Someone f**ked up !

[Guest]

The law says you must wear a seatbelt, the level of eyepro a person wears at an airsoft game is entirely their own lookout.

much like how some people will ride a motorcycle in shorts, not illegal, their choice!

Oh yes, not the law, but risk/benefit says it’s not worth it

 

[Tommikka]

.....

Although, Ben of Stirling wears the same glasses but smaller. He owns the company though so there's no comeback. 

......

There is a comeback with a higher power.

Have a little concerned word with the HSE, local council, or find out who insures the site.

The most extreme outcome being powers that can force a business to cease trading until they comply with safe practices.

Having the owner wear suitable eye protection ought not to take such drastic action as shutting the place down, but if they don’t take friendly advice ...

 

[Druid799]

All comes down to just because something isn’t prohibited doesn’t mean you should do it , example there’s no law in the UK that says your not allowed to walk on the road bar motorways and ones that specify no pedestrians allowed, but just because you can won’t mean there’ll be hundreds of people walking along the road will it ? You use personal judgement on wether an action will have a neutral/positive or negative result , and act on that .

If you don’t and you get hit by a truck coming the other way then sorry bud you just proved mr Darwin was right ! ?‍

 

[EDcase]

You say that, he plays every other weekend with that eyepro and has done for years and years... some kind of magic bb proof eyeballs I guess!

He's obviously been lucky so far but it only takes one incident and an eye is gone for good ?

It doesn't bother me if anyone wants to take that risk but if an accident did happen then what would be the legal responsibility for the shooter?  Even though players sign a waiver I don't know the legal extent they would cover.

They might still be vulnerable to be sued knowing they were shooting at someone without proper eye pro...

 

[Tackle]

People are crazy not wearing full seal goggles. Even full seal goggles aren't particularly safe, this happened when wearing revision desert locust. A BB ricocheted off my half facemask through into my goggles. Luckily it hit below my eye. 

Wear good eye protection always (better yet, full face)! especially in CQB. 

View attachment 45135

ouch, wearing borrowed goggles I took a bb into the little fleshy bit in the corner of the eye, the caruncula lacrimalis, Jesus, think of the worst kick in nuts & multiply it by ten, literally left me in a heap on the floor until the pain eased

 

[Lasbrisas17]

ouch, wearing borrowed goggles I took a bb into the little fleshy bit in the corner of the eye, the caruncula lacrimalis, Jesus, think of the worst kick in nuts & multiply it by ten, literally left me in a heap on the floor until the pain eased

that sounds awful, hopefully your vision is fine!

 

[Tackle]

that sounds awful, hopefully your vision is fine!

thanks, no lasting damage thankfully but at the time it felt like it had pierced the eye.

had only borrowed goggles as mine became faulty, but now I take 3 or 4 pairs with me, just to be safe.

 

[Albiscuit]

thanks, no lasting damage thankfully but at the time it felt like it had pierced the eye.

had only borrowed goggles as mine became faulty, but now I take 3 or 4 pairs with me, just to be safe.

Thought I was the only one who took more eye pro options than bbs to a game   

 

[clumpyedge]

thanks, no lasting damage thankfully but at the time it felt like it had pierced the eye.

had only borrowed goggles as mine became faulty, but now I take 3 or 4 pairs with me, just to be safe.

I have three sets I take also as you never know what can happen, better to have them and not need then, than need them and not have them. Luckily all mine have RX inserts so if someone needs to borrow a pair they can slip them out and use the glasses without having to look through my prescriptions.

 

[Rogerborg]

Even though players sign a waiver I don't know the legal extent they would cover.

They're largely meaningless.  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 S2 voids them for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.  It even says that agreeing to such a term does not (in itself) constitute an acceptance of risk.

It's an interesting question as to who would be liable if Alice shoots Bob through or around his inadequate eye-pro.  The negligence is Bob's, but does the site have any culpability.  In general you go after the deep pockets, which would be the site owner and (hopefully) their insurers.

I've never seen or heard of a site checking eyepro for performance or markings.  Given that non-sealed glasses can only be rated EN166F, and that's not (quite) adequate for the energies used in airsoft, I can't see how you could reasonably argue that any glasses are suitable.

 

[clumpyedge]

I've never seen or heard of a site checking eyepro for performance or markings.  Given that non-sealed glasses can only be rated EN166F, and that's not (quite) adequate for the energies used in airsoft, I can't see how you could reasonably argue that any glasses are suitable.

Here is an interesting read, albeit American based.

https://blog.safetyglassesusa.com/how-to-identify-ballistic-rated-eyewear/

http://the-lowdown.smithoptics.com/content/guide-ballistic-eyewear

"Ballistic Eyewear Ratings:

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) tests ballistic eyewear with projectiles traveling at 150 fps (feet per second). Glasses and goggles that pass this testing are given the rating, ANSI Z87.1+ and are suitable for civilian or industry use. 

Civilian eyewear that meets a Military Specified impacts (MilSpec) generally meet the ballistic characteristics clause of MIL-PRF-31013 (glasses) or MIL-DTL-43511D (goggles).  For the US military, ballistic eyewear worn for duty must meet the MIL-PRF-32432 Military Combat Eye Protection Standard (MCEPS). Tests involve subjecting eyewear to small metal balls traveling at 650 fps (glasses) and 550 fps (goggles)—more than four times the speed of ANSI Z87.1 testing. Additionally, military eyewear must have UV protection, a comfortable fit, chemical resistance, and environmental stability (resistance to extreme temperatures and environmental changes).

US military-approved ballistic eyewear is listed on the Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL)."

And then this from Wiley x

EN.166S (Safety glasses):
Frame and lens must withstand the impact of a 22 mm steel ball weighing 43 grams dropped from 1,3 meters at a speed of 18 km/h. The lens must remain in the frame and is not to shatter. The frame must remain intact as well.
 

EN.166F (Safety glasses):
Frame and lens must withstand the impact of a 6 mm steel ball weighing 0,86 gram fired at 162 km/h. The lens must remain in the frame and is not to shatter. The frame must remain intact as well.

EN.166B (Safety goggles):
Frame and lens must withstand the impact of a 6 mm steel ball weighing 0,86 gram fired at 432 km/h. The lens must remain in the frame and is not to shatter. The frame must remain intact as well.

Interestingly 162 km/h = 147.63780 Feet per Second where as 432 km/h = 393.70079 Feet per Second but the bearing is made from steel and not what we use for Airsoft.

 

[Steveocee]

I appreciate how selfish this may sound but here we go.......

If another player chooses to play with stupid under performing eyepro and they feel that they are absolutely fine to do so. (Choosing to do it as they have done for years etc).

What about me if I am the person who shoots and actually hits them in the eye and blinds them? All the anguish and guilt I'd feel for doing that to another human would be soul destroying and I don't care how many "well it's his fault for wearing wrong goggles" you get told, you'd still have blinded them and I'm fairly sure most individuals who'd been blinded would absolutely blame you for it as society is a permanent blame culture.

It's not just them who they are putting at risk by doing this. The site needs to be made aware of THIS THREAD and the denunciation of their practises as a way of getting them to pull their socks up. I'd rather decline a player (regular or not) than risk all of the potential legal and insurance and personal risks to myself and others.

 

[EDcase]

They're largely meaningless...

That's what I expected.  It could come down to who's got the best lawyer if a claim is made against the shooter.

...

...all the anguish and guilt I'd feel for doing that to another human would be soul destroying...

I would feel bad about it but not that bad because its totally their fault.

I agree that the site should prevent this bad situation in the first place.

As for the actual ballistic strength of the eyewear, as long as a BB can't get directly to the eye then I'd say its suitable for outdoor games.  Indoor CQB would need better eye pro I think.

 

[Druid799]

I appreciate how selfish this may sound but here we go.......

If another player chooses to play with stupid under performing eyepro and they feel that they are absolutely fine to do so. (Choosing to do it as they have done for years etc).

What about me if I am the person who shoots and actually hits them in the eye and blinds them? All the anguish and guilt I'd feel for doing that to another human would be soul destroying and I don't care how many "well it's his fault for wearing wrong goggles" you get told, you'd still have blinded them and I'm fairly sure most individuals who'd been blinded would absolutely blame you for it as society is a permanent blame culture.

It's not just them who they are putting at risk by doing this. The site needs to be made aware of THIS THREAD and the denunciation of their practises as a way of getting them to pull their socks up. I'd rather decline a player (regular or not) than risk all of the potential legal and insurance and personal risks to myself and others.

100% spot on , As you say mate anyone want’s to take the risk fine there a twat for doing it , but think about what your doing DON’T dump that guilt on someone else , me personally I know I could brush it off as it’s a result of there own stupidity but others may not be as resilient (or uncaring) as me .

 

[Lozart]

Here is an interesting read, albeit American based.

https://blog.safetyglassesusa.com/how-to-identify-ballistic-rated-eyewear/

http://the-lowdown.smithoptics.com/content/guide-ballistic-eyewear

"Ballistic Eyewear Ratings:

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) tests ballistic eyewear with projectiles traveling at 150 fps (feet per second). Glasses and goggles that pass this testing are given the rating, ANSI Z87.1+ and are suitable for civilian or industry use. 

Civilian eyewear that meets a Military Specified impacts (MilSpec) generally meet the ballistic characteristics clause of MIL-PRF-31013 (glasses) or MIL-DTL-43511D (goggles).  For the US military, ballistic eyewear worn for duty must meet the MIL-PRF-32432 Military Combat Eye Protection Standard (MCEPS). Tests involve subjecting eyewear to small metal balls traveling at 650 fps (glasses) and 550 fps (goggles)—more than four times the speed of ANSI Z87.1 testing. Additionally, military eyewear must have UV protection, a comfortable fit, chemical resistance, and environmental stability (resistance to extreme temperatures and environmental changes).

US military-approved ballistic eyewear is listed on the Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL)."

And then this from Wiley x



EN.166S (Safety glasses):
Frame and lens must withstand the impact of a 22 mm steel ball weighing 43 grams dropped from 1,3 meters at a speed of 18 km/h. The lens must remain in the frame and is not to shatter. The frame must remain intact as well.
 




EN.166F (Safety glasses):
Frame and lens must withstand the impact of a 6 mm steel ball weighing 0,86 gram fired at 162 km/h. The lens must remain in the frame and is not to shatter. The frame must remain intact as well.




EN.166B (Safety goggles):
Frame and lens must withstand the impact of a 6 mm steel ball weighing 0,86 gram fired at 432 km/h. The lens must remain in the frame and is not to shatter. The frame must remain intact as well.

Interestingly 162 km/h = 147.63780 Feet per Second where as 432 km/h = 393.70079 Feet per Second but the bearing is made from steel and not what we use for Airsoft.

Using FPS is a little misleading here, regardless of the material of the BB used in the test the energy in the 166F test is only 0.87J which does not meet the potential muzzle energy of a 500FPS sniper rifle but the 166B test is 6.16J which exceeds it by a significant margin.

 

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

You say that, he plays every other weekend with that eyepro and has done for years and years... some kind of magic bb proof eyeballs I guess!

You need to be lucky every time but only unlucky once.

He can do what he wants - but i think leading by example is good for many things, including running airsoft events.

I'm not angry, just dissapointed!

 

[Lozart]

You say that, he plays every other weekend with that eyepro and has done for years and years... some kind of magic bb proof eyeballs I guess!

For me as he's a site owner I would have said he has a responsibility to lead by example but if that's what he's comfortable wearing then who am I to argue. Ultimately the HSE will tell you time and again that your own safety starts with personal responsibility. If you're told you should wear full seal eyepro but choose not to then on your own head be it.

 

[clumpyedge]

Using FPS is a little misleading here, regardless of the material of the BB used in the test the energy in the 166F test is only 0.87J which does not meet the potential muzzle energy of a 500FPS sniper rifle but the 166B test is 6.16J which exceeds it by a significant margin.

Agreed I was merely stating the difference of material of how they measure it/quantify it.

 

[Tackle]

For me as he's a site owner I would have said he has a responsibility to lead by example but if that's what he's comfortable wearing then who am I to argue. Ultimately the HSE will tell you time and again that your own safety starts with personal responsibility. If you're told you should wear full seal eyepro but choose not to then on your own head be it.

I've seen some site owners do some immensely stupid shit, more often than not involving larking about with loaded guns/pyro etc in the safe zone, where not one person has been wearing eye pro, they're usually larking about with friends or just being a dick 'cos "Hey I'm the boss here".

talk about leading by example...........NOT ?

View attachment 45146

 

[Lozart]

Agreed I was merely stating the difference of material of how they measure it/quantify it.

I figured, just thought I'd clarify for the hard of thinking