Slip-and-fall injuries remain one of the leading causes of emergency room visits in the United States. And yet, despite decades of awareness, the problem persists.

Why?

Read the International Business Times article here

Because far too often, floors are evaluated using methods that do not reflect real-world conditions.

The Problem: “Compliant” Doesn’t Mean Safe

One of the key points covered in the article is something I see every day in my work:

Surfaces that technically “pass” a test… but are still dangerously slippery when people actually walk on them.

This disconnect is at the heart of the problem.

Many commonly used testing methods measure static or simplified conditions that do not represent how slip events actually occur. In the real world, slips happen during movement—during heel strike—on surfaces that may be wet, contaminated, or improperly maintained.

If the test doesn’t reflect that reality, the results can be misleading.

A Better Approach to Slip Resistance

For decades, other parts of the world have taken a more practical, field-tested approach.

Dynamic testing methods such as ASTM E303 and AFSA FS101-25 (the pendulum test) are designed to simulate real walking conditions and provide a more accurate picture of slip risk. These methods are widely used internationally and supported by decades of research.

Through the work of the American Floor Safety Alliance, we are continuing to push for the adoption of testing methods and standards that better reflect real-world conditions here in the United States.

The goal is simple:

Prevent injuries before they happen—not just measure surfaces after the fact.

Watch the Video

I put together a short video to highlight the article and explain why this issue still hasn’t been fully addressed.

The USA Has a Slip and Fall Epidemic – Read About it in the International Business Times!

In the video, I break down:

Why current testing approaches often fall short
What real-world slip resistance actually means
And how better standards published through the American Floor Safety Alliance (AFSA) can help reduce injuries and liability

If you’d like to dive deeper into this issue, you can read the full feature here:

Read the International Business Times article here

Final Thoughts

Slip-and-fall prevention is not a mystery. It’s a measurable, solvable problem—when the right methods are used.

The challenge is not a lack of knowledge.
It’s a lack of consistent, real-world application.

Until that changes, we will continue to see surfaces that are technically compliant… but practically unsafe.

The post Featured in International Business Times: Why America Still Has a Floor Safety Problem appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Sotter Engineering’s President John C Sotter was recently featured in International Business Times in an article titled:
“John Sotter Highlights America’s Floor Problem, Striving to Redefine the Country’s Floor Safety Standards.”

The article touches on something we’ve been saying for years:

The United States has a serious floor safety problem—and most people don’t even realize it.

The Hidden Problem Beneath Our Feet

Slip-and-fall incidents are one of the leading causes of injuries in the U.S., yet there is still no reliable, universally accepted method in this country to measure whether a floor is actually safe.

That’s the core issue.

As highlighted in the article, the U.S. has relied on outdated or scientifically questionable testing methods for decades, leaving building owners, architects, and even courts with inconsistent and often misleading data.  

The result?

• Floors that are labeled “safe” when they’re not
• Conflicting test results in litigation
• Millions of preventable injuries

The U.S. vs. The Rest of the World

One of the biggest disconnects is this:

The rest of the world has already solved this problem.

Countries across Europe, the UK, Australia, and beyond rely on pendulum-based slip testing—a method that actually replicates how people slip while walking.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to lean on:

• Static coefficient of friction tests
• Devices with known precision issues
• Standards that don’t even define safety thresholds

That’s not just outdated—it’s dangerous.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

What the article makes clear is that this isn’t just a technical issue—it’s a public safety issue.

When testing methods are unreliable:

• Property owners can’t confidently verify safety
• Contractors install floors that later become liabilities
• Attorneys battle over inconsistent data instead of clear facts

And ultimately, people get hurt unnecessarily.

Changing the Standard

My work—and the mission behind organizations like the American Floor Safety Alliance—is focused on one thing:

Bringing the U.S. in line with proven, science-based methods that actually reflect real-world slip risk.

That means:

• Moving toward dynamic testing (like the pendulum)
• Establishing clear, defensible safety thresholds
• Eliminating reliance on outdated or non-reproducible devices

The Bottom Line

The recognition from International Business Times is appreciated—but more importantly, it signals that this conversation is starting to reach a broader audience.

Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about standards committees or technical debates.

It’s about something much simpler:

Making sure the floors people walk on every day are actually safe.

Read the Full Article

If you’d like to read the full feature, you can find it here:
https://www.ibtimes.com/john-sotter-highlights-americas-floor-problem-striving-redefine-countrys-floor-safety-standards-3802257

The post In the News: John Sotter on Fixing America’s Broken Floor Safety Standards appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Real Science Helps Stop Slip Injuries!

Unlike many commonly used devices in the United States, the pendulum test simulates a dynamic heel strike—the same motion that occurs when a person actually walks across a surface. This is critical, because slip-and-fall injuries don’t happen under static conditions—they happen in motion.

In this short video, you’ll see live testing performed on pavers on an outdoor walkway. What becomes immediately clear is how outdoor surfaces often offer plenty of real-world slip resistance.

This is why relying on outdated or non-dynamic testing methods can lead to misleading conclusions about safety. A floor that appears acceptable under one test may present a very different level of risk when evaluated using a method that reflects real-world conditions.

ASTM E303 is used globally across more than 50 countries and remains a trusted benchmark for assessing pedestrian slip risk. For property owners, contractors, and facility managers, understanding these differences is essential to making informed decisions about safety and liability.

An even better pendulum test is provided by the American Floor Safety Alliance, as it is a test written exclusively by floor slip resistance testing experts from at least two countries. Visit the American Floor Safety Alliance at https://afsa-floorsafety.com for more information on this up-to-date modern pendulum test that more closely mimics tests used across Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

If you’re evaluating flooring systems—or trying to prevent slip-and-fall incidents—the testing method matters.

Examples of tests that should never be used to assess safety are ANSI A326.3 with the BOT-3000E, the English XL, the Brungraber Mark IIIB, NFSI B101.1, and NFSI B101.3. None of these tests are based on good science, and none of them replicate a real heel strike. You won’t find these tests in any published test method outside of the ultra-litigious United States, where test methods pop-up almost yearly to help insurance companies not pay out on legitimate claims.

We can use real science in the United States just like the rest of the world does to help stop slip and fall injuries before they occur if we use real science. Don’t let scam artists fool you into believing they’ve got a test that works better than what the rest of the world has been using for 50 years.

The post ASTM E303 Pendulum Testing in Sarasota, Florida: Real-World Slip Resistance in Action appeared first on Safety Direct America.

One of the biggest concerns people have when applying any floor coating is simple:
What happens if I mess it up?

With many coatings, the answer is ugly, expensive, and time-consuming—you’re stuck with it or forced to completely strip everything down to the substrate.

But SparkleTuff is different. It can be grind-ed down with a floor polishing machine, and you don’t have to go all the way down to the bare floor if you don’t want to because SparkleTuff will adhere to itself. You can fix it.

⸻

Yes, You Can Completely Fix a Bad Application

In our latest video, we intentionally created a worst-case scenario. We ignored the instructions, applied the coating poorly, and ended up with a surface full of visible defects—thick spots, uneven texture, and a finish that looked terrible.

Then we fixed it.

Here’s the key:
You don’t need to remove everything down to the tile or concrete.

Messed up your SparkleTuff Application? Don’t Panic!!

⸻

The Simple Fix: Grind, Clean, Recoat

If your SparkleTuff application goes wrong, the correction process is straightforward:

1. Grind or polish the surface
* Use a floor grinder or polisher
* Focus on removing high spots, ridges, and uneven buildup
* You’re leveling—not stripping to bare substrate
2. Clean the surface thoroughly
* Remove all dust and debris
* Ensure a clean bonding surface
3. Apply a fresh coat of SparkleTuff
* Follow the instructions this time
* Apply evenly and consistently

⸻

The Result: Like It Never Happened

Once recoated properly, the floor looks completely uniform—as if the original mistake never occurred.

No visible patches.
No ghosting.
No indication it was ever ground down.

That’s a huge advantage over traditional coatings that lock in mistakes permanently.

⸻

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about fixing a mistake—it’s about reducing risk.

* DIY users don’t have to fear ruining a project
* Contractors can confidently correct errors
* Property owners avoid full tear-outs and costly replacements

In short, SparkleTuff gives you a second chance without penalty.

⸻

Final Thought

We still strongly recommend following the application instructions carefully the first time. It’s faster, easier, and ensures the best result.

But if things go sideways?
You’re not stuck.

You can fix it—and when you’re done, no one will ever know.

The post Messed Up Your SparkleTuff Application? Here’s How to Fix It and Make It Look Brand New appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Today, that framework exists without ANSI accreditation, without federal adoption, and without clear evidence that it reduces real-world slip-and-fall injuries.

That’s not a minor issue.
That’s a credibility problem.

1. Loss of ANSI Accreditation Is a Big Red Flag

American National Standards Institute does not withdraw accreditation lightly.

It requires:

• Transparent consensus
• Balanced participation
• Public review
• Documented, repeatable procedures

When those conditions are not met, accreditation is removed.

What that means:
The development process behind these standards did not meet the baseline requirements expected of nationally recognized standards bodies.

2. Federal Regulators Did Not Adopt the System

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reviewed NFSI-related petitions multiple times.

They declined to adopt them.

Why that matters:

• No demonstrated link to injury reduction
• No consistent, reproducible performance across users

What that means:
A rating system was presented—and federal regulators were not convinced it improves safety.

3. The Science Has Not Been Independently Verified

Groups such as the Tile Council of North America have pointed to:

• Limited peer-reviewed validation
• Lack of open methodology
• Restricted access to underlying data

What that means:
If a method cannot be independently tested and reproduced, it cannot be relied upon as scientific evidence.

4. The Core Problem: Measuring the Wrong Thing

At the center of this issue is a fundamental flaw:

Many of these systems rely on static coefficient of friction (SCOF).

But slips don’t happen in static conditions.

They happen:

• During motion
• At heel strike
• Under dynamic load

That’s why internationally accepted methods use dynamic testing, mostly using the pendulum tester, including:

• ASTM E303
• AFSA FS101-25
• BS/EN 16165:2021
• AS/NZS 4586

What that means:
If you measure the wrong physical condition, you get the wrong answer—consistently. That’s convenient when you have a vested interest in giving a “passing grade” to every client who gives you money … because then you can get more money from them to get the NFSI “seal of approval”.

5. Why This Matters in Court

Slip resistance testing is frequently introduced as “scientific evidence.”

But not all testing methods meet that standard.

If a method:

• Lacks precision
• Has not been adopted by regulators
• Lacks independent validation
• Does not simulate real-world conditions
• Is based on “research” that is hidden from people who would like to see it

…then its conclusions should be carefully examined before being relied upon in litigation.

What that means:
The reliability of the opinion depends entirely on the reliability of the method.

6. A Pattern Worth Examining

In litigation, some experts continue to rely on legacy methods rooted in static testing.

That raises a straightforward question:

If the industry has long recognized that slip events occur under dynamic conditions, why continue to rely on static measurements?

That question goes directly to weight of evidence. Anyone using static testing methods (NFSI B101.1, English XL, Mark IIIB, ASTM D2047) certainly could never be called “experts” in this field of study. Everyone around the world now knows that static tests are misleading at best, and potentially fraudulent when presented under oath as a valid safety assessment.

7. Legacy Devices Lost Their Standards—and Why That Matters

It’s also important to understand that several commonly cited U.S. slip test devices are no longer supported by active ASTM standards.

Both the Brungraber Mark II and the English XL were previously associated with ASTM F1677 and ASTM F1679. These standards were withdrawn in 2006, in part because they lacked acceptable precision statements—meaning the methods could not demonstrate consistent, repeatable results across different users and conditions.

The lack of precision for both the English XL and the newer version of the Brungraber Mark II (the Brungraber Mark IIIB) was documented in a peer-reviewed, published study in 2020. So these devices certainly haven’t fixed their precision problems in the 20 years since their test methods were withdrawn.

No other nation, incidentally, ever had a published test method for any of these devices. They are only used in American courtrooms. Other published studies show the English XL lacks accuracy in predicting whether a floor will cause slips.

In addition, both devices measure static coefficient of friction (SCOF), not dynamic conditions.

Key point:
If a method cannot demonstrate precision—and does not replicate how slips actually occur—its reliability as a safety assessment tool is fundamentally doomed.

Real Scientific Devices Must Show Precision!

Final Thought

This is not about personalities.

It is about whether the tools used to evaluate safety:

• Reflect real-world conditions
• Produce consistent results
• Meet accepted scientific standards

Because when the method is flawed, the conclusion is flawed—and in slip-and-fall cases, that has real consequences. In other words, when a method measures the wrong condition, it doesn’t just produce error—it produces confidence in the wrong answer.

The post Why The National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) Lost American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Accreditation—And Why That Should Concern Anyone Relying on Its Standards appeared first on Safety Direct America.

It raises an uncomfortable question:

Why are slip and fall lawsuits so common in the U.S.?

In my view, part of the answer may lie in something most people never think about:

How we measure floor safety in the first place.

A Hidden Problem: Inconsistent Measurement

In many cases, slip resistance is evaluated using instruments that appear scientific but may not always produce consistent results.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study, Quantifying the Uncertainty in Tribometer Measurements on Walkway Surfaces (Siegmund, Brault, et al.), documented significant variability in measurements obtained from certain tribometers, including:

• Differences between operators
• Differences between devices
• Variability even on the same surface

When a test method cannot reliably reproduce the same result, it raises serious questions about how those results are being used. Let’s name those devices: the English XL and the Brungraber Mark IIIB.

Why This Matters in the Real World

Slip resistance testing plays a direct role in:

• Determining whether a floor is considered “safe”
• Influencing building and maintenance decisions
• Supporting conclusions in legal disputes

If the measurement itself is inconsistent, then conclusions drawn from that data may also be uncertain.

That uncertainty can have real consequences—for property owners, for attorneys, and most importantly, for public safety.

A Different Approach: Measuring What Actually Happens

The pendulum test method (ASTM E303) takes a fundamentally different approach.

Instead of relying on static measurements, it:

• Simulates the dynamic action of a heel striking the ground
• Reflects real walking conditions
• Has been refined through decades of international research

Because of this, it has become widely used around the world as a tool for assessing slip resistance in a consistent and repeatable way.

An even better test is one created by floor slip resistance testing experts in the USA (not the “experts” that testify full-time in lawsuits, but real experts who are testing for building owners and architects daily), and it’s called the American Floor Safety Alliance’s AFSA FS101-25. It’s a pendulum test that more closely aligns with those used across Europe, the UK, and Australia/New Zealand.

Why the Rest of the World Does It Differently

In many countries—including the UK, Europe, and Australia—the pendulum test is commonly used to:

• Evaluate floor safety
• Guide design and material selection
• Reduce the risk of slip and fall incidents

Its widespread adoption reflects confidence in its ability to produce reliable, repeatable, and meaningful results.

The Bigger Picture

If slip resistance testing is inconsistent, then:

• Hazards may go undetected
• Safe surfaces may be mischaracterized
• Decisions may be made on unreliable data

That doesn’t just affect legal outcomes—it affects whether injuries are prevented in the first place.

Watch the Full Breakdown

In this video, I explain:

• Why some commonly used devices lack precision
• What the scientific literature actually shows
• Why reliable measurement is critical for real-world safety

In Floor Slip Testing – Science Matters!

Final Thought

Slip and fall incidents don’t happen in a vacuum.

If we want to reduce them, we have to start with one simple question:

Are we measuring floor safety the right way?

Or are some “experts” just waiting for them to happen so they can profit off of them.

The post Why Slip and Fall Lawsuits Are So Common in the U.S.A.: The Measurement Problem Hiding in Plain Sight appeared first on Safety Direct America.

Can the test be trusted to give the same answer every time?

That question—precision and repeatability—is at the heart of a new video we’ve just released.

In Courtrooms – Precision Matters!

The Problem: Inconsistent Test Results

In the United States, certain tribometers—such as the English XL and Brungraber Mark IIIB—are still used in some slip-and-fall litigation. However, these instruments have been the subject of significant criticism in the scientific literature.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study titled “Quantifying the Uncertainty in Tribometer Measurements on Walkway Surfaces” (Siegmund, Brault, et al.) documented substantial variability in measurements:

• Different operators produced different results
• Different instruments produced different results
• Even repeated tests on the same surface could vary

When a test method cannot reliably reproduce the same result under the same conditions, it raises serious concerns about its suitability for assessing real-world safety.

Why Precision Matters

Slip resistance testing is not just an academic exercise—it directly impacts:

• Public safety
• Building design decisions
• Liability determinations

If a test device produces inconsistent results, it becomes difficult—if not impossible—to draw reliable conclusions about whether a surface is safe or hazardous.

That’s why precision and reproducibility are fundamental requirements of any scientific test method.

The Pendulum Difference

The pendulum test method (ASTM E303-22 and AFSA FS101-25) takes a different approach.

It is:

• A dynamic test that simulates the heel strike of a walking pedestrian
• Supported by decades of international research
• Used in dozens of countries worldwide
• Backed by established calibration and verification procedures

Most importantly, the pendulum has demonstrated strong interlaboratory consistency, meaning different operators and different instruments can obtain comparable results under controlled conditions.

A Global Perspective

Across much of the world—including the UK, Europe, Australia, and other regions—the pendulum test is widely accepted for evaluating slip resistance in both design and forensic contexts.

This broad international adoption reflects confidence in the method’s:

• Reliability
• Repeatability
• Relevance to real-world walking conditions

Safety Should Come First

Ultimately, the goal of slip resistance testing should be simple:

Identify hazardous surfaces before injuries occur

Reliable testing methods make that possible.
Unreliable methods create uncertainty—and uncertainty does not improve safety.

Watch the Full Video

In this video, we walk through:

• Why some commonly used devices produce inconsistent results
• What the scientific literature actually says
• Why dynamic testing methods provide a more reliable assessment

In Courtrooms – Precision Matters!

Final Thought

When it comes to floor safety, the question isn’t just “What number did you get?”

It’s:

“Can that number be trusted?”

The post Not All Slip Tests Are Created Equal: Why Precision Matters in Floor Safety appeared first on Safety Direct America.

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.