Common Social Media Mistakes About OSHA 1910.36(b)(1): The Two Exit Routes Rule

Scroll through LinkedIn or Reddit's safety forums, and you'll spot them: posts claiming a single door suffices for small shops or that exits just need to be "kinda far apart." OSHA 1910.36(b)(1) states clearly—at least two exit routes must be available for prompt evacuation during emergencies, positioned as far apart as practical to ensure one blockage doesn't trap everyone. Yet, social media amplifies half-truths, leading managers to risky assumptions.

Mistake #1: "It Doesn't Apply to Small Workplaces"

This one's rampant. A viral TikTok video I saw last month showed a mechanic's garage with one exit, captioned "OSHA compliant under 500 sq ft!" Wrong. Paragraph (b)(3) offers exceptions only for buildings with ≤30 occupants total or ≤10 per floor, not a blanket small-space pass. We audited a 1,200 sq ft warehouse recently where the owner relied on this myth—nearly cited during inspection.

Reality check: Calculate occupancy based on your space. For general industry, it's 100 sq ft per person per floor (per NFPA 101 influences in OSHA). Exceed those limits? Two exits mandatory. Social posts ignore nuances like mezzanines or multi-use areas, dooming DIY compliance.

Mistake #2: Exits Must Be "Diametrically Opposite"

"Exits 180 degrees apart or bust," declares a popular Facebook group admin. Not quite. The standard says "as far away as practical," accounting for architecture. In a rectangular warehouse, that might mean 50-75% separation along the longest dimension—OSHA's compliance directive CPL 02-00-098 backs this flexibility.

• Practical example: A 100x50 ft shop. Exits at opposite 50-ft ends? Ideal. One at each end of the 100-ft wall? Often sufficient if travel distances stay under 200 ft.
• Pro tip: Use the "two-thirds rule" from fire safety engineering—exits separated by at least two-thirds the maximum diagonal dimension.

I've walked facilities where clustered exits passed social media "tests" but failed real audits. Measure your building's geometry; software like Pro Shield's LOTO platform can map it accurately.

Mistake #3: "One Blocked Exit Means Non-Compliance Every Time"

Emergency drills spark posts like "Tested it—blocked one door, chaos! OSHA violation." But the rule anticipates blockages; it's about availability under normal conditions. Temporary obstructions during drills don't trigger citations if routes are inherently separate.

Dig deeper: 1910.37 requires exits free of obstructions at all times. Social media skips this, turning simulations into panic porn. In my experience consulting Bay Area manufacturers, the fix is rigorous housekeeping audits—weekly checks catch 80% of issues before they block paths.

Mistake #4: Overlooking "Other Occupants" and Emergency Scope

"It's just for employees," chirps a Twitter thread. Nope—covers "employees and other building occupants." Visitors, contractors, delivery folks count. And emergencies? Fire, smoke, chemical spills, active shooters—broad scope per OSHA interpretations.

Anecdote time: We revamped a SoCal distribution center after a near-miss forklift incident blocked the sole "backup" path. Social savvy? Post-drill videos without context fuel myths. Reference OSHA's eTool for exits: it clarifies with diagrams.

Fixing It: Actionable Steps Beyond the Scroll

Don't let memes dictate safety. Conduct a 1910.36 walkthrough:

1. Map routes—verify separation via floor plans.
2. Assess occupancy—use OSHA tables, not gut feel.
3. Train via JHA integrations—link to incident reports.
4. Consult pros if exceptions apply (b)(3) is narrow).

Based on 29 CFR 1910 Subpart E data, proper dual exits cut evacuation times 40-60% in modeled fires (per NIST studies). Limitations? Retrofitting older buildings costs $5K-$50K, but citations hit $15K+ per violation. Balance ROI with risk—your call, but skip the social echo chamber.

Third-party resource: Dive into OSHA's full standard at osha.gov/1910.36 or NFPA 101 for engineering depth. Stay sharp out there.