Yes.

A pedestrian surface may have satisfied an applicable building requirement or achieved a laboratory slip-resistance classification and still create a foreseeable slip risk in use.

This does not necessarily mean the requirement was inadequate or the original product certificate was invalid. It means that different forms of evidence answer different questions.

A product test tells you how a new sample performed under specified conditions.

A building requirement tells you what was required for a defined building element or application.

An in-situ test tells you how the installed surface is performing at the location and time tested.

Treating any one of these as a permanent guarantee can leave important risks unexamined.

What does compliance actually establish?

Compliance relates to a defined requirement, test method, building element and point in time.

For example, the National Construction Code includes slip-resistance requirements for stair treads, ramps and certain landing areas. Those requirements refer to classifications obtained through AS 4586:2013 testing.

Evidence that the relevant material or building element met that requirement is important. It may show that:

• an appropriate classification was specified;
• a product sample achieved the required classification;
• the relevant construction requirement was addressed;
• documentation existed at the time of selection or installation.

It does not necessarily establish:

• that every pedestrian surface at the site was covered by that requirement;
• that the installed finish was identical to the tested sample;
• that the surface has not changed;
• that water, contamination and cleaning are being controlled;
• that the location remains suitable for its current use;
• that a slip can never occur.

Compliance is therefore a baseline, not a permanent warranty covering every future operating condition.

Three different questions

Slip risk becomes easier to understand when the evidence is separated into three questions.

1. How did the new product perform?

Laboratory testing under AS 4586:2013 can classify a new pedestrian surface material under the applicable test method.

This evidence is useful for:

• • product development;
  • specification;
  • tendering;
  • product comparison;
  • pre-installation documentation.

It relates to the sample tested and the conditions recorded in the laboratory report.

2. What was required for the building element?

Building requirements may specify minimum classifications or other construction measures for particular elements such as ramps, stair treads and landings.

This is a design and construction question.

3. How is the installed surface performing now?

Once a surface has been installed and used, its current performance may be assessed through in-situ testing under AS 4663:2013.

This is an operational and asset-management question.

The three forms of evidence can support one another, but one should not be expected to answer all three questions.

Why can the risk change after installation?

An installed surface is exposed to conditions that may not have existed when the laboratory sample was tested.

Its performance may be affected by:

• construction residue;
• sealers or coatings;
• polishing;
• repeated pedestrian traffic;
• trolley movement;
• cleaning chemicals;
• inadequate rinsing;
• oil, dust or organic contamination;
• weather exposure;
• repairs;
• drainage problems;
• deterioration of the surface texture.

WorkSafe Victoria advises that floors may cease to provide sufficient grip because of age, wear, damage, contamination or unsuitable cleaning. It also notes that a surface originally selected for one use may no longer suit its current use.

The original product evidence may remain accurate as a record of the sample tested. It simply may no longer describe the whole operating environment.

Why is the surface only one part of slip risk?

A slip occurs when there is insufficient traction between a person’s foot or footwear and the walking surface.

The likelihood of that happening is affected by a wider system:

• the surface;
• water or other contamination;
• slope;
• changes in surface;
• footwear;
• pedestrian speed and direction;
• loads being carried or pushed;
• lighting;
• drainage;
• cleaning;
• maintenance;
• the physical capabilities of the user.

A floor may have an appropriate classification and still form part of a foreseeable risk when several of these factors combine.

WorkSafe Victoria gives the example of an external hospital ramp that was objectively assessed as slip resistant but still presented increased risk because of uneven slope, rain exposure, heavy trolleys, worn footwear and inadequate cleaning.

That is the central distinction: slip resistance is important, but it does not operate alone.

What does foreseeable risk mean?

A foreseeable slip risk is one that can reasonably be anticipated from the environment, surface condition or way the location is used.

It does not require a previous injury.

Indicators may include:

• regular wetting;
• ponding or poor drainage;
• a sloping pedestrian route;
• visible polishing;
• cleaning residue;
• repeated use of temporary warning signs;
• mats added informally by staff;
• complaints that an area feels slippery;
• slips or near misses;
• pedestrians holding walls, rails or furniture for stability;
• abrupt transitions between different surfaces;
• a high proportion of older or mobility-impaired users.

A lack of recorded incidents does not prove that the risk is absent. It may only mean that the relevant combination of circumstances has not yet produced a reported event.

Can a surface be suitable in one location but unsuitable in another?

Yes.

A surface appropriate for a protected internal corridor may not be appropriate for:

• an exposed building entrance;
• an external ramp;
• a pool concourse;
• a commercial kitchen;
• a public toilet;
• an outdoor tiled area near drainage;
• a car park pedestrian route.

WorkSafe Victoria recommends considering the intended activity, environmental conditions, likely contamination, wet and dry performance, users and cleaning requirements when selecting flooring.

The relevant question is not simply whether the product has a rating.

It is whether the product, installation and management system suit the foreseeable conditions at that location.

Where do organisations commonly go wrong?

Relying only on the original certificate

The certificate may relate to a new sample rather than the installed and maintained surface.

Assuming visual appearance proves performance

A surface can appear clean and undamaged while residue, polishing or treatment has reduced its grip.

Treating warning signs as a permanent control

A warning sign may alert pedestrians to a temporary hazard. It does not correct an unsuitable surface, recurring contamination or poor drainage.

Testing only after an incident

Testing can also be used proactively where the location, use or condition indicates foreseeable risk.

Assuming all areas with the same product perform identically

Wear, installation, slope, exposure and cleaning can vary from one location to another.

What should a sound risk-management system include?

A practical system should connect the original specification with the current condition of the asset.

It may include:

1. a register of pedestrian surfaces;
2. product and installation records;
3. inspection of wet, sloping and high-use areas;
4. records of complaints, near misses and incidents;
5. review of cleaning and maintenance;
6. risk-based selection of locations for testing;
7. clear interpretation of results;
8. remedial action where required;
9. verification after treatment;
10. periodic review.

Testing is most valuable where an objective result will affect a decision.

A visibly broken path may simply require repair. A visually sound tiled entrance that becomes wet and has uncertain performance may be a stronger candidate for testing.

When should an existing surface be tested?

Testing may be appropriate where:

• water or contamination is foreseeable;
• the surface is sloping;
• it carries high pedestrian traffic;
• vulnerable users are exposed;
• the floor appears polished or worn;
• a coating or treatment has been applied;
• cleaning methods have changed;
• complaints or incidents have occurred;
• the installed finish does not clearly match the product report;
• the organisation needs baseline evidence for an asset register.

AS 4663:2013 testing can provide evidence of how the existing surface is performing under the specified test conditions.

Keep in mind that once a coating is installed the previous COF test results are void.

Compliance and current risk are both important

The correct conclusion is not that compliance is meaningless.

Compliance is essential.

The problem arises when evidence created for design, selection or construction is treated as though it permanently resolves every operational risk.

A stronger approach connects:

• laboratory testing before installation;
• appropriate specification and construction;
• inspection, cleaning and maintenance;
• in-situ testing where current performance is uncertain.

That is how compliance becomes part of an active risk-management system rather than a document retrieved only after an incident.