Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Simon Wright
A colleague in another industry has raised a query with me - is there a move to avoid the use of the word 'danger' on safety signs and use the warning word 'caution' instead?
He had been advised that insurance companies were pressing to avoid using the word 'danger' as it was something that would make it easier for people to make successful claims if the dangerous situation resulted in an accident.
I would have thought that the use of 'danger' was clear and unambiguous whereas 'caution' makes you start to consider the relative degree of danger present i.e. dangerous to children but not able-bodied adults. Also, if a child was to see the word 'caution' he may think "OK, I'll be careful" whereas it should be making him / her think "Right, I understand - I'll stay right away from that!"
Any comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Personal opinion, if there is a danger then use that word, I can't comment on insurance companies but if I want people to stay away from an area, machinary of process I would take a layered approach, controlling who is on site / premises, good clear signage and then some form of physical barrier and possibly security, thats before you get onto permit to work and lock offs.
I was involved with a gas pipeline in Kent, 40 km of trenches and reception pits at road river and rail crossings some of these were nearly 15m deep. If you fell in you'd be in danger. All these were secured with physical barriers, locked and signed 'Danger - Deep Excavation'
From what you've said it sounds like the insurance companies are taking statutory signage to be an admission of liability, heaven help us from ambulance chasers !!
I went skiing a few years ago in the alps, on the piste was a sign 'Danger Deep Snow'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
You should remember that the safety Signs & Signals Regs make it quite clear that signs are considered to be rather similar to PPE in status as a remedial measure - both are only to be provided when there is a residual risk that cannot be effectively controlled in any other way!
With this in mind, it's possible that your insurers are partly correct [but probably for the wrong reasons]. Fix whatever you can fix first and only place signs that are relevant to the remaining risk. If it's still "dangerous" then my advice is that you need to do more to reduce the risk to a level that you can defend in court before you rely on a sign.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Simon.
If there is an immediate and present danger that cannot be removed (e.g. electrical installation - Danger of Death - Deep Trench as above - Danger Deep Excavtion), I would suggest including the word 'Danger' is apt and could be used.
If there is not an immediate and present danger (e.g. laser light emitted only if equipment activated by starting equipment) then I would suggest 'Caution' is apt.
Regards...
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
It's also worth reserving the word 'danger' for hazards that are really dangerous or you may belittle the impact of the warning by overuse of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robin B
God save us from ambulance chasers
Robin
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.