I am curious as to what form such statistics would take and how any meaningful conclusions could be drawn.

Having predominently worked in established premises my predecessors would plaster the walls and equipment with signage as evidence they were doing their job. Working on the presumption most people stop seeing the sign after a few days a lot of the proliferation would be removed as part of my introduction to the business.

Removing the signs (such as No Smoking inside the building) did not increase accidents or incidents.

Signage is merely one part of employee information, if it is not coupled with suitable and sufficient training then you are inviting accidents.

A decent, albeit short study on the perception of safety signage with some interesting statistics on age and global differences:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304396217_Evaluation_of_the_Perception_of_Workplace_Safety_Signs_and_Effective_Factors 

But how practical or useful this is to your business' health and safety application is debatable.

Signage in and of itself does not directly prevent accidents, but it does help highlight hazards, it does enforce safety measures (e.g. mandatory PPE signage), it does increase awareness (FLT signage) and it helps set the pace and standard expected (speed limit signage) all of which arguably reduce, prevent and help mitigate the liklihood of accidents in the workplace.

Having no signage doesn't help (hazards are not clearly identifed, standards and mandatory requirements are not clearly communicated etc.) However, too much signage makes people blind to it and may be ignored. 

Hi mat

You are VERY unlikely to find any study that attempts to prove a relationship between safety signage and accident rates that stands up to scrutiny.

You might well find that organisations which have safety signs have lower accidents rates than those that have none, but that doesn't prove a DIRECT correlation between the measure and the outcome.

Far more likely that those organisations that have safety signs manage other aspects of H&S better than those that don't, and hence an INDIRECT correlation.

However, next you need to consider how effective the signage is in those organisations that have them and there can come a point where safety signs can become counter-productive for various reasons, some already mentioned.

I once investigated a woodworking circular saw accident in a factory where the WRONG "safety sign" was on the wall. It was the "abstract" of the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1922 more than a decade after the Regulations of same name but dated 1974 had come into force. So, of course those new Regulations had their own "abstract" which the law said should have been posted.

Do, I think that having the correct "abstract" on the wall would have made any differnce in the likelihood of the accident occuring? NO! No significant difference in the requirements of the 1974 Regs compared to the 1922 ones when it came to how to operate a circular saw.

Safety signs can become like hi-viz. Eventually few notice the "precaution" as it is so ubiquitous.

So, perhaps having less signs (or less hi-viz) makes it more likely that people will take notice when such mitigations are in place.

Typically the wet floor sign is hidden behind a fire on the corridor when I trip over it! I have asked why it was left there( the floor was actually dry by the time I tripped over it) and they said H&S told us to do it. I hadn’t.

The original point is that  there is no direct connection between any of our favourite H&S measures and any improved outcome to H&S statistics. If there was we could actually achieve zero harm since we would know if we did X then there would be a drop in Y incidents. Simply dishing out PPE will not of itself reduce injuries. You need to explain how to use the PPE and what to do if it is damaged or out of use. You need a system to monitor its use and quickly replace it if needed. Managers must work with workers to select the best PPE for that employee doing that job not simply choosing   the cheapest or the one that is in corporate colours.  You need to take a holistic approach.

The paper quoted is more about the impact of particular signage rather its effectiveness in changing behaviour. How you would test for that?

Hi Mat,

In your post, you said anything would be appreciated. So here goes.

A number of years ago, minibus and bus deaths in Zambia were alarming, claiming about 2000 lives each year. Africa has a road traffic fatality rate of 26.6 deaths per 100,000 population, compared to 17.4 deaths per 100,000 globally. The government instigated a campaign to put stickers inside the buses telling passengers to speak up and challenge the driver; I think it was known as the sticker program. Although the campaign was also publicised on the radio, a research paper concluded that it was a success, and fatality figures decreased. So, I believe, in this instance, the answer to your question is yes if you consider stickers as safety signage, albeit you may question if public transport is a workplace or not.

It's important to note that the campaign's success was not solely due to the stickers but also to the empowerment they provided to the passengers. The stickers served as a constant reminder for the passengers to challenge the drivers to slow down and take care, and they did so effectively. Due to its success, the campaign spread across many African nations at the time.

If you have access to academic published papers (PubMed), you can find the research paper by searching: -

‘Impact of passenger engagement through road safety bus stickers in public service vehicles on road traffic crashes in Zambia: a randomized controlled trial’.

Hope this helps

That's interesting, Toe, but highlights that the "signs" were just part of a mitigation strategy.

I found this quite quickly Impact of passenger engagement through road safety bus stickers in public service vehicles on road traffic crashes in Zambia: a randomized controlled trial | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Looking at experience not only in Africa but very much with a Behavioural Safety focus, with a number that Heinrich could have produced in 1931.

According to the Road Transport and Safety Agency in Zambia (RTSA),, human error accounts for 87.3% of RTCs in Zambia and the top five human errors include: misjudgment of clearance distance; speeding; failing to keep near the side of the road; cutting in line; and untimely crossing of roads by pedestrians.

So, no consideration of whether there might be unsafe CONDITIONS as well as unsafe ACTS/BEHAVIOURS.

Heinrich looked for the "first proximate cause" of the accidents that he was analysing. The very word "proximate" almost guarantees that most will have resulted from one or more unsafe ACTS.

However, HSE and many other commentators take the view that most accidents are multi-causal and if we deal with the unsafe CONDITIONS, then we could prevent many accidents DESPITE unsafe ACTS.

Always possible that many of these road accidents in Zambia could have been prevented by better vehicles, and better maintenance of vehicles and other changes such as infrastructure improvements.

As example, untimely crossing of roads by pedestrians, Possibly many of the roads did not have enough, suitable places for pedestrians to cross.

Originally Posted by: firesafety101

I suggest the FIRE EXIT signs will prevent people from being trapped in a fire situation, (if you call that an accident), especially those who only know their way into work.

Would that be the red & white of old, the current green & white, the photoluminescent, the illuminated, the ENGLISH text only, the text & pictogram, the pictogram only - people still need educating not just signage.

Hi Toe

The problem is that to some extent some initiatives can be self-fulfilling for various reasons, such that the Cause-Effect relationship might be INDIRECT rather than DIRECT, a mix of both, or mostly coincidental.

Here we have an initiative that sought to impact driver behaviour by getting the passengers to comment on their perception of driver behaviour either by talking to the driver or ringing a hotline (potential advantages and disadvantages with both options).

First thing to consider is the Hawthorne Effect. The simple fact that the drivers know that someone is taking an intiative is likely to result in change, but whether that will be lasting is far from guaranteed.

Then there are all the other variables some within the control of the minibus operators, some not, that the research does not appear to have considered.

So, as examples within the control of the minibus operators, issues such as safer vehicles and safer route planning. Suppose a bus company simultaneously introduced these "stickers" AND replaced buses AND improved maintenance etc regimes AND made route planning more realistic (i.e. allowing more time for the foreseen and unforeseen delays faced by drivers) AND removed any financial and other incentives to hit deadlines AND etc etc etc........

May be the bus company doesn't really want to say that their buses were UNSAFE before, and that the managment was INFLUENCING unsafe driver behaviour, so ALL the apparent reduction in accidents APPEARS to be a result of these "stickers".

When did you last work for an employer who openly admitted that their H&S performance had been far from satisfactory?!?!

There is also the possibility that an intitiative designed with a stated objective of reducing the number of reported incidents results in less reporting of the incidents that occur. 

Then there are all the things that are outside the bus company's control. The authorities take action to make the roads inherently safer - you get less accidents, BUT that reduction for the bus company could be attributed to the "stickers" not the changing CONDITIONS - this implicitly suits those advocating the sticker initiative. 

To assess the real impact on any initiative you have to look in the longer term AND attempt to isolate out the impacts of whatever else is changing and that is very hard to do.

Looking at what happened over 6 months is far too short a timescale. Suppose you were comparing what happened in last year's rainy season with what happened when the stickers were introduced when it wasn't raining so often?

Arguably the main factor is why the UK (amongst other countries) has reduced the number of Fatal and Serious Injuries over several decades is more about safer ROADS and safer VEHICLES than driver behaviour.

Even to the extent that road designers sometimes deliberately introduce apparently unnecessary hazards, with a view to reducing the risk of drivers falling asleep at the wheel (something you mention happening in Africa).

Driver fatigue from monotony was perhaps first noticed in the UK in the first years after the construction of the inital part of the M1 motorway, from just North of London to Rugby. The road was too straight and flat. People lost concentration and the accidents occurred. 

Exactly the same phenomenon has been researched in other countries such as the US, Australia and India. 

....and over the decades vehicles have become much safer for the occupants but less so for those outside - hence the Department for Transport keeps data for "vulnerable users" - including, inter alia, pedestrians and cyclists.

LOTS of supposedly brilliant initiatives proving someone's pet theory turn out to be less brilliant when subjected to scrutiny.

Just yesterday I read someone's thesis. They had looked at safety (not health) performance in the last two months of a project. A project that would have taken at least 6 months on site, probably more. MOST of the higher risk activities would have been completed before the last two months. 

There were lots of statistics, despite less than 250,000 hours worked. Lots of variables reported in four levels of performance, in simple terms Very good, good, poor, very poor and colour coded from Green to Red.

However, as the data set was so small the Standard Deviation (SD) was such that in some categories ACTUAL performance might have changed from Green to Red or vice versa on the basis of a single Standard Deviation of movement. So the colour coding was in effect almost meaningless.

Not saying that the bus stickers didn't have some impact. Just questioning whether all the other variables were adequately considered.

Edited by user 01 September 2024 17:23:48(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Sorry, I cant help with any definitive studies as per the original request.

However, I am a bit of an advocate of safety signage as a considered part of a communication strategy.

Blanket or wallpaper signage also has a powerful place in effective communication in my opinion.  Even a short look at a modern sports stadium will show that advertising people (the real experts in short but impactful comms) favour blanket messaging over individual messages.

Some of the most effective safety campaigns I have run have used blanket signage as a major component.

You do have to have an idea about what you are trying to achieve though and I would urge fellow H&S professionals to take a basic visual advertising course as part of CPD to really understand the power of safety signage if used in the right way.

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

Even a short look at a modern sports stadium will show that advertising people (the real experts in short but impactful comms) favour blanket messaging over individual messages.

Do you mean the scrolling distractions occuring whilst attendees are focusing on the pitch / arena?

The brand adverts behind an interviewee / presenter?

Anyone asked the average Old Trafford attendee what products they saw advertised during the match?

As to the blanket signage like any "campaign" it needs a date up but more importantly a date to take it down so it is no longer wall paper.

Always found this an intersting study.

Want fewer car accidents? Remove traffic signals and road signs - Big Think

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

I can't see McDonalds (for instance) taking down the Golden Arches any time soon.

Not sure that a danger to my wallet, health and waistline could be described as a "Safety Sign" unless placed in the Warning category which woud involve modification of the trade mark.

Hi Roundtuit

Isn't that what the CHIP Regulations were about?

P

I am quite sure that posting of safety signs has some effect on the people who either work or visit a workplace or area.  The signs must however be relevant such as "No smoking" for a an area which has a high risk of combustion,  "Hearing protection to be worn" for areas with a high level of noise.  I could go on and on with various descriptions.  For me the the signs that are posted must be relevant for the area and there must not be too many of them, so the correct number of signs showing the correct hazards and precautions will have a good effect on the reduction of exposures to the hazrds and therefore accidents.  Likewise too many signs will distract from the message and people will become blinded towards them and they are more likely to be ignored.  For example a good number of years ago I worked for a large multi-national compnay, on one of the work areas the entrance area had in the region of 20 signs on a board next to the door.  Most were totally irrelevant to the area and were infact pointless.  During an audit of the area, I asked a number of people who came into the area, what sighs had they seen on the way in, the majority said what signs.  So the perhaps the answer is that good signage reduces exposure and too much and irrelvant signage is just ignored. 

On the Grenfell point, as far as I remember the signage problem for firefighters wasn't a lack of safety signs, but a lack of signs telling them basic information such as what floor of the building they were on.  Not the same thing at all.