Just because you see it in a photo doesn't mean it meets code in your area. I'm assuming a child could crawl under where the gaps are????

If it is something you really want, talk directly (and show pictures) to your local building inspector. My builder often used "code" as an excuse. Needed to refer to the IRC and talk with my village building inspector (who was very helpful).

Perhaps this style may meet code.

In general the spaces can not be so large that a 4" diameter ball could pass through. The other issue, especially with horizontal rails is whether or not a child could climb up and fall over the handrail. You need to discuss this with your local city planning department to see what is acceptable in your region.

could a young child stick their head through it? that's why it doesn't meet code. 4" is the max for opening between the spindles/railing.

Here are the stairs in a favourite show of mine:

Loft stairs, Vancouver. (Travelers)

I really think the actors should demand stunt people for their takes!

*******

4" is the max for opening between the spindles/railing.

And if the balusters are too close together--so that a child might stick its foot in but then get stuck--they may also fail.

Fail if built new. Werribee Mansion, Melbourne, Australia. In new builds, you can add plexi on both sides to pass.

Talk to your local code officials. In my area, the horizontal railings are not permitted as children can use them for climbing which tends to negate the positive effects of a safety railing. As I understand the rules, the triangular space under the railing has a different rule at 6 inches, not the 4 inch spacing required between spaces on the guardrail

Do not just take the word of the stair company that something is or is not to code. Our custom stair was designed incorrectly and they tried to tell us it was done that way because of code. My first step was to do an online search of homes in our area that had sold in the last year and grab screen shots of the stairs. With just a dozen of these photos I challenged the error the were trying to get away with and made them correct it!

As others have said it will come down to your local planning offices interpretation of the code. These would be acceptable in many places in the us.

Do not just take the word of the stair company that something is or is not to code.

Absolutely correct!

If you're contracting with a stair-building and railing/baluster installer, include a clause in your contract that payment depends on the finished installation passing inspection by your municipal inspection authority.

The example shown by the OP is of a "guard" on the side of a stair that also serves as a handrail. If the applicable code is the IRC, the only restriction on openings in the "guard" is the 4" ball rule with two exceptions: 1) the ball can be 4 3/8" at the side of a stair and 2) the ball can be 6" at the space at the treads.

If there is a restriction on horizontal elements or rails parallel to the stair stringer, it would be an amendment to the IRC adopted by your jurisdiction so you need to ask the local building official about that. Some jurisdictions publish a separate stair code that supersedes the IRC.

Of course, you can also use your own judgement regarding child safety.

IBC States a 4" sphere can not pass through and on stairwells a 6" sphere can not pass thru runner to bottom rail. The IBC does not state horizontal runners are not permitted but local codes may have regulations. I believe the reason the IBC does not mention horizontal runners is because many large cable railing manufacturer's are part of the IBC committees. Check with your local code department.

If this is a single family house, the appropriate code would be the IRC.

Yes IRC is correct. The IBC is typically more restrictive. The "ladder effect" was added at one point to the IRC but has since been removed. I think around 2000ish. It never made it to the IBC.

Yes, the 2000 first edition of the IRC said "Required guards shall not be constructed with horizontal rails or other ornamental pattern that results in a ladder effect."

The ladder effect was removed by the 2001 Supplement and did not appear in the 2003 IRC.

The 2001 IRC Supplement also added Exception 2 that allowed the openings in a guard on the side of a stair run to be 4 3/8". Those requirements did not change in subsequent editions.

Its possible some jurisdictions are still using the unmodified 2000 IRC.

If you're building a house without a design professional, its important to ask the building inspector for a list of the codes that apply. A homeowner is responsible to the municipality or state for meeting the building codes even though an architect and/or builder are responsible to the homeowner.

The OBC (Ontario Building Code) has the 100mm (4 ins.) limit and may or may not bar the "ladder" effect.

"9.8.8.6. Guards designed Not to Facilitate Climbing

(1) Guards ... shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 140 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard will facilitate climbing."

horizontal stair railings are not climable , flats are, code was revised 2018 that horizontal flats and stair railing are allowed at no more than 13 ft off the ground. this was due to lack of insurance claims regarding this style railing, glass on the other hand........lol

9.8.8.6. Design of Guards to Not Facilitate Climbing The existing requirements for the design of guards to not facilitate climbing (i.e. limiting footholds) have been relaxed and now only apply to guards protecting a level more than 4.2 metres above the adjacent level. This change is based on industry research that shows climbability of guards has not created the safety issues previously expected. The relaxation allows for guard designs not previously considered compliant. Guards serving levels more than 4.2 metres above the adjacent surface must still limit climbing and comply with the requirements of 9.8.8.6., further described in Note A-9.8.8.6.(1) in the Code.

I believe "9.8.8.6. Design of Guards to Not Facilitate Climbing" is unique to Canada.

The main issue I see in the 1st picture is the handrail itself, it has to be terminated.

R311.7.8.4 Continuity. Handrails shall be continuous

for the full length of the flight, from a point directly

above the top riser of the flight to a point directly above

the lowest riser of the flight. Handrail ends shall be

returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.

Exceptions:

1. Handrail continuity shall be permitted to be

interrupted by a newel post at a turn in a flight

with winders, at a landing, or over the lowest

tread.

2. A volute, turnout, or starting easing shall be

allowed to terminate over the lowest tread.

Other than that, hard to say about clearances at the bottom, the main concern for that clearance

so the kids head don't get stuck in there... as the horizontal runs go, there was a fuss in the beginning when this type of railing hit the scene and I believe at one time it was something about that in the code but it's been gone from there for a while, so I guess if anything it is left up to jurisdiction to make that decision.