Have to be honest, we've only gone as far as the Kenny to give us a feeling for significant issues. Even then it's usually after an incident; our local risk assessments tend to look at everything but the floor's properties.

You might also ask as part of your research "where slips or slippery floors are identified in risk assessments, what organisations opted for the cheapest mitigation against best mitigation until an actual slip occurred?"

Our floors like most people’s floors are ok as long as they are dry. Once they get wet then all bets are off. So rather than spend time deciding on the optimum flooring material we should be looking at ways of: a. Preventing them from getting wet, eg making sure that liquids are always transported in closed vessels (including cups of tea and coffee!) and fitting decent mats at the entrances. b. Having a decent system for reporting and dealing with spillages. Most of our slips and trips occur outdoors but that’s another story.

But surely the CoF is dependent on the footwear that people are wearing. So unless you are in a controlled environment where everyone is wearing the same brand and make of shoe this becomes a bit of a moot point. At the moment in my workplace (a very large office based building) we have people walking around in anything from 4 inch stilletto shoes to flip flops.

As the title says - "Slips & Trips - are we doing enough". In a word, No !! I've recently sent out an FOI request to local councils throughout the UK asking: a. The total number of business premises that fall within your control b. The total number of businesses that you have conducted slip resistance testing upon c. The methodology of slip resistance test carried out d. The resultant figures obtained from tests carried out e. The follow up action carried out as a result of tests f. The total number of reported slip accidents that you have received. Responses are still coming in daily (I will publish to a Blog when complete) but with only one or two exceptions (Out of around 70 responses) the answers are a big fat zero to any kind of testing. This is from Council H&S/EHO departments!! Be under no illusions - H&S is being driven by the Insurance industry NOT the HSE. So unless you're subject to a steady stream of Personal Injury claimants, I'll be stunned if you come under pressure from the HSE enforcement side of things. The only pressure (in my experience) that businesses come under is from their Insurers when they come to renew their Public Liabilities policy. Try having 2-3 car crashes in a year and see how your premiums rise! As for measurement of COF - I test floors for PI solicitors and Loss adjusters on a daily basis, expert witness in Courts etc etc - and have never been asked the COF. I know how to arrive at it and always publish it in my CPR (para 35) compliant reports, BUT all the client (on either side) is ever interested in is the Pendulum Test value (sometimes refered to as SRV) in the wet as defined by the Pendulum test. Forget the Kenny, it's utterly utterly pointless. Rz tells you nothing I was recently in Court against a well known Supermarket who put up a big legal team against me to prove that their much vaunted cleaning regime was excellent and they were in no-way to blame for Mrs X's injuries. I pointed out that cleaning the surfaces 10 times a day was not going to raise the PTV of an R9 tile to above 36 - EVER. Quite simply, their Architects/FMs had specified the wrong rating of floor tile. I won substantial damages for the Claimant. Need any advice? - drop me a PM. Always happy to help

I must live and work on a different planet! We are an utilities company (water) and our guys work outside in all weather conditions and in various terrain, e.g. steep hills, fields, riverbanks with mud, rain, dew, grass, wet leaves etc. therefore risk is high. 98% of this activity is not on our land / floors. Control measures: we provide suitable (normal safety footwear) and are trialling walking poles + we trust our employees to take care. One slip claim in last 3 years against company - slip in field, which the insurance company settled out of court since we had not completed a risk assessment !! In our offices/stores: Risk is much lower and shoes used vary (dependant on wearer (including members of public at our customer accounts section) and external conditions). Control measures: we try to keep floors clean and dry (not always possible in yard / door entrances etc.) Would we bother with CoF measurements / pendulum tests? Never in a million years. Could (would) we change the floor conditions internal / external if the values were deemed "unsafe" - No. Like a car MOT, I doubt whether any measurements would be of any use if someone was to slip. Let the insurers take the risk, its part of the overall risk management process which we H&S professionals / managers should take. All the best to those of you who have the time / inclination / moneys to do all this work / effort.

Our only "serious injury was a lass who fell over in the car park. When I sugggested that her 4" heels might be a factor, I was evidently being a sexist who wanted to oppress women.

FloorTester I'm not sure how your web link addresses the issue I raise. Is allowance made for how people behave depending on how slippery they think a surface is going to be?

This is not an issue I have ever dealt with. I'm interested in your reference to 'rules.' According to the UKSRG website "There are various regulations that apply to different premises, and different activities, but essentially they all require that the floor is not slippery in normal use. None of the regulations define the level of slip resistance required, or the test protocols that should be followed." In all aspects of H&S we need to be careful to differentiate between rules and guidelines.

Was she issued with PPE footwear and chose not to use them?? If so, she's the author of her own misfortune

I'm particularly interested in the potential for walking poles as a method to reduce STF's in the great outdoors. How's the trial going and what are the cons you've encountered with this? In terms of STF's then anything indoors has got to be fairly easy to manage on a day to day basis with some good process in place. That's not to say there's not issues but I'd welcome the ability to effectively manage and control the risks within an office environment. Additionally, there's a lot to be said for carpet tiling! The big problem we face is that our staff are exposed to loose and uneven underfoot conditions daily and that's just one of the challenges.

I am not that worried about our floors or carparks but I am concerned about slips trips and falls out inn the foiled. I have staff working on farms, forestry, and moorland in fact any sort of terrain. I’d be interested in finding out from Evans post #12 about walking poles. Are they any use? And will people use them? After all they might be seen as just another piece of kit to carry. PS We have had an incident out in the field and the individuals lawyers tried to imply that the Workplace regs- reg 12 ‘Condition of floors and traffic routes’ applied to a farmers field despite the fact the reg 3(4) of the above regs specifically excludes farmland and reg 4 makes it clear that the requirement only applies to areas under the employer control (we are not farmers). Makes you wonder how their minds work.

Sorry my spelling is appalling today! here & hear

The level set is 36 not 46 - wet & dry

Yes it's all about exercising your "Duty of Care" to your employees. You've provided the equipment, if they choose to leave it in the van then it's their problem. As you say - reasonably practicable.

O yes - 3 days course organised by NEBOSH on how to walk + certificate

One of the other posts on here refers to the human ability to determine slippery surfaces and adjust our walking accordingly. Outdoors in a natural environment and wearing sensible safetyu shoes we can do that remarkably well = far better than the best robotic walker. However your MOT and insurance analogy is interesting and relevant for man-made flooring. No inusrance company will insure a car without an MOT and the same should apply to floors. It is not always possible to tell when a floor is slippery and that is why slips account for 10,000+ major injuries every year. Your advice to let insuarance companies pick up the tab is one reason why the level of major injuries caused by slipping has risen year on year for the last 7 years. Insurance companies should force businesses to conduct MOT's for floors.

One of my earliest memories is playing hopscotch on the badly laid, uneven pavement outside our house http://www.hse.gov.uk/ne...t/kidsoutdoors070612.htm

Related to another thread re: postmen slipping on pavements. There must be a great opportunity for someone to make a fortune measuring the coefficient of friction for all pavements / driveways across the country

We've had instructions already !!