This video is more than just a visual demonstration. It represents a broader effort to promote scientifically reliable, real-world floor safety testing methods that better reflect how people actually walk and interact with surfaces.

AFSA FS101-26 Pendulum Slip Resistance Test in Action

In this field test, the pendulum instrument is used to evaluate wet slip resistance on an elevated outdoor walkway surface overlooking Los Angeles.

The purpose of the demonstration is to show:

how dynamic slip resistance testing is performed in the field,
how wet pedestrian surfaces can be evaluated objectively,
and why repeatable, evidence-based methods matter when assessing real-world slip risk.

Why the Pendulum Test Matters

The pendulum test, including methods derived from ASTM E303, has decades of international use and research behind it. Unlike many static coefficient-of-friction devices, pendulum testing is designed to simulate dynamic heel-strike interaction during walking.

Rather than asking whether a floor is simply “slippery” or “not slippery,” the pendulum test helps quantify slip potential using a repeatable methodology that has been studied and applied worldwide.

This is especially important in:

wet environments,
outdoor walkways,
elevated surfaces,
rooftop pedestrian areas,
pool decks,
and other locations where traction can change significantly when contaminants are present.

Introducing AFSA FS101-26

The American Floor Safety Alliance (AFSA) was formed to help advance scientifically credible floor safety methodologies and improve understanding of pedestrian traction and slip resistance.

AFSA FS101-26 represents part of that effort by promoting practical, transparent, and evidence-based testing approaches that can be performed in real-world environments — not just controlled laboratory settings.

Real-World Testing Matters

Beautiful architecture and scenic environments do not eliminate slip hazards. In fact, modern rooftop surfaces, luxury installations, and decorative exterior materials can sometimes present significant traction challenges when wet.

That is why objective field testing matters.

Real-world slip resistance assessment helps:

identify potential hazards,
improve pedestrian safety,
reduce preventable accidents,
and support more informed decisions regarding flooring materials and maintenance practices.

Watch the Demonstration

This rooftop pendulum test overlooking Los Angeles offers a simple but powerful reminder:

Better science leads to safer walkways.

Watch the full video demonstration and learn more about the importance of reliable floor safety testing.

The post High Above Los Angeles: AFSA FS101-26 Pendulum Testing in the Real World appeared first on Safety Direct America.

That is why I recently wrote an opinion piece published by International Business Times discussing what I believe is a growing problem in the floor safety industry.

Read the full article here:
International Business Times Opinion Piece

Why I Made This Video

The short video accompanying this post is a direct introduction to the concerns raised in the article.

Too often, floors are labeled “safe” using testing methods that:

Lack meaningful precision
Produce inconsistent results between operators
Fail to reflect real-world pedestrian movement
Continue to be used despite significant scientific criticism

Meanwhile, internationally recognized dynamic methods like the ASTM E303 and AFSA FS101-25 continue to demonstrate strong repeatability and decades of successful use around the world.

This is not about taking sides in litigation.

It is about ensuring that:

building owners,
attorneys,
architects,
insurers,
and courts

have access to reliable, scientifically defensible information.

A Call for Better Standards

The purpose of speaking publicly about these issues is not controversy for the sake of controversy. The goal is to encourage the adoption of more reliable, evidence-based approaches to floor safety.

In my opinion, the United States has fallen behind much of the world when it comes to meaningful slip resistance assessment. That needs to change.

The stakes are real:

preventable injuries,
unsafe flooring conditions,
and legal outcomes influenced by questionable methodology.

Better science leads to better safety.

Moving the Conversation Forward

I believe the future of floor safety depends on:

scientifically reliable testing,
transparency,
repeatability,
and methods that correlate to real-world pedestrian movement.

That is a major reason behind the formation of the American Floor Safety Alliance (AFSA) — an organization focused on advancing credible, practical, and evidence-based floor safety standards.

Watch the Video and Read the Article

I encourage you to watch the video, read the full opinion piece, and consider the broader implications for safety, liability, and public trust.

Professional “Experts” Are to Blame!

Read the article here:
International Business Times Opinion Piece

The post The Floor Beneath Your Feet Has Been Compromised — Why I Spoke Out in International Business Times appeared first on Safety Direct America.

That question is at the heart of my latest opinion piece published in International Business Times.

The article examines a growing concern within the floor safety industry: the disconnect between scientifically repeatable slip resistance testing and the methods that are still too often relied upon in litigation, construction specifications, and expert testimony.

Why This Conversation Matters

Slip-and-fall accidents are not trivial events. They can lead to serious injuries, life-altering disabilities, and enormous financial consequences for businesses and property owners. Yet despite the seriousness of these incidents, many people remain unaware that some historically used testing devices and standards have faced significant scientific criticism.

In the article, I discuss how several ASTM floor safety standards associated with static coefficient-of-friction testing methods were ultimately withdrawn. In some cases, the standards lacked approved precision statements. In others, the methods failed to reliably distinguish dangerously slippery surfaces from safer ones.

At the same time, internationally recognized dynamic testing methods — particularly pendulum-based methodologies — have continued to evolve and gain acceptance across Europe, Australia, Asia, and many other parts of the world.

Precision Matters

One of the central themes of the article is precision and repeatability.

If a scientific instrument cannot produce consistent, repeatable results, its usefulness in safety assessment becomes questionable. This is especially important in legal disputes where expert testimony can heavily influence outcomes.

The public deserves better than inconsistent methodologies. Architects deserve better guidance. Property owners deserve more reliable risk assessment tools. And courts deserve scientifically defensible data.

That does not mean every floor is either “safe” or “unsafe.” Real-world floor safety is more nuanced than that. But it does mean we should prioritize testing methods that have demonstrated reliability, reproducibility, and meaningful correlation to pedestrian slip risk.

A Global Perspective on Floor Safety

One of the biggest misconceptions in the United States is that domestic practices automatically represent the global scientific consensus. In reality, much of the world has moved toward dynamic slip testing methods that better simulate actual pedestrian movement.

The pendulum test, for example, has been used internationally for decades and continues to serve as a foundational methodology in numerous countries because of its repeatability and extensive research history.

As someone who has spent years studying floor safety standards and performing slip resistance evaluations, I believe the conversation must continue moving toward evidence-based methodology rather than legacy assumptions.

This Is About Prevention

The goal is not litigation. The goal is prevention.

When scientifically credible testing is used properly, dangerous surfaces can often be identified before injuries occur. That benefits everyone:

• pedestrians,
• businesses,
• architects,
• insurers,
• and the legal system itself.

Floor safety should not be driven by outdated assumptions or unreliable measurements. It should be driven by data.

Read the Full International Business Times Article

You can read the full opinion piece here:

The Floor Beneath Your Feet Has Been Compromised — Paid Expertise Holds Blame

For additional information about pendulum slip testing and modern floor safety methodology, visit our page on pendulum testing

or visit the American Floor Safety Alliance

The post The Floor Beneath Your Feet Has Been Compromised — Why This International Business Times Article Matters appeared first on Safety Direct America.

A friend of ours, Greg, built a stunning teak wood walkway in his backyard. He absolutely loved the look of it — but every year to year-and-a-half, the same frustrating cycle would begin. The wood would start turning gray, fading from UV exposure, drying out, cracking, and eventually deteriorating to the point where sections needed replacement.

This time, Greg decided to try something different.

After refinishing the teak, he applied a protective topcoat of SparkleTuff Anti-Slip Floor Coating.

One year later, the results have been remarkable.

The wood still looks rich, glossy, and beautiful — almost like it was freshly installed. Instead of drying out and fading, the surface maintains a deep “wet look” appearance while remaining completely slip-resistant, even when wet.

Why Exterior Wood Normally Fails So Quickly

Outdoor wood surfaces take a tremendous amount of abuse:

• Constant UV exposure breaks down finishes and dries out the wood
• Moisture intrusion causes expansion, contraction, and cracking
• Rain and humidity accelerate fading and deterioration
• Foot traffic wears away protective coatings
• Traditional sealers often provide little real durability
• Many coatings become dangerously slippery when wet

Teak is naturally durable, but even teak eventually suffers when exposed to the elements year-round.

That’s where SparkleTuff changes the equation.

A Protective, Slip-Resistant Topcoat for Wood

SparkleTuff can be applied as a durable anti-slip protective topcoat over:

• Teak wood
• Hardwood walkways
• Engineered wood
• Pool decks
• Outdoor stairs
• Boardwalks
• Composite decking
• Previously stained or sealed wood surfaces

After applying your preferred stain, polyurethane, color treatment, or wood finish, SparkleTuff can be installed as the final protective layer.

The result is a durable, UV-resistant, anti-slip surface that helps preserve the beauty of the wood while dramatically extending its lifespan.

The “Wet Look” Without the Slipperiness

One of Greg’s favorite things about the finished walkway is the appearance.

The coating gives the teak a rich, deep, wet-look finish that enhances the natural grain and color of the wood. Unlike many glossy coatings that become slick and hazardous when wet, SparkleTuff was specifically engineered to provide long-term slip resistance.

So instead of choosing between beauty and safety, you get both.

Designed to Last

Perhaps the biggest surprise has been the durability.

Normally, Greg expected to repair or replace sections of the walkway every year or two. But after a full year with SparkleTuff protecting the surface, the wood still looks outstanding.

No graying.
No major fading.
No cracking.
No deterioration.

Just a beautiful, protected, slip-resistant surface that still looks freshly finished.

Protect Real Wood and Engineered Wood Surfaces

Whether you’re working with real hardwood, teak, engineered wood, or composite wood products, SparkleTuff can help create a safer, longer-lasting surface.

Instead of constantly refinishing or replacing weather-damaged wood, SparkleTuff helps lock in the beauty of the surface while adding:

• Slip resistance
• UV protection
• Scratch resistance
• Moisture protection
• Long-term durability
• Enhanced appearance
  

  

  For outdoor wood surfaces that need to look beautiful and stay safe, SparkleTuff offers a powerful solution that keeps wood looking rich, glossy, and protected for years to come.

The post Protecting Teak Wood Walkways with SparkleTuff: Slip-Resistant, UV-Protected, and Built to Last appeared first on Safety Direct America.

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.