Eyepro ratings and have etc

[sonofsammo]

Northern alliance had a site visit. This is the letter that received afterwards.

I'm confused, as by that reckoning my ess ice are unfit for Airsoft, but fine for an actual warzone...

View attachment 40140

View attachment 40141

 

[Druid799]

Sounds about right ! think it’s safe to say H&S is litigation driven now , f**k all to do with real safety concerns anymore ?‍

 

[Tommikka]

I'm confused, as by that reckoning my ess ice are unfit for Airsoft, but fine for an actual warzone...

Click to shrink...

Bear in mind that airsoft safety goggles are to protect your eyes from the BBs being shot at you for fun, ‘combat’ ballistic goggles are not there to protect your eyes from what is fired at you but from the gases dust and dirt that may be flying around in the area of your face, and if correctly rated to protect your eyes from the fragments that can occur 

 

[jcheeseright]

They need to expand their standards, the reason most eyepro is missing the EN166B rating is because the testing hasn't been done.  Any decent ballistic eyeshield will meet ANSI Z87+ though. 

 

[djben9]

Ive been hit in the eye area many times with these on as well as my ESSV12s, as have many others, but have you ever read the 'instruction' sheet that comes with your eye pro? , my Revision Locusts' one states, not for airsoft use!.....as JC said, its just a matter of testing and we know they can withstand the fragments etc. flying around as they are designed for that ....by adding that part though, if anyone wore them and got hurt, they are covered....as they know people will wear them because they know they are safe in their minds.....

http://www.garrettcontainer.com/revision/desert-locust-instructions.pdf

'3. Do not use this eyewear for paintball, airsoft or simulation training. Impact from a paintball or similar training ammunition can cause permanent damage to your eyes, even if you are wearing this eyewear.'

 

[sonofsammo]

Is there any actual eye wear that IS  specifically appropriate for our sport then?

This has potential to seriously narrow our options...

 

[Rogerborg]

They're not wrong.

However, they're not necessarily right either.

First, F rating means that it can withstand at least 0.88J, from an 0.86g steel BB.  The jump to B rating (16.2J) huge, and yet the few B rated glasses and goggles out there are not substantially thicker or more robust than the F rated ones.

Consider: Bolle Tracker II Clear and Smoke are both B impact rated.  The yellow lens is ostensibly F rated.

Is it reasonable to assume that Bolle would use 16.2J lenses in two out of three versions, but that the yellow version just barely scrapes past 0.88J?  It's only 5% as strong?

A reasonable interpretation would be that grade F means somewhere in the range 0.88J to 16.2J.  Most of that range covers airsoft use, and remember that testing is done using 6mm steel rather than elastic, frangible plastic BBs.  The worse case scenario in the UK would be a ~2.3J  impact from a ~0.5g plastic BB.  I'd be surprised if that actually penetrated any genuine F rated lens.  However, there's only one way to know for sure.

Which is the second point.  I stress "genuine", because anyone can claim that their eyepro meets any standard that they like.  Who's checking?  They're self certified.  Unlike with motorcycle helmets, there's nowhere that you can go to check.  And even if you could, and even if a company's eyepro had been submitted for testing, and even if it had passed, that says nothing about what actually makes it through production.  Remember, China is a nation where businesses poison babies to increase profits.

If you want to be sure that eye protection can take a point blank 2.3J / 0.5g sniper shot, the only way to know is to test each individual item on site.

Anything less is Health and Safety theatre.

 

[EvilMonkee]

Rogerborg beat me to it - the standard is for a steel BB.  Nice to see H&S lot don't even know their own standards or understand airsoft.  Also, is it even a H&S at work activity?  For the Marshalls, yes, but players can hardly be said to come under employees...There is an obvious duty of care but not sure that this legislation is the correct one to apply here.

 

[Rogerborg]

There is an obvious duty of care

Click to shrink...

Is there?

Sites should be very, very careful, now, about admitting to any duty of care, either explicitly, or implicitly by behaviour.  Trying to do the right thing is admirable, but it's making a rod for your own back when you fail to do what you said you'd do, don't prevent what you said you'd prevent, or fail to take reasonable actions to ameliorate a danger of which you were demonstrably aware.

If it's site policy to chrono all guns, who's responsible when one slips through?

Policing eyepro would be even worse, given the plethora in use and the very small amount that's actually B rated.

It's already risky enough running a business, or even volunteer activities post Vowles, without putting yourself on the hook for enforcing PPE.

And if anyone's under the illusion that the novelty-purposes disclaimers and waivers that sites get players to sign actually have any force, I'd like to disabuse you of that notion.  You cannot waiver away your statutory right to redress for death or personal injury resulting from negligence (Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977).

It's easy to declare that you'd never do anything as churlish as sue a site because of your own idiocy, but if you're missing an eye, or laid up with a wrecked leg while mortgage demands pile up on the mat,  you might find your principles wavering.

 

[gasman]

I believe that any site would do its best to protect the people that pay their wages and that all are powerless to do so.

There will always be idiots that fire guns too hot and there will always be people that buy cheap crap and expect it to protect them.

I believe that BB weight should be limited to stop excessive joule creep as it is the snipers with very heavy BBs that do the damage to eye protection.

 

[EvilMonkee]

I think you would be hard pressed to argue in court that a reasonable duty of care to customers doesn't exist. 

That being said, as anyone with knowledge of UK law will attest to, the definition of 'reasonable' is vague and always comes down to interpretation of a judge.  I agree I don't think it would be reasonable to test all eyepro but it would be reasonable to say, have a site inspection and go so far as to not have a dangerous site. 

There is only so much airsoft sites can do to offset their responsibilities.  Now, on what legal basis that duty of care should be is beyond me.

It will only be decided when someone does decide to sue an airsoft site over an injury real or otherwise.  If I was still at Uni it might have made an interesting dissertation - Litigation in Airsoft.....

 

[Nick G]

My Bolle Trackers have taken several direct hits with no issues at all, very first hit I took in airsoft was right in the eye pro !. Interestingly though someone at the game on Sunday did have his eye pro break when hit by a sniper not sure what brand it was, and the site chronos all guns using 'game weight' BB's so what ever hit him should have been inside the joule limit. Eye pro, not an area to skimp on !

 

[E21A]

Not sure of the rating of my ESS V12 bit an ex army mate’s first hand experience of them stopping a piece is shrapnel was good enough for me! 

 

[Tommikka]

Is there any actual eye wear that IS  specifically appropriate for our sport then?

This has potential to seriously narrow our options...

Click to shrink...

Yes

I don’t like the use of ballistic glasses for airsoft based on their impact rating alone, the council H&S Officer and ESS as a manufacturer agree

https://www.esseyepro.com/airsoft

ESS recommend full cover of the eye area - goggles that seal around the eyes giving both impact protection, the surrounding area and dislodging.

I have seen Marshall’s take BBs in the side of their glasses, fortunately not with any injury

 

[Immortal]

I'll take a Health & Safety Officers opinion with a pinch of salt. If they didn't find an issue they wouldn't have a job.

 

[Guest]

www.esseyepro.com/airsoft

ESS recommend full cover of the eye area - goggles that seal around the eyes giving both impact protection, the surrounding area and dislodging.

Click to shrink...

MPA in Hockley (CQB site) only allow full masks or goggles, no glasses 

 

[Tiercel]

And if anyone's under the illusion that the novelty-purposes disclaimers and waivers that sites get players to sign actually have any force, I'd like to disabuse you of that notion.  You cannot waiver away your statutory right to redress for death or personal injury resulting from negligence (Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977).

Click to shrink...

Ive always wondered just exactly what those waivers are for. My local site says at every briefing that "they are insured as a site, but they cannot insure the players against injury as you are coming here to get injured... those little BB marks that break the skin are technically injuries." 

So what exactly ARE they insured for?

 

[Tommikka]

Ive always wondered just exactly what those waivers are for. My local site says at every briefing that "they are insured as a site, but they cannot insure the players against injury as you are coming here to get injured... those little BB marks that break the skin are technically injuries." 

So what exactly ARE they insured for?

Click to shrink...

A pointless waiver says things like “I accept that the site has no responsibility at all”, a proper waiver says things like “I understand that this is a strenuous activity and people will be shooting at me, the woods can be hazardous with trips & falls, I won’t be a dick, I’ll pay attention and keep to the safety rules” plus things such as “the site May take photos which could be used for publicity”

They should have public liability insurance which would cover things such as legal costs if a claim for damages is made against the business, cover for damages incurred to someone or their property because accidents do happen.

They can be insured for theft (and assuming they are remote that they will remove equipment and store it elsewhere, have cctv & alarm systems that alert the owners), accidents on site such as a tree falling onto cars in the car park, but will minimise covering just trips and falls

 

[gasman]

Our site banned Nuprol BBs as they shatter into small sharp pieces which go through mesh eye-pro.

Players were quite resentful when told not to bring them on site and any found would be confiscated till the end of play.

Any player found using them would be asked to leave.

This was done for every ones safety but people don't like being told what they cannot use.

I am surprised shops are still selling Nuprol BBs. Perhaps when they are sued for blinding a player. Would the insurer pay out then sue Nuprol to recover their costs. HUMM

 

[Rogerborg]

Ive always wondered just exactly what those waivers are for. My local site says at every briefing that "they are insured as a site, but they cannot insure the players against injury as you are coming here to get injured... those little BB marks that break the skin are technically injuries." 

So what exactly ARE they insured for?

Click to shrink...

Negligence that results in death or personal injury.

Being injured by BBs is not negligence.  It's why you're there.

If you step on a nail that's been left sticking out the floor in the safe zone and get the Bad AIDsbola, that's negligence, even if it's not game related.

You should feel free to ignore their opinion on what they're responsible for.  Just because they say it doesn't make it so.