YOUR FORUM FOR PLAY, SPORTS UND LEISURE AREAS
It is common practice to include stipulations in new laws and contracts to ensure that certain legal requirements that were already in place prior to the introduction of the new legislation or revision of a contract can continue to apply in unchanged form.
"But there's nothing wrong with it!" This is often the kind of response you will hear from playground operators when, as a playground inspector, you inform them that older equipment needs to be refurbished. It is perfectly understandable that operators react in this way; after all, playground equipment acquired a longer time ago can often continue to be used for many years in the form in which it was originally produced. Hence, during the period before the old German playground equipment standard DIN 7926 was replaced by the initial version of European standard EN 1176, there was considerable discussion in Germany as to under what circumstances older playground equipment would need to be upgraded, in other words, overhauled to comply with the updated safety requirements of the new standard.
With this in view, the Working Committee for Playground Equipment of the German Institute for Standardisation (DIN) first offered guidance on the legal situation with regard to the continuing applicability of the prior provisions in the supplement to DIN EN 1176 in 2003. In the more recent supplement to DIN EN 1176 issued in January 2009, more detailed information on the situation as it applies to playground equipment of older date and/or that complies with earlier standards is provided. In this supplement, the committee has now specified a date at which the old DIN 7926 will cease to be valid.
The current regulation with regard to the continuing applicability of previous provisions is as follows:
"The safety requirements of standard DIN 7926 that was valid from 1985 to 1998 continue to apply to equipment manufactured in this period: such equipment may thus continue to be used. However, it has become apparent that some equipment that complies with the requirements of this standard does not fully meet the more recent safety stipulations as they apply to potential sites that could entrap clothing or the neck etc. Such equipment needs be reconditioned so that it conforms to the requirements of DIN EN 1176: 2008 - 08."
It is quite clear from this passage that all equipment that meets the requirements of DIN 7926 can continue to be used in German playgrounds. At the same time, it has also become necessary to examine this equipment to make sure that it does not have potential entrapment sites for clothing (using the relevant drawstring catch test device) or for the neck (with the device for testing for entrapment sites for the head and neck in partly enclosed and V-shaped openings). If such potential entrapment sites are detected, equipment that conforms to DIN 7926 will need to be appropriately refurbished.
It should be borne in mind, however, that the above passage from the standard only lists examples of potential entrapment sites - this list of examples could very easily be extended.
A slide as an example
In many cases, it becomes necessary to replace worn or defective elements of playground equipment over the course of time. The Working Committee for Playground Equipment also has something to say about situations like this:
"If equipment that conforms to earlier standards is modified or repaired the following applies: If individual elements only are replaced and the equipment is again brought up to the necessary safety standard. [Text fehlt?] If, however, complete sections (such as guardrails) are replaced, the replacement section must conform to the requirements of the currently valid standard."
The text above is perhaps not quite as clearly formulated as it could be, so it might be a good idea to explain the situation using a practical example.
Take my favourite slide, for instance (image 1).
A few of the key characteristics of this slide:
1. Fall height from slide platform to the ground: 2.0 metres
2. Height of the guardrail around the platform: 50 cm
3. Distance between each ladder rung: 20 cm
4. Surfacing on the potential impact area: grass
Those with the necessary training will recognise at once that this slide conforms to the requirements of DIN 7926 and has been installed in accordance with the stipulations of this standard, If DIN 7926 were the only basis for the assessment of this piece of equipment, it would conform to all requirements. When DIN 7926 was valid, a grass surface was permitted on a potential impact site where the fall height was 2 metres.
Because of various court decisions, specialists have since decided that the old provisions for surfacing specified in DIN 7926 should cease to apply. This means that an inspector assessing this slide would today conclude that the fall protection material on the slide impact site is inadequate and that this only would need to be changed.
On the other hand, if the slide has at some time undergone repair, the following would be the case:
Let us suppose that two or three of the rungs of the ladder become unstable due to rusting and have to be replaced. Under the current situation with regard to the applicability of the prior provisions, it would be possible to directly exchange each rung for a new one, retaining the original 20 cm distance between each rung although the new standard defines this distance as representing a risk of potential head entrapment.
If, on the other hand, rust has affected a larger number of rungs or even a whole ladder rail so that the playground operator decides to install a completely new ladder, this new ladder would need to conform to the requirements of the currently valid DIN EN 1176. In this situation, the distance between each rung would need to be larger than 20 cm because the new standard specifies that the distance between rungs may not constitute a risk of potential head entrapment and must thus be greater than 23 cm.
This approach can be applied, in principle, to other components of playground equipment. Individual elements of a guardrail used for safety purposes and manufactured to meet the requirements of DIN 7926 can be replaced. But if whole sections of guardrails of 'older' equipment are replaced, these replaced guardrails must then conform to the requirements of currently valid DIN EN 1176. Please note that this applies only to the section which has been replaced; it is not necessary to refurbish the entire piece of equipment to ensure it conforms to DIN EN 1176.
There is no such carry-over of prior provisions in the case of playground equipment installed before the publication of DIN 7926 in 1985 (images 2, 3, 7., 8, 9, 11). It would not be considered a valid defence in court to claim that there were no standards at that time that a manufacturer could have followed. At the same time, if such equipment does happen to conform to the requirements of the old DIN 7926 or even the current DIN EN 1176, it may still be used (image 5).
It is also still possible to transfer playground equipment that meets the stipulations of DIN 7926 to another playground. Such equipment can continue be used because it conforms to DIN 7926 but the impact attenuating material and the size of the impact site must meet the requirements of DIN EN 1176.
The above outlines the current status of applicability of older provisions as specified in the supplement to standard DIN EN 1176. Hence, if you follow these general rules, you can be assured that you will be not considered liable should an incident occur. But as the writer of this article, tutor at the DEULA Westfalen-Lippe training centre and consultant for playgrounds and collaborator of the German Institute of Standardisation, I would also like to ensure that everyone working in the sector of playground safety ‘can go home happy in their mind’ and with a clear conscience and so I would like to add a couple of tips of my own.
Let us assume that a serious or even fatal accident occurs in connection with the use of a piece of playground equipment that conforms to the stipulations of DIN 7926; this will inevitably result in a court case in which the aspect of responsibility will be considered.
Should the court come to the conclusion that the accident would not have occurred if the equipment had conformed to the currently valid requirements of DIN EN 1176, the question arises of whether it would have been reasonable to expect the playground operator to upgrade the equipment so that it meets the stipulations of the new DIN EN 1176 that provides for enhanced safety (see also Art. 823 of the German Civil Law: Public Safety/Practicality).
I will leave it to each playground operator to decide what the appropriate response should be. After all, it must be admitted that, because of the current situation when it comes to the continuing applicability of previous provisions, we can allow ourselves the indulgence of relying on the safety requirements of a prior standard; yet this is a standard that actually ceased to apply to the manufacture of playground equipment more than 15 years ago.
In my courses, assessments and reports, I thus strongly advise playground operators to consider the following:
1. In the case of equipment manufactured and installed in accordance with the regulations of DIN 7926 and that is now at least 15 years old, they should think about whether it is really financially viable to undertake extensive repair of such 'antique' apparatus. Playground equipment does not last forever and should not simply be kept going by means of continual repair and patching up.
2. But if conversion does appear to be financially worthwhile, it would be prudent for playground operators to refurbish the item completely to ensure it conforms to the requirements of currently valid DIN EN 1176. As a rule, most of what will be required is the suitable renovation of ladders, steps, net systems and guardrail sections. However, this work should only be undertaken in consultation with the manufacturer or other suitably qualified person (DIN EN 1176, Part 7, 8.2.9 Equipment alterations).
Finally, I should like to point out that the Working Committee for Playground Equipment is gradually coming round to the view, in the light of recent court decisions, that the current position with regard to the continuing applicability of the superseded standard may at some point in the not too distant future become untenable.
