Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
AND
NEW YORK, MARCH 14, 1914
IKSillllllllllilillillliiiiStilillliiiitllllllltillllliliH
SHOULD ELEVATORS HAVE SAFETY DEVICES ?
The Herrick Bill Opposed on Various Grounds by Building Authorities
and Representative Owners—Urged that Existing Buildings be Exempted.
iSk
lllilllllllilM^^
llllllliilillllilMK
lllilllllllHI
IV/I UCH opposition has developed to
â– '"•'â– the Herriclc bill in the State Senate
which provides that every passenger ele¬
vator, except those in private residences,
shall be fitted with an automatic safety
appliance so that the car cannot be
started while the elevator door is open.
The installations must all be made within
one year, in both new and old buildings,
under a penalty of five dollars per day
for every day thereafter that the law
is violated.
The opposition is based on several
grounds, principally because the law
would be retroactive and affect existing
buildings as well as those to be erected
hereafter; and would therefore be a great
hardship, as is claimed, upon the owners
of existing buildings containing passen¬
ger elevators. Not only would the in¬
stallations be costly, but the safety-
appliances would have the effect of slow¬
ing up elevator traffic and causing con¬
gestion. The president of an elevator
manufacturing company agrees that this
diminished efficiency would follow and
that it would probably compel the in¬
stallation of more elevators in tall build¬
ings than is now necessary.
The Superintendents of Buildings are
all opposed to the bill as it stands, Supt.
Miller of Manhattan holding that it
would be quite impossible to equip every
elevator in the city within the prescribed
period of one year. A strong feeling
prevails, moreover, that the owners of
old buildings are being too severely
treated by the Legislature, and that
there should be more consideration
shown for those buildings which com¬
plied with the building laws fully at the
time of their erection.
On the other hand, there are those
among builders and owners who favor
the fundamental principle of tlie bill, or
some fair and moderate means through
which elevators should gradually be
equipped with safety devices.
Driving Landlords Into Bankruptcy.
B. E. Martin, president of the Build¬
ing Owners and Managers' .\ssociation.
said he presumed that the bill in¬
tended to compel the installation of safe¬
ties for levers and doors of elevators,
and if this was the purpose of the liill,
he considered it entirely unnecessary.
He added:
"On referring to records you will find
that the percentage of elevator accidents
IS small, particularly such accidents as
might be avoided by the devices in ques¬
tion. It is my belief that this bill would
not have been brought before us but for
the death of a prominent citizen re¬
cently through a very unsual elevator
accident.
"The fact of the matter is that after
very careful investigation I have not
found a device that is absolutely relia¬
ble. If the authorities continue to com¬
pel what many consider unnecessary ex¬
penses, to business and apartment build¬
ings in New York City, it will have a
tendency to increase rents, or drive some
poor landlords into bankruptcy.
"I always have and will conti
continue to
support the authorities in their en¬
deavors to protect human life; however,
it has not been proven that the devices
referred to will assist in this good work."
Favorable Opinions.
John C. Knight, manager of the Met¬
ropolitan Building, said the elevators
in that building had been protected by
safety devices for over six years. He
had advocated an installation of this
kind and has been in favor of safety de¬
vices of this type. He added:
"There may be some details about this
bill with which I would not agree, but
the 'hindwriting on the wall' has been
plain, not only in this State but in several
of the other States, that this device will
soon be required. I think that at this
time it is only appropriate to congratu¬
late those who have done this before
they were required to."
Messrs. Bing & Bing, large builders,
said they thought the equipment of ele¬
vators with safety devices a- good thing,
but that a little longer time than one
year to install them would be advisable,
as comparatively few elevators are at
present equipped, and crowding the work
into a short time would necessarily in¬
crease the expense.
WUl Slow Up Traffic.
Lawrence B. Elliman, of Pease & Elli¬
man, said it would mean delay for ele¬
vator traffic, and he was therefore op¬
posed to it:
"This bill, as I understand it, requires
the owner of the building to put some
device on the gate of the elevator and
the gate of the landing so that the ele¬
vator cannot be started until they are
both closed. This would mean a great
delay in the moving of people up and
down in the building, and besides I do
not know of any device which will do
this and which would not be getting out
of order all the time, when you consider
the calibre of men operating the ele¬
vators in the city.
"It would undoubtedly tie up the ele¬
vator system in the buildings very often
and cause untold trouble between the
landlord and tenants. Besides this, in
my opinion, it is not necessary, as the
number of accidents which happen in
comparison to the number of people
carried in the elevators in the city is
very sinall."
Supt. Carlin Opposed.
Supt. Carlin, of the Brooklyn Bureau
of Buildings, does not believe that an
automatic device should control an ele¬
vator car, but he agrees that the doors
to the elevator shaft should be con¬
trolled automatically by closing the mo¬
ment the car leaves the floor level. The
automatic control called for in the bill
cuts out the operating machinery. Sup¬
pose these devices had been in use in the
.Ashe Building at the time of the fire
when the shaft doors were pried open
and the operator called and tried to re¬
spond but found that the car was out
of his control, due to the shaft door be¬
ing opened, and therefore could not
'bring_ the elevator car up to the landing—
if this had been the case, how many
would have been saved of the number
that actually were saved by the ele¬
vators? Supt. Carlin further said:
"The operation of elevator cars should
never be out of the control of the opera¬
tor and the responsibility put right up tu
him. Automatic devices encourage care¬
lessness, and verv often fail to work
when required and are very often the
cause of accidents."
An Estimate of the Cost.
President E. B. Boynton, of the .Am¬
erican Real Estate Co., which owns
many buildings, said when interrogated:
"The evident intent of this bill is to
make it impossible for an elevator to be
moved when any door opening into the
elevator shaft is ajar. A great number
of elevators in New York City are elec¬
tric, and in order to conform with the
requirements of this bill, in cases of
electric elevators, it would mean pro¬
viding a switch or point of contact at
each floor which would close when the
door was closed and break the current
connecting with the controller when any
door is opened. Such an installation
would probably not cost less than $25
per opening, and in the case of a 12-
story building with three elevators the
expense would be approximately $1,000
for an installation.
"It is easy to imagine frequent re¬
pairs on an electrical outfit having so
many points of contact which are fre¬
quently opened and closed, subjected
to rough use. In case of the contact
failing to work on any one of the
floors, the elevator would be out of com¬
mission until this was repaired, and it
could not be repaired while the elevator
was in use. No elevator door can be
repaired with this apparatus and still
run the elevator. The expense of main¬
tenance on such an apparatus will neces¬
sarily be high.
"A building which has now barely
sufficient elevator service for its occu¬
pancy will, if this law goes into effect,
be unable to handle the traffic because
of the longer time each elevator will
take in making the run from the ground
floor to the top and return.
"There is undoubtedly a strong feel¬
ing that some safety appliance should
be applied to all elevators, but in my
opinion this bill is not wholly satisfac¬
tory,"
Retroactive Consequences Objected to.
G. Richard Davis, chairman of the
Building Committee of the Allied In¬
terests, is opposed to the bill, for one
reason because it is retroactive.
"Such safety devices may be properly
required on all new elevators installed,"
said Mr. Davis, "but on old ones there
should be no such a requirement made
until the present devices, which are still
in their experimental stage, are per¬
fected.
"Elevator enclosures and doors must
be built to receive the present device.
To be compelled to alter the present
enclosures and doors, so as to make the
safety device now on the market work
properly, will be in some cases a prohib¬
itive expense.
"There is no doubt that we will have
to have some safety device on eleva-