THE CODE CONNECTION

I have not noticed until now that the language in R310 makes no mention of a requirement for Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings in one and two family dwellings to open directly onto a public way, etc like UBC used to. It appears that an intervening room could be used to house the required opening for a sleeping room. The IBC is much clearer on this but there is no mention anywhere that it has any influence over the IRC (especially see 101.2 exception 1). Although there may be ethical issues with not having a rescue opening within a sleeping room it appears there is no means to prevent it. In fact, it seems that a bathroom (with a privacy lock) serving only a sleeping room could house the sleeping room's escape window, could it not? Ethical issues aside (I see them clearly) can anyone refute this? I certainly hope someone can.

Thanks

I can't speak for the UBC but the current 2003 IRC indicates that "every sleeping room" requires an emergency escape and rescue opening. The way I read this is that an adjoining room, even a bathroom, would not satify this requirement. Every building official I've ever talked to about this has been consistent in this interpretation. Means of egress is sacred territory.