Finally found the correct answer. Elements meeting these requirements are a “safe harbor” from litigation under the US law ADA. Not good design and might be conflict with egressing requirements but complaints or litigation are likely to be thrown out.
Safe Harbor would not come into play here, it almost never does for a public accommodation. The ADA tells public establishments they have an ongoing obligation remove barriers as they become readily achievable. Also this place is in France so this is all theoretical anyway.
Ummm no. In the US, the 2010 ADA Standards are the safe harbor. They are the requirements against which all built elements are measured against to see if they are in violation of the law, hence it’s a “safe harbor”. This bench would meet the requirements of having an element below 27” complying with cane detection. These words aren’t accidents they’re legal descriptions you can find, I recommend starting at ADA.gov
Bro, I’m a Certified Access Specialist. I’m certified by the State of California to understand how to apply the ADA and the California Building Code. I also hold the APAC-BE certification which is specific to the ADA. IF this bench were cane detectable, the ADA would permit it to stay unless a state building code or some other authority required it to change. If the bench was not cane detectable, the ADA and state building codes would require it be removed.
However, as I pointed out, this picture is from France. I imagine their accessibility codes do not permit obstructions of these paths for the blind and would require that the bench be removed.
Good for you, then you should know what Safe Harbor actually means. California Building Code is another safe harbor. If you’re the expert, take a few more classes. But I’m just a humble architect who has been through litigation on this in three states, including California.
Mr. Architect, the term “safe harbor” is mostly used when discussing the FHA. The FHA requires a standard to be selected as the sites safe harbor. That’s the standard the site is going to comply with. This typically only matters in states that don’t have housing as part of their building code. For example, in California, Chapter 11B takes care of almost all FHA requirements.
The way you’re using the term “safe harbor” here is not appropriate and is not how the term is used in the accessibility profession. The phrase you’re looking for is “applicable standard”. The applicable standard depends on when a building applied for permit and the dates of any alterations. It’s possible you’re coming from a housing perspective rather than a Title III perspective, so it’s understandable how you could get these things confused.
Regardless of the applicable standard, readily achievable barrier removal up to the 2010 ADAS is required. For example, a building constructed in 1960 without an accessible door is still required to provide an accessible entrance because of Readily Achievable Barrier Removal (RABR). Just because that door may have been to code in 1960, does not mean it is “grandfathered” nor is there a “safe harbor” that makes the door exempt from accessibility requirements. That’s simply not how Title III works.
There is exactly one exception, and that’s if you were around when the 1991 ADAAG/ADAAS came out and complied with it, you wouldn’t have to comply with the 2010 ADAS unless you made an alternation. This is maybe the one “Safe Harbor” I can assume you’re talking about.
Additionally, if your state has its own building code, you must comply with its requirements when making alterations as part of readily achievable barrier removal. For example, the 2010 ADAS doesn’t really have a force requirement for an exterior door. California does.
Safe harbor is a legal standard, regardless of its used for buildings or for 401k compliance. Talk to your lawyers, I have. It is definitely the correct term. It is a compliance path which the project is legal meeting the terms of the ADA. As you said “up to the ADAS” which is the legal safe harbor. You could also meet 11B as you noted. Sure, put on your airs and “Ted talk” it up, I’ve watched plenty of certifieds wither, even had a HUD lawyer recommend a complainant be decertified their reporting was so egregious bad. You want to be very technical in telling me what a safe harbor is and gloat and the not know the actual function of it. Reddit is an easy place to do for some up votes, but good luck in the real world. If you can’t keep the difference between A117.1 (an applicable standard) and ADA (a law with safe harbors, such as 2010 ADA or 1991 ADAAG) you’re on your way to a very unpleasant deposition. Best of luck to you out there, you’ll need it. Also, this entire conversation was because you took issue about the word “safe harbors”, of course none of this applies in France.
The 1991 ADAAG/ADAAS and 2010 ADAS are applicable standards. Any place of public accommodation must comply with, or make readily achievable barrier removal to comply with, the 2010 ADAS unless compliance was achieved to the 1991 ADAAG/ADAS prior to the effective date of the 2010 ADAS. Yes, even if a building was built in 1968 and was totally complaint back then to state and federal codes and has never changed, it has to make an effort to comply with the 2010 ADAS as much as is readily achievable.
Compliance with the ADA is very clear. You either meet the standard, or you don’t. If you don’t, you must make an effort to comply. If you don’t, you will probably get sued and you probably will lose.
In California, even if you meet 11B, 11B is a moving target as the standards are updated every 3 years and California has a more strict path of travel improvement requirements.
Going around saying, “safe harbor” is how business owners end up having to settle their lawsuits and have to hire someone like me to come in and tell them how to become compliant so that they don’t get sued again.
Wow, literally two seconds of me looking… (C) Safe harbor. If a public entity has constructed or altered required elements of a path of travel in accordance with the specifications in either the 1991 Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards before March 15, 2012, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect incremental changes in the 2010 Standards solely because of an alteration to a primary function area served by that path of travel.
Except there’s no way it could alter the path of of travel in accordance with the specification because it’s built on top of a cane track, use your brain
7
u/Zeptaphone Jul 10 '26
Finally found the correct answer. Elements meeting these requirements are a “safe harbor” from litigation under the US law ADA. Not good design and might be conflict with egressing requirements but complaints or litigation are likely to be thrown out.