Rank: Forum user
|
Yahoo news. The USA are to run a seris of disturbing photo's on there cigarette packs of the consequences of smoking,like the ones we use in this country. I posted on this forum under 127 hours the new Danny Boyle film, of using actual gore of real industrial accident/injuries of real people and having them, the real people explain how there injury came to be, being incorperated in to exsisting company H&S training progammes. Some replies suggest this approach is a NO NO. While still fresh in the minds of the tragic loss of 4lives & 1 survivor from the pembroke refinery blast. Do people think (Horrific as it is) that this approach would alter the way workers & company apply H&S to there thinking and change there behaviour when working. Or are H&S trainging programmes still to use the method of re-enactments of situations and/or safety awareness cartoons? What would make frontline workers help change the culture of there thinking? Real life, or vertual life?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hmmmmm?
The problem with disturbing photo's or video is that it might actually disturb somebody?
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I remember a safety practitioner who did this shock approach. Everybody for years after remembered him, but not his message and applied no great thought about why the situation occurred.And it is distressing to see your workmate plastered all over company literature, making you hate or deride health and safety issues and the company too. Few operate really open safety cultures and attach blame to the victim, so burying the means of stopping it happening again or causing altered truths to avoid blame. Strive for an open culture, but carefully, because in some companies you will find your career affected, avoid shock, use intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A balance has to be struck. Graphic image poster campaigns with simple messages do have some impact (e.g. "Mk1 Human Eyeball- no replacements available" w.r.t. eye protection PPE).
Graphic images can be counter productive in a formal training environment. When you leave impressionable people with their senses reeling they aren't going to take in anything you say thereafter.
They won't work on young people particularly well (better to focus on the life-changing after effects as opposed to any immediate blood and gore).
On occasion, they can provoke outrage, anger and deep resentment. The HSE's Asbestos Video being a case in point. Don't show that to anyone who has lost a close friend or relative to ANY kind of respiratory disease -it's too distressing.
I would be interested on the type, size and resolution of "graphic" image intended to be displayed on cigarette packets though. Maybe we could do the same with alcohol.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am strongly anti gore in H&S material.
I don't react well to pictures of injuries and blood - rushing sound in the ears, hot feeling, and I'll probably not take in anything much for the next half hour or so (even assuming I do remain conscious).
I am a first-aider, and on the occasions I have met real situations (fortunately few - a couple of deep stanley knife cuts, I was once in a M-way multiple pile-up that had overturned cars and moderate amounts of blood) I have had no problems. On a simulation (arranged by the army - lots of simulated blood and vomit, and some guts hanging out) I was also fine.
But pictures - I just switch off / shut down.
Is the intention of H&S training to disturb people or teach them something? It sometimes seems to me that for the producers / users of some safety videos, it's the former.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry I am against this type of shock tactic personally. I had this done to me and the memory still haunts me. There is a certain H&S video i can never watch again.
What i do remember is positive culture re-inforcement as opposed to negative. I remember learning of a lowly worker giving a 'red card' to a CEO without full PPE and was praised by the company for his actions. That made me smile and i never forgot it.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
While I can see the logic of the idea, it often has the reverse effect, as mentioned above. You tend to find that the graphic image will make the majority of people just switch off and ignore what message is being pressed, in the real world, look at how many people still smoke despite the graphic lung damage pictures on cigarette packs they haven't stopped many people from smoking the smoker just doesn't look at the picture.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Discussions between OS&H people about the pros & cons of using graphic images to try and influence people have arisen from time to time over many years. As per the responses above, the consensus is that they are effective - but not in the way expected! Most people either mentally block the images out from their minds because they are too horrific or they experience a sudden and adverse reaction to seeing them. Therefore, either way, the images do not influence people to change their behaviour.
Over 25 years ago, one organisation, possibly the British Safety Council, produced a short film about the risk of injury to eyes during work activities with the aim of encouraging workers to use eye protection. It included close up footage of part of an operation to remove a nail or similar object from someone's eye. However, many people reacted adversely e.g. fainting, when they saw this part of the film. These reactions - and the associated adverse media attention - prompted the withdrawal of the film.
Another factor involved nowadays is almost certainly the compensation culture. People who keel over and physically injure themselves or subsequently suffer mental distress, e.g. recurrent nightmares, after seeing images which they find horrific, might well choose to sue the publishers/broadcasters of the images. This might partly explain why TV news broadcasts nowadays regularly seem to include advice along the lines that that "some viewers may be disturbed by the scenes shown in the following report" from whatever conflict zone or famine hit area is being reported.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Having worked for over 30 years in an organisation that deals with the aftermath of bad things on a daily basis, I do have to say that FUNNY works much better than SHOCK HORROR if you want to get a message across.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Seeing as it's Friday and the traditional day on this forum for some frivolity, I am prompted by cliveq's response to mention that one of the amusing "unlikely lines from a TV announcer" on BBC TV's "Mock the Week" as uttered by Frankie Boyle was: "The following programme 'Songs of Praise' contains strong language throughout and also scenes of a sexual nature." Consequently, ever since hearing that line, whenever I see the said programme named in a TV listing I tend to imagine the line being uttered. Thus, I can attest to amusement being effective - or perhaps it just reflects the quirky part of my sense of humour.
p.s. By contrast I am shocked to find that BBC are not showing "Have I got news for you?" tonight! However, perhaps the current series has finished. Also, when I sat down to watch the extended version last Saturday I was dismayed to find that it comprised a repeat and not from the night before as advertised.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Whaaat!! No Have I Got News for You??
SHOCK HORROR!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It seems I’m going against the grain of the discussion again but, I was shown that film of the eye operation when I was an apprentice, along with some other gruesome pictures. I can picture it in my mind even now ( It was over 20 years ago) I have never forgotten to wear my safety spec’s, so for me it did the trick.
I think there are some people out there (the I’ve done it this way for 20 years brigade) that will not believe you can hurt yourself in a particular way, unless they are shown some sort of evidence. It does not have to have blood and gore to be shocking. The “Remember Charlie” was a graphic tale, but you did not see anything particularly nasty and made people stop and think. You will remember humorous things, but they could also treat the message as a joke.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
well i've done this type of things when i'm still doing an induction training for our contractor, having different nationality in one occasion, some people are getting sleepy coz they could not understand english language, when ive put some disturbing picture then they suddenly interact with the topic and some are even translating the answer to their question. putting in their mind the picture of what will be the consequences of their unsafe act give them the knowledge of working safely. but some case it will be a nightmare for them to picture this on their mind, thats why i stop putting disturbing photo's. there would be some good and bad message to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I do agree with Cliveg, Presenting some funny works or vertual photos has better impact on audience, and the message is delviered faster than gore scenes.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Another aspect of this topic relates to what people who will see the gory/graphic images regard as acceptable or not. During the Bosnian conflict I came across an example of this when seeing a news programme on what I understood was a mainstream German TV station broadcast via satellite. It included footage of the aftermath of one or more artillery or mortar explosions in the market place of Sarajevo with shots of dead bodies lying on the ground, plenty of blood and injured people with horrific injuries to limbs. The same circumstances were featured on the BBC TV news but with footage which was highly "sanitised" by comparison with the German footage, e.g. no graphic depictions of wounds and dead bodies only shown if on ground well away from camera or covered with blankets.
Even if the German TV channel involved observes an evening watershed timing with what it shows or doesn't show, it seems that its adult viewers are generally less likely to be offended/upset by graphic images that would offend/upset viewers in the UK. Can anyone with experience of living and working in Germany and/or other countries confirm this impression?
This aspect is mentioned mainly for interest. Generally I agree with other responders that using graphic images in OS&H or other fields is unlikely to have much effect in trying to change people's attitudes and behaviour.
Humour may have more effect than shock, not least because it may be more likely to prompt discussion between people. While driving the other day I was intrigued to see "Careless talk costs lives" as a slogan on the back of a bus. I can't recall the organisation/s behind the advert, but do remember seeing that it was aimed at deterring people from using hand-held mobile phones while driving. My own thought was that it was quite witty and also being displayed where errant drivers would actually see it. However, I guess that it will be difficult to tell what effect, if any, such adverts will have on people who phone while driving. In my opinion, the snag is that such people are so stupid, self-centred and besotted with using their phones while driving, that almost nothing will effectively induce them to change their behaviour. Also, as a parallel with OS&H situations, e.g. not using PPE when necessary, the vast majority of such people find from their own experience that they can phone and drive without causing injury or damage - or being pulled up by the Police. Therefore, their own experience/self-feedback causes them to misperceive that they can safely continue to make and take calls while on the move.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Whilst we're on the subject, does anyone have suggestions for (H&S relevant) royalty-free image websites?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
One of our group H&S meetings had a section delivered by 'external provider'. The course related to the consequences of unsafe driving - whether at work or not - and although no gory pictures or videos were presented we were given real life events by real people. To describe and imply the 'gore' was enough. Very hard hitting but very effective. This was around 4 years ago and I still remember it. Not the people delivering, but the message itself.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Cheers Andrew
Good site that one - most useful.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Personally I do not like to look at gory pictures. It's bad enough having to treat injuries and investigate accidents.
Have a safe day all !!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Perhaps I simply didn't see or hear it, but there semed to be no warning at the start of last night's episode of "Kill it, cut it, use it" on BBC 3 TV which included the slaughtering and processing of pigs. However, the programme started at the 21:00 watershed after which it seems that the BBC thinks that no young children are still awake to watch such programmes. As for adult viewers, perhaps the programme title itself was considered to give sufficient warning of what would be shown. A fascinating programme which explained some of the many different products derived from pigs. In my HSE days I was told by the manager of one abattoir I visited that 'every part of a pig has a use - the only exception is the grunt!'
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for the link Andrew.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think graphic images have their place in H&S if used correctly. I agree that there is no point showing a photo of a serious injury to an office worker screaming 'this is what could happen if you're not careful' however in more high risk industries when workers become complacent, a sharp reality check sometimes works wonders. I have observed this effect on many construction sites in England and Ireland and I can tell you that the cartoon characters on posters are not really taken seriously but reading out case studies and showing graphic images does have an effect. I noticed the effect was only useful when everyone was together sitting down in a quiet site cabin with no distractions. Kangos, plant and traffic, passing people etc. all take away the attention of your audience. I think its important for H&S professionals to remember their audience and adapt the technique to fit around them.
All too often I come across people who think they are made from rubber and accidents dont happen to them. But the ones who really do take it seriously are the ones who have either had a previous accident, are close to someone who has had a serious accident and witnessed the effect or actually witnessed a serious accident take place. Sometimes a cold splash of water to keep everyone on track is a good thing even if the cold water is a graphic photo.
Interestingly, the most hard hitting posters I had ever seen on a Construction Site was a collection of childrens coloured drawings of their fathers at work onsite and a site sign above them saying 'remember why you come to work, be safe' For some reason this stood out for me.
Keep open minded and adapt your approach to suit your audience and you cant go too far wrong. If it is going wrong, change your approach.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
James Martin is spot on with his concluding comments above about being flexible and tailoring advice to suit the intended recipients.
From time to time I see contractors working unsafely when I'm out and about. If feasible I'll stop and have a word with them, especially if they're in a public location and also putting others at risk, I'll explain that I have no power or authority over them, but would be remiss in not sharing a bit of practical advice. In cases where the immediate reaction is hostile or indifferent, I find that the following types of prompts usually help to change the attitude displayed: 'Got a wife or girlfriend?' 'Kids as well?' 'How would they feel and cope if a police officer tells them that you've been killed or seriously injured at work?'
Such questions tend to help errant contractors to 'paint' a mental image, one which is more powerful than the relatively remote prospect of being seen and subjected to enforcement action by an HSE construction inspector. If the contractors are also putting others at risk, the same mental image can be harnessed with a tailored question like 'If you kill or injure someone walking below your scaffold, how will their partner and kids feel about it?' Also, 'have you ever met an HSE inspector?' The answer is likely to be no, so the gist of your next comment is that causing death or injury is a sure fire way of getting to meet one and with more adverse consequences!
Hopefully other OS&H people respond similarly, when and where feasible, if they see unsafe activities - or is it behaving like an interfering busybody?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I totally agree with James Martin. I worked for a high risk plant and the workers had become completely complacent with the maintenance personnel at direct risk of a fatality. After a lot of banging my head against a brick wall, it took a couple of cases studies, some photographs of their equipment highlighting the poor practice, then asking them if they know each others families before asking how they would handle the phonecall from their mates wife asking why their mate was not home on time.... that worked wonders! Harsh but fair.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I do somewhat resent the use of the term 'contractors' because it is usually used in a derogatory sense by people who are not one. This is not to say that 'contractors' are all angels because they are not. I have seen people in working environments who are not 'contractors' compromising the safety of themselves or others around them resulting in my intervention. They are equally prickly when challenged, sometimes more so because they often mistakely think that they are bulletproof and above the level of 'contractors'. I repeat some 'contractors' are no angels. They are just often more visible and therefore easier to target. If our workplaces were not so reliant on 'contractors' these days and more people were directly employed by whatever organisation are we saying that similar issues might not arise? I, for one doubt that. Yes, you've guessed that I am a 'contractor'. Rant over. PS Graham I am not singleing out you, you are absolutely right to challenge anyone working unsafely. I am just so used to people I work beside/ encounter using the 'contractor' as the scapegoat for the bad things.
And another thing...does anyone think Napo gets the message across using the pan European humour approach?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
For examples of the shock horror type see the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario videos on Youtube. Have to say I liked the stationaryisbad.com ones better - e.g Rubber band safety at work!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Its interesting taht the majority of posters are against using disturbing pictures - yet this post has over 1200 views. What does that tell you.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Gary Clarkson wrote:Its interesting taht the majority of posters are against using disturbing pictures - yet this post has over 1200 views. What does that tell you.
because we are usually drawn to the yucky 'Disturbig photos' to see how bad they really are!!!! Perhaps it's just me that's 'Disturbed'. Rhea
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If someone printed a picture of a member of my family with their guts on the floor I would have a good go at decapitation...So before anyone gives it a go Risk Assess that! :-(
There is no need to show people in bits to prove a point. If that is what it take these days to push a point forward then we are not doing our jobs. If our target audience is so thick that we need to push a cadavers under their noses then...I don't think we can help them....give them a wet rag and a side-cutters and point then to the nearest live distribution board. OK, perhaps a bit harsh?
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Zimmy
Many people who have suffered a loss have tried to use that loss as a means of preventing further losses. The St. Johns Ambulance website used to show photos of people that passed away but who may have survived if they received first aid. This is a shock tactic that I found was very effective and I applaud the families for their brave efforts.
If my efforts to educate my audience were ineffective I would not consider my audience thick and consider them beyond help as I would not be doing my job. I would indeed seek alternatives such as shock photos.
As per my previous post, use what works and if it is no longer effective, change tactics to suit the audience, not the trainer.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A few years ago Canada ran a workplace accident prevention campaign (Prevent-It.ca) that was particularly graphic. I thought the campaign was fantastic. You be the judge... Andrew
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=Safety Smurf]Hmmmmm?
The problem with disturbing photo's or video is that it might actually disturb somebody? Must have lost something in translation. My reason for believing you must never use shock images is you may genuinely traumatise someone. Kinda defeats the object if someone ends off sick because of H&S training session!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Use actors, god knows we have enough of them. As for allowing real pictures of real people with their guts hanging out and the flesh peeling from the bones, well, that's up to you guys.
If I ever think that's a good idea I'll pop up the road and seek help. Why on earth would someone prefer to see someone with their face ripped off knowing it was real? Freak shows we can do without.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A friend recently went on a safety harness training course ( use and inspection ).
The female trainer showed a graphic photograph of what happened to one gentleman's lower regions when he failed to adjust the harness correctly and took a fall. The fall resulted in a serious injury to his love spuds.
My friend stated that the image made everyone wince but the point was made.
Some times a strong image is what you need - but not always - depends I suspect on subject and audience.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you for your replies. As a shopfloor worker I run the risk of injury/fatality if ignore H&S procedures and or inadequate procedures are applied for any given job I or my fellow workers undertake. I would like my fellow workers and management to realize the real life physical consequences. Visually displayed and explained by that person ( if possible ) how & why they received such injuries and the psychological impact it has had on them and there family. As this could happen to any worker. Rather than an animated or re-enactment played out by actors to get the importance of safety across to all. I suggested a real life situation where all can relate to it. Because it is real. This may change the whole ethos of how we approach & act regarding H&S. Especially the 'wont happen to me brigade' realizing that it may be them next or the cause of someone Else's misfortune. Thus making a safer place for all to work in, benefiting both company & worker. I know this may be a hard approach due to a family member/close friend present. A pre-warning should be given to all on the visual nature & content entailed. Which will also give the choice for anybody who wants to leave if the images are to horrific or stay without being penalised. Plus cancel out any claims on the grounds of distress or disturbed. Just a suggestion to reduce injuries in the work place. PS, Would you and your family like to go through what others have?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I'm really not sure about the use of graphic images, because I fear that to most they are simply that - images. There are so many graphic images on TV, film, video games, that it seems that people have become de-sensitised to it - they don't think it is real anymore.
However, as Thirst says above, close contact with the real thing is often life-changing, not only for the poor soul involved but also for the witnesses, particularly if the injuries are severe. As Thirst is advocating, simple real life scenarios (but without the blood) can be just as effective to get the message across.
..and I still think if you make them laugh at the end they will remember it for longer.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.