000 2 years 131 days 33 days 2 days
275 28 000 15 years 3 years 282 days 14 days
300 2.4 m >1000 years 267 years 67 years 3 years
325 14 m >1000 years >1000 years 381 years 19 years
It can be seen that:
ªª a bigger going is much safer

ªª with a smaller going, consistency is more important
ªª for stairs that are rarely used, the need for better dimensions and a longer “going” dimension is
considered by BRE to be less critical.
In support of the research by Roys and Wright (2003), Burkow (2003) analysed downward falls. When
falls started at the top of the stair (ie when users were still “learning” about the stair) the mean riser
variability during fall events was 3.4 mm and the mean tread variability was 3.0 mm. When falls started
further down the stair (when users had already “learned” about the stair) the mean riser variability
during fall events was 11.5 mm and the mean tread variability was 24 mm. This demonstrated that even
when users had “learned” about the stair, significant dimensional variations could upset that learning.
44 CIRIA, C722
A3 Assessment of variations in rise
and going
Table A3.1 is provided to assist in appreciating the maximum variation between the dimensions of the
risers and goings of adjacent steps, which are considered acceptable.
Table A3.1 The acceptable maximum variation between the dimensions of

the risers and goings of adjacent steps
Dimension of riser or Recommended maximum

going (mm) variation (mm)
150–160 3.2
160–170 3.4
Variation between
170–180 3.6
adjacent risers
180–190 3.8
190–200 4.0
250–275 5.5
275–300 5.6
Variation between
300–325 10
adjacent goings
325–350 10.5
350–450 13.5
Notes
Greater variations than those shown cause increasing cause concern.
This table is indicative. Assessment should take full account of in-use experience. If there have been no
problems over a long period, then a decision not to take expensive remedial action would be reasonable.
However, consideration should be given to the improvement of aspects such as lighting, colour contrast of
nosings and handrail provision.

Core and Associate members
AECOM Ltd Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) Plc
Arcadis UK Ltd Mott MacDonald Group Ltd
Arup Group Ltd MWH
Atkins Consultants Limited National Grid UK Ltd
Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd Network Rail
BAM Nuttall Ltd Northern Ireland Water
Black & Veatch Ltd Northumbrian Water Limited
Bureau Veritas Rail Safety and Standards Board
Buro Happold Engineers Limited Royal HaskoningDHV
BWB Consulting Ltd RSK Group Ltd
Cardiff University RWE Npower plc
Davis Langdon LLP Sellafield Ltd
Environment Agency Severn Trent Water
Galliford Try plc Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd
Gatwick Airport Ltd SKM Enviros Consulting Ltd
Geotechnical Consulting Group SLR Consulting Ltd
Golder Associates (Europe) Ltd Temple Group Ltd
Halcrow Group Limited Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Health & Safety Executive Tube Lines
Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd (formerly BAA) United Utilities Plc
Highways Agency University College London
Homes and Communities Agency University of Bradford
HR Wallingford Ltd University of Reading
Institution of Civil Engineers University of Salford
Lafarge Tarmac University of Southampton
London Underground Ltd WYG Group (Nottingham Office)
Loughborough University September 2013

Ministry of Justice
C722
Design and construction of safe stairs has a significant effect upon daily life and there
are specific requirements in the Building Regulations. Unfortunately, there are
innumerable accidents every day both in the home and in public places. Work at the
Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) and at BRE has identified the major causes of
these accidents.

This guide is intended to provide sufficient information for non-experts to make an
initial assessment of stair safety leading, where necessary, to a more detailed
investigation. Its focus is upon the issues relating to existing stairs in public places and
advice is given that will inform any person carrying out an initial safety assessment of
an existing stair.
The importance of stair safety is emphasised and the main issues are outlined and
discussed. Advice is provided on how decisions are made on the need for improvement,
noting that stairs are not required to meet current regulations and standards
Safer stairs in public places
retrospectively but are required (under various health and safety regulations and legal – assessment of existing stairs
requirements) to provide a reasonable level of safety.
CIRIA
C722 ' %&&$ %% #&

Safer Stairs in Public Places - C722

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safer Stairs in Public Places - C722

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C722

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs

C722 ' %&&$ %% #&

How to get involved

zzCore membership zzLocal Authority Contaminated Land Network

zzThe CIRIA Network zzSD:SPUR

zzProject funding zzLANDFoRM (Local Authority Network on Drainage

Safer stairs in public places –

Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs

C722 © CIRIA 2013 RP964 ISBN: 978-0-86017-725-8

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Published by CIRIA, Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN, UK

Steve Thorpe BSc PhD MBA

Mike Roys MSc(Arch) BSc

Project steering group

Michael Woods (chair) RSSB

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs iii

Cindy Marshall Tube Lines (Case study 1)

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs v

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

About this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

How to use this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

3 Regulations and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6 Stair fall checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A1 Statistics about accidents on stairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs vii

A2 Numerical risk assessment for size of goings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

A3 Assessment of variations in rise and going . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

viii CIRIA, C722

Stair Construction comprising a succession of horizontal “stages” (steps and, where

Figure 1 Showing the main elements and dimensions in section

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs ix

Figure 2 Showing vertical stair clearance

Proprietary A product manufactured to act as a nosing. It may be designed to form part of

Riser The vertical component of a step.

Stair height The vertical distance, normally between landings.

Tread width The front-to-back dimension of a tread.

Illuminance The level of lighting achieved.

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs xi

ALARP As low as is reasonably practicable

xii CIRIA, C722

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs xiii

The task in hand

ªª an understanding of the main risk factors

and this guide assists as follows:

Understanding the main risk factors

The case studies in Chapter 8 give further supporting information.

xiv CIRIA, C722

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs 1

2.1 Use of stairs

Contributory behavioural factors (in additional to human physical frailty) include:

ªª those with disabling conditions, for example of sight or mobility

2.2 Factors affecting safety

Factors that have been identified are as follows.

2.2.1 Step dimensions and their consistency

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs 3

In the UK, it has been observed that the top or bottom

2.2.2 Step slope

Safer stairs in public places – assessment of existing stairs 5

2.2.4 Step condition

2.2.5 Adequacy of stair clear width

2.2.6 Adequacy of headroom

C722 ' %&&$ %% #&

Stair Construction comprising a succession of horizontal “stages” (steps and, where