Study after study has been showing for over twenty years now that the flawed and bogus floor slip resistance testing tribometer the English XL (VIT) should never be trusted to give reliable slip resistance test data. It’s main use is for well-paid American courtroom “liars for hire”, who mainly work for insurance companies, to declare under oath that slippery floors aren’t slippery so the insurance companies can weasel out of paying legitimate injury claims, some leading to death and catastrophic injuries.
In this very informative blog post, we discuss why the ASTM test method for the English XL, ASTM F1679, was withdrawn by the ASTM and rejected by OSHA in 2006. The ASTM gave the users of this fake test device ten years to provide a “reasonable precision statement”, and ten years wasn’t enough. The “provisional ASTM test method ASTM F1679″ was therefore withdrawn in 2006 after ten years of politely asking the champions of this American “liars for hire device” to provide some sort of documentation that it had precision from user to user. They failed. This instrument should therefore not be allowed in courtrooms as science. Why not bring in a clairvoyant who saw the accident in a dream? That would hold the same weight as data from an English XL VIT.
In his book Pedestrian Fall Safety Assessments: Improved Understanding on Slip Resistance Measurements and Investigations, In-Ju Kim notes that the ASTM website stated in 2006 that F1677 and F1679 were withdrawn (see page 47 of his book) “for failure to include an approved precision statement.” He goes on to state that, “Using these two instruments, different labs showed very different answers on identical tiles amongst interlaboratory studies. These findings suggested that both test methods [for the Brungraber Mark II and English XL] were unreliable and unable to provide ‘reasonable precision statements’ for slip resistance evaluations.”
OSHA was using the fake science of the English XL and Brungraber Mark II to help stop steel workers from falling off steel beams on skyscrapers under construction to their death for several years, and they found it wasn’t working. The English XL was failing at finding suitable solutions for slippery wet steel dozens of stories in the air. The English XL was not stopping the deaths and injuries from occurring. OSHA then decided in 2005 to reject the English XL and Brungraber Mark II (which is the Brungraber Mark IIIB with a new paint job, essentially) as useful science.
“OSHA noted that the two ASTM standard test methods listed in Appendix B (ASTM F1677–96 and ASTM F1679–96) had not yet been validated through statements of precision and bias. (A precision and bias statement is documentation that the test method, in laboratory tests, has been shown to have an acceptable degree of repeatability and reproducibility).” This was after nine years of the “liars for hire” using these unproven and bogus devices trying to put together an “approved precision statement” for either one.
In another study published in 2003, the English XL, which measures the floor essentially in the exact same way as the Brungraber Mark IIIB, was inadequate. “When compared to the other test methods, the VIT tends to underestimate the wet slip resistance of smooth polished, glazed or surface protected tiles, while overestimating the slip resistance of tiles with a textured or profiled surface.” It also stated in the abstract of the publication that, “The pendulum tribometer (used according to AS/NZS 4586,with TRRL rubber, similar to ASTM E-303) provided more reliable results than the English XL Variable Incidence Tribometer (used according to ASTM F-1679).”
In another study discussed in the paper mentioned above, “Powers et al. [18] found that, when the [English XL] VIT was used to test a dry smooth vinyl composition tile, it overestimated the peak coefficient of friction by 30%, when compared to healthy adults walking across the same surface on the same force plate at comparable impact angles.” “They believed that the differences in the measured utilised coefficients of friction were most likely related to the fact that the [English XL] VIT test feet do not have the same vertical and horizontal accelerations of the pedestrian’s lower leg at heel strike.” The Brungraber Mark IIIB, again, is essentially the same instrument as the English XL, and it measures the slip potential of a floor in almost an identical way. From the same paper, “These results confirm earlier findings [24] that the [English XL] VIT results can depend on how the test foot is prepared.”
It has also been noted by this author in person when talking with certified English XL tribometer users that test results can also be influenced by how hard the instrument is pushed onto the floor. This can increase readings, giving favorable readings to a slippery floor for the insurance company trying to weasel out of paying a legitimate injury claim.
The English XL, according to its user instructions, uses static coefficient of friction (SCOF) testing. SCOF testing has been rejected over and over and over again both in the USA and in the international community of experts in this crucial field of study. ASTM C1028-07, ASTM F1677-96 (for the Brungraber Mark II), ASTM F1679-96 (for the English XL), ASTM F489 (for the James Machine), NFSI/ANSI B101.1-2009 (for the BOT-3000E) are all examples of SCOF tests that have either been withdrawn or allowed to expire because they were found to not be reliable in identifying slippery floors. This makes these bogus test devices great for “liars for hire” working for American insurance companies because they almost always find a floor not slippery, but these tests are no good when a building owner or architect wants to know the truth about the slip potential of a floor to help save lives and stop life-altering injuries from happening on their properties. Ask OSHA and the steel industry about that!
ASTM D2047 (and the same test called UL 410) seems to be the last remaining dinosaur in the world today that pretends that using SCOF testing on a clean and dry floor, which is essentially measuring whether a floor is slippery when someone is static (or standing still) on a clean and dry floor is a “safety assessment”. The people supporting ASTM D2047 as a “safety assessment” should be jailed for the deaths they have caused and the amount of people’s lives they have destroyed through this useless “safety” scam nonsense. No-one in the history of the world has ever slipped while standing still on a clean and dry floor. This is clearly a scam created and supported by very bad people. Anyone using data from ASTM D2047 is either incredibly dumb, or a con artist. There is no other explanation for a person calling this a “safety test”.
In a more recent study by Siegmund et al. called “Quantifying the uncertainty in tribometer measurements on walkway surfaces,” the authors state that data from the English XL and Brungraber Slip-Test Mark IIIB are “less accurate than they appear.” This is in part because the user is “a key component to the system,” influencing the numerical outcome of a test. “Every operator gets a different result.” Hired by the defense in a slip and fall lawsuit? These guys magically get the answer needed to say the floor is not slippery. When they’re hired by the plaintiff, they often ask to be left alone to do their testing because they may not be able to manipulate their device in real time to get a “slippery” result, but you can bet they will get that result for your law firm, as long as you’ve paid the large “retainer fee” they always charge American lawyers in slip and fall cases. Users of the English XL and Brungraber Mark IIIB are experts at getting you the answer you need to win your lawsuit, but these people don’t advertise testing services for tile manufacturers and building owners – they focus on where the BIG money is – slip and fall lawsuits!
The video below shows the British Pendulum tester in action using ASTM E303-22:
Want to use real science to determine the slip potential of a floor using 50 years of research in over 50 nations? That’s easy – use the pendulum DCOF tester. In the USA, the test method is ASTM E303-22. In the European Union, it’s EN 16165:2021 and in the United Kingdom it is BS 16165:2021. In Australia and New Zealand, it’s called AS/NZS 4586. Here’s a list of other countries using this science to truly determine a floor’s slip potential, or slip resistance.