i'm sorry if you feel my use of capitalization in my previous message was "shouting". since i only capitalized occasional words rather than full sentences, i personally felt that the capitalization was simply a matter of emphasis - much as your capitalizing the words "had" and "yes" in your response was simply for emphasis and was not shouting. obviously one could insert html code to bold or italicize word for emphasis but it easier to just use capitals. had i capitalized whole sentences, i would agree with you that i was shouting unnecessarily. as it is, i don't think i was but since you did, i am sorry. i've turned off the caps key while typing this message to make sure i don't make the same mistake again. i'm also sorry that you took my "physiology lesson" as an insult. it was meant as a way of pointing out that any "pain" involved in walking that extra stride was more a matter of perception that of reality. as for one needing to enter the house at a run in order to be close to that tread, i am sorry but that statement simply doesn't make any sense. the front door is a certain distance from the stairs. it looks to be about 3.5 to 4 ft based on a comparison with the width of your front door (which is probably 3 ft) and the width of your stairs (which are probably 42" or 48" wide.) the distance from front door to stairs is unaffected by whether one enters at a run or very slowly. the only thing that changes based on the speed one is going is how quickly one reaches the step in question and therefore how much time one has to notice the step and avoid tripping over it. (actually that previous statement isn't quite true... if someone should enter the house at speeds approaching a reasonably high percentage of the speed of light then, yes, relativistic effects would cause a noticeable foreshortening of the distance between door and step. but i'm pretty sure we really don't need to get into relativity theory here. lol!) the problem remains, if a vistor is not looking downward as he comes thru the front door and does not look downward within his first two or three steps (such as could easily happen if, for example, he were engaged in a conversation with his host or were looking about admiring the new house) - then regardless of whether he is running or moving at a slow stroll, he is simply not going to see that step. i'm sure that as a physician, you have a thorough understanding of peripheral vision and useful field of vision. you know that an object 3 to 4 feet in front of one's toes and at ankle level is within the ambit of most people's peripheral vision but not really within their ufov. thus, if a thing in that position moves we tend see it; if not, most of us will never notice it unless we look down so as to move the object within our ufov. you also know, or should know, that ufov tends to decrease as people get older...putting them at greater risk for falling over unnoticed objects near the floor. more than anything else, imho, this may explain why older people tend to watch the floor as they walk. a painted white skirt-board running along side the step will set the step off from the walnut stained floor - but only for folks who happen to look down. it will do nothing to help those who stride confidently into your house without looking down at their feet. frankly, it is a good that you are a physician. if/when someone gets hurt tripping over that step, perhaps you'll be able to treat them. since the landing appears to be low enough that code doesn't require you to have a railing, you can do whatever you want. it is your house. but doc, if/when someone gets hurt, i do hope my warning haunts you.

The requirement for residential handrails is not a max radius of 2" (which would be a diameter of 4") . The IRC limits handgrip design to two kinds: Type I and Type II. To put it simply, Type I is round (or almost round) and is limited to a max. diameter of 2" or a maximum perimeter dimension of 6 1/4" and a maximum cross-section dimension of 2 1/4". Type II is a non-round handrail that exceeds 6 1/4" in perimeter dim. and has slight finger recesses along the sides. It is also limited to a maximum overall width of 2 3/4". You will find that these dimensions match the most commonly available wood handrails. A 3" diameter antique railing would not meet the requirements of a Type I handrail but if it was no wider than 2 3/4" (or close to it) and it was possible to get your fingers around the upper part of it, the building inspector is within his authority to accept it as a Type II, if he thinks it serves the intended purpose of the IRC or is equivalent to its provisions. As for the flat 2x4/2x6 handrails, assuming the stairs are high enough to require a handrail (4 or more steps), and were built after the building code was adopted, they should have been 1x4's trimmed with radiused edges to be no more than 2 3/4" wide overall in order to meet the Type II grip requirements. It would be easy to add a standard Type II wood handrail on top of the flat boards. As for termination of handrails, the IRC requires a residential handrail to extend to the last riser but it also provides two exceptions, one of which allows a "volute, turnout, starting easing or starting newel ... over the lowest tread". This allows a building inspector to accept a major deviation for the distance of the last tread, even the absence of the handrail if he believes it serves the intended purpose of the IRC or is equivalent to its provisions. Without this exception many traditional stairs could not be built. If there is a handrail on the other side of the stair, one of the handrail is not required so the inspector can accept almost anything. There would be no reason for a building inspector to comment on things he has decided to accept so I don't understand why you mention that. The inspector also relies on the design documents to indicate how many controlled elements (like windows) meet the building/energy codes. Not everything in a house has it's specification standards written on it. I mention all of this trivia only to demonstrate that building codes are not simple or interpreted in only one way as is so commonly assumed by homeowners and even builders. The authority of the inspector to accept alternative design solutions is also not commonly understood. In the end, it is not a building official's responsibility to make sure you meet the requirements of the building code; that is your responsibility alone, even if you privately assign that responsibility by contract to design professionals and/or builders.

@k9arlene, Thanks. Yes, birds would make a mess. It would be pain to get a ladder to clean the outside of the railing. Luckily, it is only one story up. Industrial is not my favourite look. Thanks for letting me know you think the glass matches the look of my house more. @tibbrix, Thanks for clarifying the view with cable railings. Surely, there is somewhere near me that someone has used them that I can see. As per providing a wind breaker, that does sound nice, but in practice I am not sure how often we would be out there on windy days anyway. I too am concerned about cleaning. Carol

This is the house. Mostly concerned with the look of the railing. (Safety of course is first lol) so I think horizontal cables could be out. We are in Canada too - so from the back deck the view on the fireplace side isn’t as much of a concern as there is a fence (end lot then across road is school yard) but the backyard we plan to put a lot of effort into so don’t want anything too obstructive. Glass is lovely but then there’s the cleaning. It’s drawn here with spindles but if anyone has an opinion I’m all ears! Thanks