News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Safety Standards for Course Design
« on: December 01, 2009, 02:49:49 PM »
Many industries develop a series of standards that serve a variety of purposes, one of which being safety.  In Micheal Hurzdan's 1996 book he identified a series of safety guidelines that he uses when designing a course, including a 150' distance from the center of the fairway to a property line and a 15% variance for shots to cover the likely spots a golf ball will fly. 

Are there any official standards or guidelines adopted for golf course architecture?  If not, why not?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2009, 02:55:14 PM »
No.

Lawyers. 

I can't say any more!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2009, 02:57:19 PM »
The EIGCA has a booklet that we have for Members Only and that is it.  It is not published for the public as we are scared of lawyers...say no more.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2009, 03:02:33 PM »
No Comment.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2009, 03:51:07 PM »
No.

Lawyers. 

I can't say any more!

I am a lawyer and can appreciate the double edged sword standards might create.  On the positive side, in many instances adherence to respected industry standards can provide a compelling defense to a claim.  Such standards make it much more difficult for a plaintiff's expert to effectively claim negligence if the architect followed an established standard.  

On the negative side, any such standards could create liability if an architect failed to follow a standard (even if there is a good reason for doing so) and could create serious problems with existing courses that do not comply.  

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2009, 03:58:05 PM »
Jason,

There are too many variables in golf course design for absolute standards to be used on all projects.  Wind, height change, trees, no trees and most of all golfers.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Ian Andrew

Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2009, 04:10:00 PM »
The belief is that if anyone were to set the standard down in print - they can be sued in a court case involving setbacks and safety.

We all have distances that we are comfortable with and work to them.

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2009, 04:35:26 PM »
Like Ian, we have our own. Best to call them "guidelines" rather than "standards".
Not published. Safety has been exacerbated in the last 10 years due to the extra distance that balls are flying - and crooked!
When you have seen someone hit the ball 90 degrees hard left between his legs you soon learn that any shot is possible and nowhere is truly safe! One of our SAGCA members (who shall remain nameless) when he plays I call him the "Mobile Safety Audit" because if you plot the perimeter of his shots you'll find where it is truly safe to put houses, parks and roads around your course!

Richard Chamberlain

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2009, 05:10:57 PM »
Like Ian, we have our own. Best to call them "guidelines" rather than "standards".
Not published. Safety has been exacerbated in the last 10 years due to the extra distance that balls are flying - and crooked!
When you have seen someone hit the ball 90 degrees hard left between his legs you soon learn that any shot is possible and nowhere is truly safe! One of our SAGCA members (who shall remain nameless) when he plays I call him the "Mobile Safety Audit" because if you plot the perimeter of his shots you'll find where it is truly safe to put houses, parks and roads around your course!
You better not be talking about me Krafter !!!!

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2009, 05:15:39 PM »
With all that said, Hurdzan, Guy Rando in his housing development book and others have printed suggested standards over the years. When I wrote the NGF guide Planning and Building the Golf Course in 1980, gremlins somehow allowed the then safety standard to be get printed as "300 yard wide corridors" instead of 300 FEET wide corridors.  I got a lot of calls over the years from lawyers wanting me to testify to a typo......

That 300 feet has expanded to 350 or even 400 feet by now, at least in the landing areas.  But, I play courses where the corridor between houses is under 300 feet and they rarely get hit.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2009, 09:39:23 PM »
No matter what you are thinking...

you go to North Berwick or the Old Course and... well the golf course finished on the street... that's safe...

speaking of that, I remember while playing the 17th at Old Course, there was a young woman sitting on the rock wall along the road, reading a book about 220 yards of the tee.

I came to her and said: If you don't mind, it's not a real safe place to read a book, we can't see you from back there..
She said: Oh I'm fine, I enjoy the view from here
My reply: Oh well, take care then

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2009, 09:44:34 PM »
 8)  How about adding some vertical dimension?

6 feet vertical threshold is regulated under OSHA regs atTitle 29, Code of Fed Regs (CFR)

• Part Title: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction
• Subpart: M
• Subpart Title: Fall Protection
• Standard Number: 1926.501
• Title: Duty to have fall protection.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

1926.501(a)

"General."

1926.501(a)(1)

This section sets forth requirements for employers to provide fall protection systems. All fall protection required by this section shall conform to the criteria set forth in 1926.502 of this subpart.

1926.501(a)(2)

The employer shall determine if the walking/working surfaces on which its employees are to work have the strength and structural integrity to support employees safely. Employees shall be allowed to work on those surfaces only when the surfaces have the requisite strength and structural integrity.

1926.501(b)

1926.501(b)(1)

"Unprotected sides and edges." Each employee on a walking/working surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.

..1926.501(b)(2)

1926.501(b)(2)

"Leading edges."

1926.501(b)(2)(i)

Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.


Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.

1926.501(b)(2)(ii)

Each employee on a walking/working surface 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level where leading edges are under construction, but who is not engaged in the leading edge work, shall be protected from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system. If a guardrail system is chosen to provide the fall protection, and a controlled access zone has already been established for leading edge work, the control line may be used in lieu of a guardrail along the edge that parallels the leading edge.

1926.501(b)(3)

"Hoist areas." Each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falling 6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower levels by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems. If guardrail systems, [or chain, gate, or guardrail] or portions thereof, are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (e.g., during landing of materials), and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials, for example), that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system.

 
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Safety Standards for Course Design
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:45 PM »
Steve,

What is the recommended width of a corridor for two holes sharing a fairway, with golf carts parked on the opposite side?

 ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back