Which Council-Owned Pedestrian Surfaces Should Be Prioritised for Slip Testing?

Councils manage thousands of pedestrian surfaces across footpaths, buildings, aquatic centres, recreational facilities, car parks and public spaces.

Testing all of them at once is rarely necessary or practical.

A better approach is to distinguish between:

• surfaces requiring immediate repair;
• surfaces requiring inspection or monitoring;
• surfaces where objective slip testing will help resolve uncertainty.

The highest-profile asset is not always the highest-risk asset. Slip risk is often concentrated in secondary routes, intermittent wet areas, surface transitions and locations used by people who may be more seriously injured in a fall.

Inspection, testing and remediation are different priorities

Before establishing a testing program, councils should separate three types of action.

Inspection priority

The surface needs to be examined because of its location, age, use or exposure.

Testing priority

The surface appears intact, but its slip resistance is uncertain and an objective result will inform the management decision.

Remediation priority

The hazard is already clear enough that action should not be delayed while testing is arranged.

For example, a badly broken path may need immediate repair rather than slip testing.

A visually sound tiled ramp that becomes wet and has generated complaints may be a high testing priority because its performance cannot be established by inspection alone.

A five-factor prioritisation framework

Each pedestrian surface can be assessed against five factors:

1. exposure;
2. geometry;
3. use;
4. condition;
5. evidence.

This creates a repeatable method that can be applied across different asset types.

1. Exposure: what reaches the surface?

Begin by asking how likely the surface is to become wet or contaminated.

Sources may include:

• rain;
• tracked-in moisture;
• irrigation;
• drainage overflow;
• wet cleaning;
• food and drink;
• oil or vehicle residue;
• leaf litter;
• mud;
• moss;
• sand or gravel;
• water carried from pools or amenities.

WorkSafe Victoria identifies water, oil, dust and debris as contaminants that reduce friction. It also recommends considering weather, drainage, entrance matting and systems that contain or remove contamination.

Intermittently wet surfaces deserve particular attention.

They may look satisfactory when inspected on a dry day but behave differently during rain, cleaning or peak use.

2. Geometry: how demanding is the route?

Some designs require more traction from pedestrians.

Higher-priority locations may include:

• ramps;
• sloping footpaths;
• moving walkways eg travelators/escalators
• kerb ramps;
• stairs and landings;
• sharp turns;
• changes in gradient;
• wet-to-dry transitions;
• changes between materials;
• areas beside drains or grates.

Sloping outdoor surfaces can create greater slip risk than level surfaces, particularly where contaminants are present. WorkSafe Victoria also recommends that surfaces on ramps used by people with mobility restrictions provide greater grip than adjoining level areas.

A surface that might be manageable on the level may become less suitable when placed on a slope.

3. Use: how many people use it, and who are they?

Pedestrian volume affects both exposure and wear.

High-use areas may include:

• civic-centre entrances;
• libraries;
• customer-service centres;
• public toilets;
• town-centre footpaths;
• transport connections;
• aquatic and sporting facilities;
• event venues;
• principal car park routes.

User profile also matters.

A fall may have greater consequences where an area is frequently used by:

• older people;
• children;
• people with disability;
• people using walking aids;
• people pushing prams;
• visitors unfamiliar with the site;
• people carrying bags or equipment.

Libraries and community centres may not look like high-risk environments. Their users and entry conditions may nevertheless make them important priorities.

4. Condition: what has changed?

Review the surface for:

• visible polishing;
• worn texture;
• patch repairs;
• uneven finishes;
• coating breakdown;
• cracking;
• settlement;
• ponding;
• embedded contamination;
• differences between old and repaired sections.

Age is relevant, but it should not be the only trigger.

A new surface may also warrant testing where:

• the installed finish differs from the approved sample;
• a sealer was applied;
• drainage does not work as intended;
• complaints began soon after installation;
• the product documentation is unclear;
• the surface is used in wetter conditions than anticipated.

5. Evidence: what is already known?

A council register should capture more than formal injury reports.

Useful evidence includes:

• complaints;
• near misses;
• cleaning staff observations;
• requests for mats;
• repeated use of warning signs;
• maintenance call-outs;
• reports of ponding;
• previous testing;
• insurance notifications;
• people avoiding a route;
• changes in the use of the area.

WorkSafe Victoria recommends regular inspections, early reporting and systems for monitoring hazards, incidents, cleaning and maintenance.

Near misses are especially valuable because they indicate loss of stability without waiting for an injury to establish the priority.

Where do council registers commonly have gaps?

Connecting routes

Councils often document buildings but overlook the paths between them.

Examples include:

• car park to entrance;
• accessible parking to civic offices;
• library book return to footpath;
• paths to public toilets;
• connections between sports facilities;
• rear or after-hours entrances.

Boundaries between teams

Risk may be overlooked where responsibility shifts between:

• building management;
• parks staff;
• roads teams;
• cleaners;
• contractors;
• recreation staff.

Intermittent hazards

A surface may only become problematic:

• during rain;
• after irrigation;
• during wet cleaning;
• during events;
• when a drain blocks;
• when seasonal leaf or moss growth occurs.

Quiet facilities

Libraries, community halls and senior facilities may have fewer incidents but users who face greater consequences if a fall occurs.

Which asset types should usually be reviewed first?

The exact order will vary, but a sensible starting list includes:

1. aquatic centres and pool-related amenities;
2. accessible ramps and sloping routes;
3. exposed civic-building entrances;
4. public toilets and change rooms;
5. busy town-centre footpaths;
6. car park pedestrian routes;
7. outdoor tiles near drains or garden beds;
8. libraries and community facilities serving older residents;
9. locations with complaints, near misses or recurring matting;
10. newly treated, sealed or resurfaced areas.

This is not a universal ranking. It is a starting point for applying the five-factor framework.

What should a council testing register contain?

A useful register may record:

• asset and site name;
• precise location;
• surface material and finish;
• indoor or outdoor exposure;
• gradient;
• expected contaminants;
• pedestrian volume;
• user profile;
• incidents, complaints and near misses;
• cleaning method;
• maintenance history;
• product documentation;
• previous test dates and results;
• remedial work;
• retest date;
• responsible officer.

The register should allow the council to see why a location was prioritised, not merely when it was tested.

How should locations be ranked?

A simple classification may be sufficient:

Immediate action

The hazard is obvious and requires isolation or remediation.

High-priority testing

The surface is exposed to significant risk factors and its performance is uncertain.

Planned testing

Testing is needed as part of asset review, treatment verification or baseline recording.

Monitor

No immediate testing is required, but the location should remain under review.

Low priority

The surface has limited exposure, low pedestrian use and no evidence of deterioration or concern.

Testing should answer a management question

Before commissioning a test, identify what decision the result will support.

For example:

• Is the surface currently performing appropriately?
• Did the treatment improve the result?
• Are different sections of the route performing consistently?
• Should the surface be replaced?
• Does the cleaning system need to change?
• Which assets should be included in the next remediation program?

This prevents testing from becoming a box-ticking exercise disconnected from action.