Now, a new standard—AFSA FS101-25, developed by the American Floor Safety Alliance—builds on that foundation and takes things a step further.

If you’re involved in floor safety, risk management, or slip-and-fall litigation, this is an important development worth understanding.

What This New Article Explains

The full technical comparison published here:
https://afsahub.com/technical-comparative-analysis-afsa-fs101-25-vs-astm-e303-22/

…walks through the differences between ASTM E303-22 and AFSA FS101-25 in a clear, side-by-side format.

At a high level, both standards rely on the pendulum test—widely regarded as the most reliable method for evaluating slip resistance under real-world conditions. That’s important: this is not about replacing a proven method, but refining how it’s applied, interpreted, and standardized.

Where ASTM E303 Has Served the Industry Well

ASTM E303 has provided:

• A recognized method for measuring dynamic friction
• A consistent procedure for pendulum testing in the U.S.
• Alignment with international practices using similar devices

It has helped move the conversation away from outdated static tests and toward more realistic assessments of pedestrian slip potential.

Where AFSA FS101-25 Improves on That Foundation

AFSA FS101-25 takes the next logical step by addressing areas where users of ASTM E303 have historically needed more clarity and guidance.

Some of the key advancements include:

1. Clearer Interpretation of Results
ASTM E303 provides a method—but not safety classifications.
AFSA FS101-25 bridges that gap by aligning results with internationally recognized slip potential categories, helping users better understand what the numbers actually mean in practice.

2. Stronger Alignment with Global Research
While ASTM E303 is widely respected, AFSA FS101-25 more closely harmonizes with established guidance from the UK, Australia, and other regions where pendulum testing has been deeply studied and standardized for decades.

3. Practical Guidance for Real-World Conditions
AFSA FS101-25 places greater emphasis on how surfaces perform in actual use—wet conditions, contamination, slope, and maintenance—rather than relying solely on raw test values.

4. Designed Specifically for Safety Decision-Making
The goal of AFSA FS101-25 is not just to measure slip resistance, but to help professionals make informed safety decisions—whether that’s for compliance, risk reduction, or litigation support.

Why This Matters

In the real world, slip resistance testing isn’t just about numbers—it’s about preventing injuries and understanding risk.

By combining the proven reliability of the pendulum test with clearer interpretation and globally aligned guidance, AFSA FS101-25 represents a meaningful step forward for:

• Property owners and facility managers
• Architects and specifiers
• Safety professionals
• Attorneys handling slip-and-fall cases

The American Floor Safety Alliance – Bringing Science to Floor Safety!

Learn More

To see the full technical breakdown and side-by-side comparison, read the complete article here:

https://afsahub.com/technical-comparative-analysis-afsa-fs101-25-vs-astm-e303-22/

If you have questions about pendulum testing, ASTM E303, or the new AFSA FS101-25 standard, feel free to reach out. At Safety Direct America, we’ve spent decades helping clients understand slip resistance the right way—using reliable data and internationally supported methods.

Email john.sotter@safetydirectamerica.com or call 949-933-6971

The post A New Step Forward in Floor Safety Testing: AFSA FS101-25 vs ASTM E303-22 appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Read the full article here:
https://ceomonthly.com/engineering-safer-surfaces-how-safety-direct-america-is-redefining-slip-prevention/

A Recognition of Real-World Impact

Slip-and-fall accidents remain one of the leading causes of injuries across the United States, affecting businesses, property owners, and individuals every single day. Despite this, much of the industry still relies on outdated or unreliable testing methods.

The CEO Monthly feature highlights how Safety Direct America has taken a different path—one grounded in real-world testing, international standards, and decades of hands-on experience.

Rather than relying on theory or convenience, our work focuses on what actually happens underfoot in real environments.

Why This Article Matters

This feature isn’t just about our company—it’s about a broader shift in how slip resistance is understood and measured.

The article dives into:

• The importance of accurate, field-relevant slip testing
• Why dynamic testing methods provide more meaningful data than static approaches
• How outdated standards have contributed to confusion in the industry
• The growing role of internationally recognized methods in improving safety outcomes
• Why the American Floor Safety Alliance (AFSA) was necessary

For property owners, attorneys, architects, and facility managers, these are not academic issues—they directly impact safety, liability, and real-world risk.

Raising the Standard for Slip Resistance

For over 35 years, we’ve been committed to providing testing and solutions that people can trust. That includes:

• Reliable lab and on-site slip resistance testing
• Expert analysis based on international research and standards
• Proven anti-slip solutions like SparkleTuff Anti-Slip Floor Coating

Our goal has never been to complicate things—it’s to bring clarity and accuracy to an area that has long been misunderstood in the USA.

Moving the Industry Forward

The recognition from CEO Monthly reflects something bigger than a single company—it reflects a growing awareness that safety must be based on reliable science, not outdated assumptions. Flawed, fraudulent safety scams like ASTM D2047 must go. Science must be used to save lives.

As more industries begin to adopt better testing methods and more accurate standards, we believe we’ll see fewer accidents, clearer expectations, and better outcomes for everyone involved.

Read the Full Feature

We’re proud to be featured and even more proud of the work that led to it.

Read the full article here:
https://ceomonthly.com/engineering-safer-surfaces-how-safety-direct-america-is-redefining-slip-prevention/

The post Engineering Safer Surfaces: Safety Direct America Featured in CEO Monthly appeared first on Safety Direct America.

For many years, professionals in the United States have struggled with a major problem in the field of floor safety. Despite the enormous number of slip and fall incidents that occur every year, there is still no widely accepted modern test method in the United States for measuring the slip resistance of floors.

The ASTM F13 committee, which is responsible for slip resistance standards in the United States, has spent decades discussing the issue but has not produced a clear, modern, published test method for evaluating the slip resistance of floors used in buildings.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the developed world has already solved this problem.

Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and many nations across Europe have long relied on variations of the pendulum slip resistance test to evaluate walking surface safety. These tests have been refined and updated over time and are widely used by architects, building owners, and regulators to assess floor safety.

Because of this gap in American standards, a group of independent floor safety experts came together to create a new organization dedicated to bringing scientifically sound testing methods to the United States.

That organization is the American Floor Safety Alliance.

The Purpose of the American Floor Safety Alliance

The American Floor Safety Alliance (AFSA) was created to publish clear, practical standards for evaluating floor slip resistance using methods that align with internationally recognized testing practices.

AFSA is composed of professionals who specialize in measuring slip resistance and evaluating walking surface safety. Unlike many individuals involved in the slip and fall industry, AFSA members are not full-time litigation experts and are not involved in selling flooring products.

Our focus is simple: accurate testing, reliable standards, and safer floors.

By publishing independent standards and test methods, AFSA aims to provide building owners, architects, flooring specifiers, and municipal officials with reliable tools to identify hazardous surfaces and prevent slip and fall incidents before they occur.

Introducing AFSA FS101-25 Pendulum Testing

Safety Direct America is proud to announce that we now provide slip resistance testing using the AFSA FS101-25 pendulum test method.

The FS101-25 method was developed to closely align with modern pendulum testing procedures used internationally, including those used in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

While ASTM E303 is often referenced in the United States, the FS101-25 method incorporates improvements that more closely reflect the current international approach to pendulum testing and floor safety evaluation.

By using a method aligned with global testing practices, the FS101-25 test provides building owners and design professionals with a clearer understanding of how safe a floor surface truly is.

The American Floor Safety Alliance – To Stop Slips!

Why Accurate Slip Resistance Testing Matters

Slippery floors are one of the leading causes of preventable injuries in buildings, workplaces, and public spaces.

Accurate slip resistance testing allows property owners and designers to:

• Identify hazardous floor surfaces
• Verify the safety of flooring materials before installation
• Evaluate existing floors that may present slip risks
• Implement effective solutions to improve floor traction

Reliable testing helps prevent accidents, reduce liability, and most importantly protect the people who use those spaces every day.

Moving Floor Safety Forward

The creation of the American Floor Safety Alliance represents an important step toward bringing modern, scientifically sound slip resistance testing standards to the United States.

At Safety Direct America, we are proud to support this effort and to offer AFSA FS101-25 pendulum testing services to clients who want accurate, reliable information about the safety of their floors.

If you would like to learn more about pendulum slip resistance testing or schedule a floor safety evaluation, contact Safety Direct America today.

Safer floors start with accurate measurements.

The post A New Era in Floor Safety: Introducing AFSA Pendulum Testing Services appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Watch the Video of the Project

About ten years ago we applied SparkleTuff anti-slip floor coating to several slippery tile ramps inside a Texas shopping mall where maintenance lift machines were unable to climb the ramps because their wheels kept sliding. Within 24 hours of applying SparkleTuff, the problem was completely solved and the lifts could easily drive up the ramps.

The Problem: Slippery Tile Ramps

Nearly ten years ago we were called to a large shopping mall in Texas that had a frustrating problem involving several ramps throughout the building.

The mall maintenance team regularly used small lift machines (often called scissor lifts or personnel lifts) to reach high ceilings where workers replace light bulbs, repair fixtures, and install ceiling panels. These machines have rubber wheels and are designed to drive up ramps inside large buildings.

But the ramps inside the mall were covered in smooth, slippery tile, and the machines simply could not get enough traction to climb them.

Instead of driving up the ramps, the wheels would spin and the lifts would slowly slide back down the slope.

The Cause: Smooth Tile With No Traction

Like many commercial buildings, the ramps had been finished with very smooth tile flooring. While the tile looked clean and attractive, it offered very little grip for rubber wheels — especially on an incline.

This created several problems:

• Lift machines could not drive up the ramps
• Wheels would spin without gaining traction
• Equipment would slide backwards down the slope
• Routine maintenance work became slow and frustrating

The mall needed a solution that would add traction to the tile ramps without tearing out the flooring or changing the appearance of the mall.

The Solution: SparkleTuff Anti-Slip Floor Coating

We applied SparkleTuff anti-slip floor coating to approximately a dozen ramps throughout the mall.

SparkleTuff is a clear, gritty coating that bonds to floors and creates long-lasting traction while remaining visually unobtrusive.

In this case, it was applied directly over the slippery tile ramps.

The coating adds microscopic grit that dramatically improves traction for both foot traffic and rubber wheels, while still allowing the tile to maintain its original appearance.

Immediate Results

About 24 hours after the application, I returned to the mall to test the treated ramps.

While I was there, two maintenance workers drove past me in their lift machines and headed toward one of the ramps we had coated.

This time the machines drove straight up the ramp without slipping at all.

As they passed they said:

“Hey, thanks so much. That solved the problem. We can get up the ramps easily now.”

The change was immediate. The wheels now had plenty of traction, and the ramps functioned exactly the way they should have.

Ten Years Later — Still Working

The most impressive part of this project is what happened afterward.

Nearly ten years later, the SparkleTuff coating is still performing.

The mall has not needed to touch up or reapply the coating on the ramps during that time.

SparkleTuff continues to provide reliable traction on those slippery tile surfaces, just as it did the day after installation.

That kind of durability is why SparkleTuff is often considered a permanent solution for slippery floors.

A Simple Fix for Slippery Tile Floors and Ramps

Slippery tile floors and ramps are a common problem in malls, hotels, commercial buildings, and public spaces.

SparkleTuff can be applied to any floor, including:

• Tile floors
• Epoxy floors
• Polyaspartic floors
• Polished concrete floors
• Stone floors
• Glass floors

Because the coating is clear, gritty, and extremely durable, it improves traction without ruining the appearance of the floor.

A Long-Term Solution

This Texas mall project is a perfect example of how the right anti-slip coating can solve a problem immediately and for the long term.

Ten years later, the ramps are still working exactly as intended.

If you’re dealing with slippery tile floors, ramps, epoxy floors, or polished surfaces, SparkleTuff may provide the permanent traction solution you need.

Frequently Asked Questions About Slippery Floors and Anti-Slip Coatings

How can you make a slippery tile floor less slippery?

One of the most effective ways to fix a slippery tile floor is to apply a clear anti-slip floor coating such as SparkleTuff. SparkleTuff adds a durable microscopic grit to the surface of the floor, dramatically improving traction while remaining visually clear. This allows tile floors to maintain their original appearance while becoming significantly safer for both foot traffic and wheeled equipment.

Can an anti-slip coating be applied to tile floors?

Yes. SparkleTuff anti-slip floor coating can be applied directly to tile floors, including smooth and polished tile that becomes dangerously slippery when wet. The coating bonds to the tile surface and creates long-lasting traction without requiring the tile to be removed or replaced.

What is the best solution for slippery ramps?

Slippery ramps are often caused by smooth flooring materials that lack traction. Applying a clear anti-slip coating like SparkleTuff can permanently solve this problem by adding grip to the ramp surface. In many cases, equipment that previously slid down ramps can immediately climb them once traction has been restored.

Can anti-slip coatings help equipment get traction on ramps?

Yes. Anti-slip coatings such as SparkleTuff improve traction not only for pedestrians but also for rubber wheels and maintenance equipment. In the Texas mall case study above, maintenance lift machines were unable to climb slippery tile ramps until SparkleTuff was applied. Within 24 hours, the lifts were able to drive up the ramps normally.

How long does an anti-slip floor coating last?

Durability depends on the environment and traffic levels, but high-quality anti-slip coatings can last many years without needing to be reapplied. In the Texas mall example described above, the SparkleTuff coating applied to the tile ramps has remained effective for more than ten years.

Can SparkleTuff be applied to other types of floors?

Yes. SparkleTuff can be applied to any floor, including:

• Tile floors
• Epoxy floors
• Polyaspartic floors
• Polished concrete floors
• Stone floors
• Glass floors

Because the coating is clear and durable, it improves traction without changing the visual appearance of the floor.

The post How SparkleTuff Solved Slippery Tile Ramps at a Texas Mall — Anti-Slip Floor Coating Still Working 10 Years Later appeared first on Safety Direct America.

If someone makes a full-time living as an “expert witness,” what exactly are they an expert in?

In many cases, the honest answer is this: they’re experts at being expert witnesses.

Not practitioners.
Not innovators.
Not researchers advancing their field.
Professional testifiers.

And nowhere is this more obvious than in slip-and-fall litigation.

When an “Expert” Doesn’t Actually Practice

In medicine, you expect a physician to treat patients.
In engineering, you expect an engineer to design, build, or evaluate systems.
In architecture, you expect someone actively involved in real-world projects.

But in the courtroom, you often see individuals who:

• Don’t actively work in the industry they testify about
• Don’t operate businesses in that field
• Don’t install, maintain, or design the systems at issue
• Don’t publish peer-reviewed research, unless it conveniently makes their instrument look good, and the “peers” reviewing the research are all users of the same device, which incidentally is not used anywhere else in the world outside of American courtrooms.
• Don’t use a device that has a test method published in ANY nation on earh
• Don’t teach or advance the science

Instead, they spend 100% of their professional time:

• Reviewing case files
• Writing reports
• Giving depositions
• Testifying for whichever side hires them

Their product isn’t engineering.
Their product isn’t safety.
Their product is testimony.

The Slip-and-Fall Industry: A Case Study in Manufactured Certainty

Slip-and-fall cases are especially revealing.

Anyone who has actually worked in real-world flooring safety knows a simple truth:
Some floors are dangerously slippery. Period.

Yet there is an entire ecosystem of professional witnesses who reliably conclude:

“The floor was not unreasonably slippery.”

Almost every time.

Across the country, insurance defense firms know exactly who to call. There is a roster. A network. A repeat cast of characters who will:

• Show up
• Use questionable instruments
• Generate convenient numbers
• Conclude the floor was “safe”

And invoice accordingly.

When the Instrument Is the Shield

Many of these full-time witnesses rely on devices that:

• Lack widely adopted, peer-reviewed global standards
• Have documented precision issues
• Produce highly variable results
• Can be manipulated through technique

Yet these devices are presented in court with the appearance of scientific authority.

The jurors don’t know the backstory.
The judge often doesn’t either.
But the insurance carrier knows exactly what result it’s paying for.

If the number comes in “safe,” the case becomes defensible.
If it doesn’t? The methodology gets scrutinized—or the expert quietly doesn’t get hired again.

The Financial Incentive No One Mentions

Let’s be candid.

A full-time expert witness earns:

• Hourly fees for review
• Report-writing fees
• Deposition fees
• Trial-day rates
• Travel time
• Retainers

This can easily reach hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of dollars per year.

But only if they remain hireable.

And remaining hireable often means being predictable.

In the slip-resistance world, predictability frequently means this:

Floors aren’t slippery.

Even when common sense says otherwise.
Even when the injured person’s life has been permanently altered.
Even when prior complaints exist.

There is a powerful financial incentive to defend the status quo.

Real Experts vs. Professional Testifiers

A true expert is usually someone who:

• Works daily in the field
• Has a reputation outside the courtroom
• Has professional risk tied to real-world outcomes
• Has nothing to gain from saying “safe” or “unsafe”
• Can point to practical experience—not just case history

By contrast, a full-time litigation consultant often has:

• No real-world operational responsibilities
• No business dependent on public safety
• No field installations
• No regulatory accountability
• No marketplace consequences

Their livelihood depends on cases—not on safer floors.

The Illusion of Objectivity

Courtroom experts often introduce themselves as “independent” or “neutral.”

But if 90% of someone’s income comes from one side of litigation—insurance defense, for example—objectivity becomes mathematically questionable.

Patterns matter.

If an expert:

• Almost always finds in favor of the defense
• Rarely identifies unsafe conditions
• Uses the same narrow methodology repeatedly
• Is hired by the same firms again and again

That’s not coincidence.
That’s a business model.

Why This Matters

Slip-and-fall cases aren’t about “easy money.”

They’re about:

• Traumatic brain injuries
• Hip fractures in the elderly
• Permanent nerve damage
• Lost independence
• Lifelong medical costs

When the scientific evaluation of floor safety becomes a litigation tool rather than a public safety tool, the system breaks down.

Unsafe surfaces remain in service.
Hazards go uncorrected.
The public pays the price.

The Quiet Reality

There is, in fact, a network of full-time expert witnesses across the country who specialize in defending premises owners and insurers in slip-and-fall cases.

They know the arguments.
They know the instruments.
They know the thresholds.
They know how to frame conclusions.

And they know exactly what result keeps the phone ringing.

That doesn’t make every expert dishonest.

But it does mean we should ask a simple question every time someone takes the stand:

“What do you actually do when you’re not testifying?”

If the answer is essentially “I testify,” then we should evaluate their opinions with appropriate skepticism.

Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant

The legal system depends on expert testimony. It can’t function without it.

But we should stop pretending that someone who makes a living exclusively as an expert witness is automatically a leading authority in a field.

Often, they are simply highly skilled participants in litigation.

And in the world of slip resistance and floor safety, that distinction can mean the difference between accountability and avoidance.

The courtroom deserves real expertise—not professional testimony.

And the public deserves safer floors—not manufactured numbers.

The pendulum dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) floor slip resistance tester has a peer-reviewed, published test method in just about every country that has a standards-publishing organization in it. Over 50 nations, including the United States. Anyone pretending to be an “expert” in floor slip resistance using anything but a pendulum tester is showing themselves to be a “lair for hire”, and certainly no expert in floor slip resistance testing.

The post The “Full-Time Expert Witness” Problem No One Wants to Talk About – “Liars for Hire” appeared first on Safety Direct America.

At the same time, another instrument—the pendulum tester—has a peer-reviewed, published test method used in over 50 nations across five continents and an American standard, ASTM E303, with established precision and repeatability data. When reliable, globally adopted methods exist, courts should ask why litigation continues to depend on instruments with documented precision problems and withdrawn ASTM methods. This is not about attacking individuals. It is about applying Rule 702 correctly.

The Governing Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must be based on reliable principles and methods that are reliably applied to the facts of the case. In Daubert, the Supreme Court identified several reliability factors: testability, peer review, known or potential error rate, existence of standards controlling the technique’s operation, and general acceptance. 509 U.S. at 593–94. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Court emphasized that trial courts may exclude expert testimony where there is “too great an analytical gap” between the data and the opinion offered. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court made clear that Daubert applies to all technical and engineering testimony, not just laboratory science. Most recently, the Supreme Court reiterated in Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268 (4th Cir. 2021), that courts must conduct a meaningful reliability analysis when engineering measurement methods are offered as expert proof. The burden rests squarely on the proponent. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10.

When applied rigorously, these principles raise substantial concerns regarding English XL and Brungraber Mark IIIB testimony.

The Precision Problem: Withdrawn ASTM Methods

Both the English XL and the Brungraber Mark II were associated with ASTM test methods that were withdrawn in 2006 due to the absence of a reasonable precision statement. ASTM precision statements quantify repeatability and reproducibility; they establish inter-laboratory variance and define acceptable measurement uncertainty. Without a precision statement, a method lacks a quantified error rate—one of Daubert’s central factors. Courts routinely exclude engineering testimony where error rates are unknown or unsupported. See Claar v. Burlington N. R.R., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) (excluding expert testimony lacking reliable methodology); Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) (affirming exclusion where reliability was not demonstrated). If a method was withdrawn for failure to establish precision, that history is directly relevant to Rule 702’s reliability inquiry.

The Brungraber Mark IIIB operates under the same fundamental sliding principle as the withdrawn Mark II method. Design changes do not eliminate the need for demonstrated reproducibility and quantified precision. Daubert does not allow courts to assume reliability where the underlying methodology lacks documented repeatability metrics.

Published Evidence of Operator Variability

A recently published study reported that different operators using these tribometers obtained materially different results when testing the same tile surface. Even more concerning, the same operator obtained different results on repeated trials of the identical surface. Repeatability and reproducibility are core scientific requirements. If results vary meaningfully depending on who performs the test—or when it is repeated—the methodology’s reliability is compromised. Courts have excluded measurement-based testimony where variability and operator dependence undermine reliability. See United States v. Hebshie, 754 F.Supp.2d 89 (D. Mass. 2010) (excluding fire-origin methodology lacking demonstrated reliability); McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (excluding expert testimony where methodology lacked reliable scientific foundation). Demonstrated operator variability directly implicates Daubert’s error-rate factor.

ASTM F2508: Discrimination Is Not Precision

Proponents frequently cite ASTM F2508 as validation. ASTM F2508 requires an instrument to correctly rank three reference tiles—low, medium, and high slip resistance. If the tribometer can identify the relative order, it “passes.” But this is not a precision study. It does not establish repeatability within statistical tolerance ranges. It does not quantify inter-operator reproducibility. It does not provide numeric error rates or confidence intervals. It does not correlate numeric outputs to real-world slip events. It is an ordinal ranking exercise.

Daubert requires reliability, not mere discrimination. Courts reject methodologies that rely on superficial validation rather than rigorous measurement standards. See In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (emphasizing error rates and reliability); Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (excluding expert testimony where methodology was insufficiently reliable). The ability to rank three known samples does not establish that a device measures friction with scientific precision across real-world conditions. Passing F2508 does not answer Daubert’s core questions about error rate and reproducibility.

The Pendulum: A Contrast in Validation

The pendulum tester provides a contrast. It has a peer-reviewed methodology adopted in more than 50 nations across five continents. It has an American standard, ASTM E303. It has established precision and reproducibility data. It has documented repeatability studies. Unlike the tribometers discussed above, the pendulum method includes quantified precision statements and inter-laboratory validation. Under Daubert’s general-acceptance factor, international adoption and regulatory use are highly relevant. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 151 (reliability depends on the nature of the technique and its acceptance). When one method has broad scientific validation and documented precision, and another lacks quantified error rates and demonstrates operator variability, Rule 702 demands scrutiny.

The relevant inquiry is not whether English XL or Mark IIIB can generate a number. The inquiry is whether that number is produced by a method that meets Daubert’s reliability factors.

Federal-Style Daubert Motion Structure

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[District]

[Plaintiff] v. [Defendant]

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TRIBOMETER TESTIMONY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant’s expert intends to offer testimony that the subject floor was “not unreasonably slippery” based solely on English XL and/or Brungraber Mark IIIB testing. Under Rule 702 and Daubert, the proponent must establish reliability, including known error rates and reproducibility. ASTM F2508 does not establish those elements, and prior ASTM methods were withdrawn for lack of precision.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 702 and Daubert, courts evaluate testability, peer review, error rate, standards, and general acceptance. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94; Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. 137. The proponent bears the burden.

III. ARGUMENT
A. Withdrawal of ASTM Methods Demonstrates Lack of Established Precision.
B. ASTM F2508 Does Not Establish Repeatability or Error Rate.
C. Published Operator Variability Undermines Reliability.
D. Failure to Address More Rigorously Validated Alternatives Such as ASTM E303 Further Undermines Reliability.
E. Under Joiner, an analytical gap exists between limited ranking validation and the sweeping conclusion that a surface is safe.

IV. CONCLUSION
Because the methodology lacks quantified precision, known error rate, and demonstrated reproducibility, and because ASTM F2508 does not cure these deficiencies, testimony based solely on English XL or Brungraber Mark IIIB testing should be excluded.

Deposition Questions Targeting F2508 and Reliability

1. ASTM F2508 requires ranking three tiles, correct?
2. It does not quantify inter-laboratory reproducibility, correct?
3. It does not establish numeric error rate, correct?
4. Passing F2508 does not guarantee identical results across operators, correct?
5. Are you aware the ASTM methods previously associated with these devices were withdrawn for lack of a precision statement?
6. What is the known margin of error for your instrument?
7. What statistical confidence interval applies to your measurement?
8. Are you aware of published studies demonstrating operator variability?
9. Did you perform inter-operator reproducibility testing in this case?
10. Are you aware ASTM E303 provides a precision statement for pendulum testing?
11. Why did you not conduct ASTM E303 testing?
12. Can you identify peer-reviewed research correlating your instrument’s output to actual fall rates?

The Bottom Line

Daubert is not satisfied by tradition, convenience, or litigation custom. It requires reliability. Where ASTM methods were withdrawn for lack of precision, where published studies show operator variability, where F2508 establishes only tile ranking rather than measurement precision, and where more rigorously validated international methods exist, courts should not admit tribometer testimony without careful scrutiny. Rule 702 demands more than a number—it demands a reliable scientific foundation.

The post Why English XL and Brungraber Mark IIIB Testimony Fails Daubert — And Why ASTM F2508 Does Not Cure the Problem appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Many architects, attorneys, insurers, manufacturers, and even safety consultants believe that the BOT-3000E tribometer determines whether a floor is “safe.” It does not. And the standard behind it — ANSI A326.3 — clearly says so.

What ANSI A326.3 Actually Says

ANSI A326.3 is a test method developed within the American flooring industry. It uses the BOT-3000E to measure a surface’s dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF). But here is the critical and often ignored point:

The standard explicitly states that it is not intended to assess pedestrian safety or human slip risk.

It is intended to compare surfaces under controlled conditions. That distinction is not subtle. It is fundamental. A comparison tool is not a safety assessment tool.

Yet ANSI A326.3 results are routinely presented in marketing materials, specifications, and courtrooms as proof that a floor is “safe”. That is not what the ANSI A326.3 standard claims. Here’s what it does say. The ANSI A326.3 test “can provide a useful comparison of surfaces, but does not predict the likelihood a person will or will not slip on a hard surface flooring material.” That clearly states it should not be used as a “safety test.”

Why did the Tile Council of North America (TCNA) put that statement in the test method? Because 0.42 is super easy to achieve, even for slippery floors, and the BOT-3000E has some serious issues when it comes to identifying slippery floors. Watch the video further down the page just above the section called, “The Real Issue”. You’ll see for yourself that the BOT-3000E can often call a slippery floor “not slippery”, and it often says a floor that is not slippery is “slippery.”

A Comparison Tool — Not a Safety Tool

The BOT-3000E measures drag force using a curved rubber slider pulled across a wet surface at a controlled speed. Humans do not walk that way.

Real slip events occur during the first milliseconds of heel strike and involve:

• Impact velocity
• Micro-slip
• Rotational forces
• Changing angles of contact
• Dynamic body movement

The BOT-3000E does not replicate heel strike biomechanics. It provides a mechanical friction number for surface comparison. That is its design purpose. And that’s why the European Union abandoned using this device as a safety assessment tool decades ago. It just doesn’t effectively assess safety.

The Industry Conflict

ANSI A326.3 was created within the American flooring industry, and it performs one useful function for that industry:

It allows surfaces to be compared to one another under standardized conditions. But problems arise when that comparison number is interpreted as a measure of safety. In practice, the BOT-3000E often produces results that do not align with real-world pedestrian experience. It can:

• Classify slippery floors as acceptable
• Flag surfaces that perform well under heel-strike testing as problematic

Those inconsistent and sometimes counterintuitive readings reinforce what the standard itself already states:

It is not a safety assessment method.

When a test generates results that contradict observable pedestrian performance, that is not evidence of superior science — it is evidence of scope limitation.

Ignoring the Fine Print

Despite the explicit language in ANSI A326.3, the BOT-3000E is frequently used as if it were a definitive safety instrument. Deceptive marketing implies compliance equals safety. Specifications rely on it as proof of slip resistance. Expert testimony sometimes treats it as determinative of safe conditions. But the standard does not support those conclusions.

Using a method outside its stated intent is not scientific rigor. It is methodological overreach.

Here are just a few of the disclaimers in the ANSI A326.3 test method:

“Unless otherwise declared by the manufacturer, hard surface flooring materials suitable for level interior spaces expected to be walked upon wet with water shall have a measured wet DCOF of 0.42* or greater when tested using SBR sensor material and SLS solution as per this standard. However, hard surface flooring materials with a DCOF of 0.42* or greater are not necessarily suitable for all projects. The specifier shall determine materials appropriate for specific project conditions, considering by way of example, but not in limitation, type of use, traffic, expected contaminants, expected maintenance, expected wear, and manufacturers’ guidelines and recommendations.” How do you “consider” those factors? It’s up to you, I guess. The test method offers no guidance on that whatsoever.

Section 3.2 states: “…hard surface flooring materials with a measured wet DCOF of less than 0.42*… shall only be installed when the surface will be kept dry when walked upon and proper safety procedures will be followed when cleaning the hard surface flooring materials.”

The United Kingdom’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which is England’s version of OSHA, warned against using these types of drag-sled machines to assess slip risk. (see page 6 under “Other Tests”.) The HSE says in their recommendations that, “The instruments that have been dubbed ‘sled tests’ [like the BOT-3000E and TRACSCAN 2.0] involve a self-powered trolley that drags itself across the floor surface. These tests do not recreate the conditions of pedestrian gait which give rise to most slip accidents. Data from such machines is unlikely to be relevant to pedestrian slipping in contaminated conditions.”

The latest version of the ANSI A326.3 test standard, with the help of lawyers who aim to protect the creators of this test, goes on to say, “Because many variables affect the risk of a slip occurring, the measured DCOF value shall not be the only factor in determining the appropriateness of a hard surface flooring material for a particular application. Further, while structure (e.g. three-dimensionally patterned or profiled surfaces) can assist in drainage….such surfaces can produce misleading measured DCOF values due to test device constraints.” Notice the quotation marks? That’s a direct quote from the test.

In other words, just because you get above a 0.42 doesn’t mean much of anything in regards to safety, and you may get misleading results in many situations using the BOT-3000E.

Footnote 1 says, “No claim of correlation to actual footwear or human ambulation is made.”

Again, in the introduction to the test method, it says that this test “can provide a useful comparison of surfaces, but does not predict the likelihood a person will or will not slip on a hard surface flooring material.”

An informative note (on page 3 of the ANSI A326.3 test method) says, “Normative measured DCOF limit values are not provided in this standard for exterior applications, interior ramps and inclines, pool decks, shower floors, or flooring that is contaminated with material other than water or where minimal or no footwear is used.”

For some areas labeled as “Interior, Wet Plus”, such as locker rooms, public showers, self-service restaurants, etc., “…it is generally accepted that hard surface flooring in this category should have AT LEAST A MINIMUM wet DCOF of 0.50*, with factors other than wet DCOF also taken into consideration. Such factors include, but are not limited to, expected contaminants, drainage, surface structure, effect of structure on the DCOF measurement, number of grout joints, traction-enhancing features, and intended use in addition to the other criteria in this standard…[so]…a single normative DCOF limit value is not provided.”

What Actually Assesses Slip Risk?

If the real question is: “Is this floor safe for pedestrians?” There is a globally recognized answer:

The Pendulum Test

The pendulum tester replicates heel strike. It measures energy loss during impact, which closely reflects how slip events actually occur.

It is standardized under:

• ASTM E303 (United States)
• British pendulum test methods, UKSRG Guidelines and BS 16165:2021
• Australian Standard AS 4586 and AS 4663
• European Standard EN 16165:2021

The pendulum method has been studied for decades. It has epidemiological support. It is peer-reviewed. It has a peer-reviewed, published test method in more than 50 nations worldwide. The BOT-3000E has one, and it is so full of disclaimers that you may as well “chuck it in the bin”, as they’d say in the UK.

The pendulum DCOF tester is, by any objective measure, the most researched and internationally accepted pedestrian slip resistance test in the world.

Unlike ANSI A326.3, pendulum methods are explicitly intended for assessing pedestrian slip risk.

That is the difference.

The Only Proper Use of the BOT-3000E

The BOT-3000E does have a role — but only when used properly.

Here is how it can be used responsibly:

1. First, assess the floor’s safety using a pendulum test method (such as ASTM E303 or another recognized pendulum standard).
2. Determine whether the floor is safe based on heel-strike testing.
3. Then measure the same surface with the BOT-3000E.

At that point, the BOT-3000E can be used for what it was designed to do:

Compare surfaces.

Or more specifically:

• Monitor changes over time
• Compare friction values before and after cleaning
• Detect deterioration from heavy foot traffic
• Evaluate the impact of destructive cleaning methods
• Identify whether maintenance procedures are altering surface friction

In this way, the BOT-3000E can function as a monitoring device.

If its readings begin to shift significantly over time, that may indicate the need to perform another pendulum test to reassess actual pedestrian safety.

Used this way — after safety has already been established by pendulum testing — the BOT-3000E stays within its intended scope. Used as a standalone safety determination tool, it does not.

Global Acceptance vs. Domestic Convenience

Much of the world relies on pendulum-based methods for slip risk assessment.

The United Kingdom. Australia. The Europe Union (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.,etc.,etc.). Singapore. Israel. Dozens of other nations.

The United States flooring industry often relies on ANSI A326.3 instead because that 0.42 DCOF is super easy to obtain for slippery surfaces. But product classification convenience is not the same thing as pedestrian safety science.

The pendulum was developed for human slip risk in the USA around 70 years ago, but improvements have been made to the original device, and the test methods for its use, over the years to make it more accurate, reliable and precise. Repeatable, reproducible.

ANSI A326.3 explicitly was not. The video below shows the ANSI A326.3 test “blowing it”, as we say. It calls a slippery floor “safe”, and it says a very slip resistant floor is “slippery”. After being one of the first people to be given a BOT-3000, and then a BOT-3000E, I can tell you that this happens often.

Why were we given these devices for free? Because we are experts in this field of study. It’s all we’ve been doing for decades. The manufacturer wanted us to identify problems with the machine and help make it more useful, such as finding a soft rubber slider to use with it. No-one has ever found a soft rubber slider that gives results that make any sense for the BOT-3000E, so it cannot be used for barefoot situations. We identified problems with the machine. Those issues were ignored.

The Real Issue

The issue is not whether the BOT-3000E can generate a number. It can. The issue is whether that number answers the safety question. ANSI A326.3 says it does not.

The unpredictable and sometimes contradictory readings the machine produces on many surfaces further validate that it should never be used as a definitive safety assessment tool. If a method’s own scope says it is not intended to assess safety, presenting it as proof of safety misrepresents its purpose.

If Safety Is the Question, Use the Right Tool

When evaluating pedestrian slip risk:

Use ASTM E303 or another pendulum test method, such as BS 16165 or AS 4586. Use a test designed to simulate heel strike and correlate with real-world walking.

Then, if you wish to compare surfaces or monitor change over time, use the BOT-3000E within its intended role.

Safety assessment first. Surface comparison second.

Intent matters. Scope matters. And when the stakes include catastrophic injury, litigation, and public trust, using the correct test method is not optional — it is essential.

The post The ANSI A326.3 Problem: Why the BOT-3000E Is Not a Safety Test appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Garage floors. Pool decks. Patios. Showrooms. Outdoor walkways.

They look incredible — glossy, seamless, modern. Installers love them. Homeowners love them.

But there’s one problem:

Almost all of them can become dangerously slippery when wet, even when the installer tries their best to add grit to the topcoat to make it slip resistant.

And if you own one, you may have already discovered this the hard way.

Why Epoxy and Polyaspartic Floors Become Slippery

Epoxy and polyaspartic coatings are designed to be smooth and visually impressive. That smooth, high-gloss finish is part of the appeal.

But physics doesn’t care about aesthetics.

When water hits a smooth surface, it reduces friction. On a pool deck or garage floor, that can turn a beautiful coating into a slip hazard within seconds.

This is especially dangerous in:

• Pool deck areas
• Garage floors with rainwater
• Driveways
• Outdoor patios
• Commercial entryways

A floor that looks premium shouldn’t perform like an ice rink.

The Typical “Fix” — And Why It Fails

Most installers will tell you the solution is to:

• Add grit into the original coating
• Recoat the floor entirely
• Sand and reapply another layer
• Live with the problem

All of those options are expensive, disruptive, and often ruin the clean glossy look people wanted in the first place.

Until now, there hasn’t been a simple solution.

Introducing SparkleTuff: A Clear, Gritty Anti-Slip Floor Coating

SparkleTuff is a revolutionary, clear anti-slip floor coating designed specifically to solve slippery epoxy and slippery polyaspartic surfaces — without destroying their appearance.

It is:

Clear
Durable
Long-lasting
Permanently bonded
Compatible with existing epoxy and polyaspartic coatings

And here’s what makes it truly unique:

It requires no special preparation whatsoever.

No grinding.
No stripping.
No full recoat.
No complicated surface rebuild.

SparkleTuff is applied directly over your existing surface and immediately transforms it from slippery to safe.

How It Works

SparkleTuff is a clear polysiloxane coating infused with high-performance aluminum oxide grit.

That grit creates microscopic traction across the surface. The result?

• You keep the glossy, attractive look.
• You gain real, measurable slip resistance.
• Water no longer turns your floor into a hazard.

The coating is tough, long-lasting, and engineered to perform in wet environments — exactly where epoxy and polyaspartic floors struggle the most. And SparkleTuff has UV protection built in to protect the colors of your beautiful new floor.

Beauty and Safety — Finally Together

For years, property owners had to choose:

Beauty or traction.
Gloss or grip.

With SparkleTuff, that tradeoff disappears.

Now your pool deck can shine — without putting your family at risk.
Your garage floor can look high-end — without becoming dangerous in the rain.

Watch the Video Demonstration

In the video below, you’ll see exactly how SparkleTuff transforms slippery epoxy and slippery polyaspartic floors into safe, slip-resistant surfaces — without altering their appearance.

SparkleTuff Anti-Slip Floor Coating – looks great — no slips!

If you’ve invested in a beautiful floor, don’t let it become a liability.

There is finally a clear solution.

The post Slippery Epoxy and Polyaspartic Floors: The Hidden Danger and the Permanent Solution appeared first on Safety Direct America.

That limitation no longer exists.

With SparkleTuff Anti-Slip Floor Coating, architects can now confidently specify glass and polished surfaces in wet, outdoor, and high-traffic environments—without sacrificing aesthetics, clarity, or safety.

This is a challenge to the design community:
Go wild.

SparkleTuff Anti-Slip Floor Coating – looks great — no slips!

The Problem Architects Have Always Known

Glass is one of the most visually powerful materials in architecture. It creates openness, drama, and emotional impact. Yet when glass gets wet—whether from rain, pools, humidity, or spills—it becomes a liability.

Historically, that meant:

• No glass pool decks
• No outdoor glass walkways
• No glass-bottomed restaurants
• No highly polished stone in exterior environments

The only alternatives were etching, frosting, heavy textures, or opaque coatings—solutions that destroy the very beauty that made glass desirable in the first place.

The Breakthrough: Safety Without Compromise

SparkleTuff changes the equation entirely.

It is a clear, glossy, slip-resistant floor coating engineered to dramatically increase traction on glass and other polished surfaces, even when wet. Once applied, the surface maintains its transparency and elegance—while delivering real-world slip resistance.

In other words:
You no longer have to choose between safety and beauty.

What This Unlocks for Architects

SparkleTuff doesn’t just solve a safety problem—it opens an entirely new design vocabulary.

Architects can now explore:

• Glass floors in outdoor environments
• Glass walkways and bridges exposed to weather
• Glass pool decks and splash zones
• Glass-bottomed cafés and restaurants
• Highly polished stone and tile outdoors
• Luxury designs without visual compromise

Design intent no longer has to be watered down at the last minute by risk managers or attorneys.

Why This Matters Now

Clients are demanding experiential architecture—spaces that feel immersive, daring, and unforgettable. At the same time, regulations, lawsuits, and public safety expectations are higher than ever.

SparkleTuff allows architects to meet both demands:

• Bold design
• Real traction
• Clear surfaces
• Wet-area safety
• Outdoor durability

This is not a decorative coating.
This is a performance surface technology that enables creativity rather than restricting it.

A Direct Challenge to the Design Community

If you’re an architect who has ever said:

“We wanted to use glass here, but…”

It’s time to revisit those designs.

Glass floors, glass walkways, and polished outdoor surfaces are no longer off-limits. The technology now exists to make them safe, practical, and breathtaking.

The only remaining question is whether you’re willing to push the boundaries.

SparkleTuff makes it possible to design without fear—
to build boldly—
and to prove that safety and beauty can coexist.

The post Glass Floors Without Fear: How Architects Can Finally Design Without Limits appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Just last night, our team professionally applied SparkleTuff in a high-end jewelry and clothing store in Houston, Texas—an environment where aesthetics are critical and safety cannot be compromised. Over the years, we’ve also installed SparkleTuff in shopping malls, locker rooms, pool decks, and other demanding commercial environments. Each space presents unique challenges, and our experience allows us to tailor the application to the surface, lighting, foot traffic, and design goals of the property.

SparkleTuff offers unmatched versatility. Clients can choose from satin or glossy finishes, white or black grit to complement the existing floor color, and varying levels of slip resistance depending on the environment. Whether the goal is maximum traction for wet areas or a refined balance of safety and appearance for luxury interiors, our professional team ensures the coating performs exactly as intended—without compromising the look of the space.

While SparkleTuff is designed so that capable property owners and contractors can apply it themselves by carefully following the instructions, many high-end clients prefer the peace of mind that comes with professional installation. Our applicators bring a trained eye, years of hands-on experience, and a meticulous attention to detail that only comes from applying the same system across countless surfaces and conditions. The result is a uniform, long-lasting finish that looks exceptional and performs for years.

We are available to professionally apply SparkleTuff anywhere in the United States—and beyond. We have a very experienced installer in the United Kingdom as well to meet the demands of our European clientele. If your property demands the highest standard of workmanship, durability, and slip-resistance, trust the professionals who created the coating to install it correctly the first time. When you want it done right, SparkleTuff professional application delivers confidence, safety, and excellence from start to finish.

The post Experience the SparkleTuff Advantage: Premium Anti-Slip Protection Installed by the Experts appeared first on Safety Direct America.