Same at green ops liphook. A ucap site. No trainers, flip flops or evening slippers. ?
Airsoft Forums UK
Shamal
RostokMcSpoons
My dad owned a DIY shop near Bedford. I'd work there at weekends... during the winter I'd have to scrape away the snow and ice on the pavement outside the shop. Hard work.
Then a lawyer told him that if someone slipped on the pavement that had been cleared away, perhaps because some melted snow had re-frozen - he'd be liable for damages.
I didn't have to scrape the pavement any more. Yay!
Then a lawyer told him that if someone slipped on the pavement that had been cleared away, perhaps because some melted snow had re-frozen - he'd be liable for damages.
I didn't have to scrape the pavement any more. Yay!
Rogerborg
I agree that it's a sensible policy. But as Rostok notes, once you make yourself responsible for implementing it, you're then making yourself liable for not implementing it perfectly.
It turns out that it's a clause from their insurer. The way I interpret that is that their insurer doesn't want to be paying out for ankle injuries. So when someone does twist an ankle anyway, the site will be in the position of having allowed "unsuitable" footwear, and (notionally) their insurer can try and claw back any payout from them.
Since they're not specifying any particular PPE standard, or any process for checking or recording that they've been checked, all they can really say is "well, they must have looked OK" (but weren't).
The same already applies to eyepro, of course. <dramatic-gopher.gif>
It turns out that it's a clause from their insurer. The way I interpret that is that their insurer doesn't want to be paying out for ankle injuries. So when someone does twist an ankle anyway, the site will be in the position of having allowed "unsuitable" footwear, and (notionally) their insurer can try and claw back any payout from them.
Since they're not specifying any particular PPE standard, or any process for checking or recording that they've been checked, all they can really say is "well, they must have looked OK" (but weren't).
The same already applies to eyepro, of course. <dramatic-gopher.gif>
Asomodai
As someone with pretty bad toe arthritis, I do struggle wearing boots. If it is too bad I will end up wearing trail runners and a separate ankle support. Which is better then nothing.
Druid799
How do they define ‘ankle protection’ ? Do they stipulate a minimum ankle hight ? Rigidity to said boot ? what about someone wearing jungle boots ? They give zero ankle protection or someone wearing rigger boots their fairly high but are for impact protection not lateral ankle movement injury prevention . Whereas a pair of good quality trekking shoes will protect your ankle so much bet due to the good quality tread preventing lose of traction and balance ?
Does seem as if there opening themselves wide open .
Does seem as if there opening themselves wide open .
Rogerborg
Only what I quoted. And yes, that's exactly the problem, they don't define it.
I expect their thinking is "We can't go wrong if we just prohibit trainers when we see them." That's what a human would think.
I fear that a lawyer might think very differently.
I expect their thinking is "We can't go wrong if we just prohibit trainers when we see them." That's what a human would think.
I fear that a lawyer might think very differently.
Lozart
Sounds like it's time to dust off the old Hi-Tec basketball boots!
Them "you can't wear them, they're trainers"
Me "ah but they're boots"
Them *disappears in a frustrated puff of logic*
Them "you can't wear them, they're trainers"
Me "ah but they're boots"
Them *disappears in a frustrated puff of logic*
