Safe or Unsafe: a binary choice?

Commuting between two worksites,  I  crested an overpass, entered a construction "cone zone",  and noticed the caution signs.   Signs like these are intended for the safety of drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and workers in the construction zone.  One might assume that there is a simple choice to make:  Signs or No Signs-- Safe or Unsafe. Safety, however, is rarely a binary choice. 

In the first iteration [1] the signs were placed in my bike lane.  This placement made them highly visible, narrowed the available road surface to vehicles and clearly warned of the hazards ahead.  What could be safer than that?

For cyclists (and the occasional pedestrian), their lane was blocked by these signs, forcing them to ride in the vehicle lane.  Worse yet, any cyclist who drove in the bike lane between the signs would become invisible to drivers coming from behind when the signs were deployed facing oncoming traffic. 

The next morning, on the same stretch of road, the crew was not working and the signs were turned sideways, parallel to the traffic but still in the cycle lane [2].  The result was to make the signs essentially invisible to drivers.  As the day progressed, high winds (or drivers) caused the warning stations to be knocked down and blown to the road side further decreasing the visibility of these safety signs.  Cyclists, traveling at lower speeds than car traffic, would see the grey stands in time to avoid hitting them but still be forced to share the vehicle traffic lane.   

The next time I passed this way (this time as a passenger in a car), I noticed the signs had been relocated, clamped to the concrete traffic barriers adjacent to the road edge [3].  This arrangement provided similar safety warnings for vehicular traffic but left the cycle lane relatively free of obstruction. 

Acting in the name of safety

Clearly, warning signs are intended to increase safety but exactly how they are deployed can have an impact on safety itself.   It is not a question of Safe or Unsafe; rather, the choices we make in the name of safety have relative impacts on overall safety. 

Acting in the name of safety simply to comply with a rule, standard, or guideline does not make a worksite safe.  As with the sign example, doing something in the name of safety is not an end in itself.  Slapping the dust from your hands and ticking off the “safety-signs in place” item on your general checklist misses the point.  Perfunctory compliance with a safety standard (regulation, law) may provide a false sense of safety and actually increase the risk of injury.

As with the sign case, acting in the name of safety may have unintended consequences.  The initial method of deploying the safety signage for motor vehicle safety had unintended consequences for pedestrians and cyclists, increasing their risk of injury.  The engineered safety measure of separating cyclists and pedestrians from motor traffic was clearly defeated by the placement of warning signs. 

Safety:  A dynamic, multi-dimensional construct

While some actions and omissions are clearly unsafe, there are almost always more options to improve safety.  Actions taken in the name of safety are taken in a multi-dimensional context. Mindful safety implementation is preferable to blind compliance.  Rather than thinking Safe/Unsafe or even considering a continuum (with points like Unsafe/Safer/Safest), think in broader terms and be willing to consider alternatives.  It is more work but that keeps safety top of mind rather than letting it fade into the background of the worksite. 

Even with safety signs or other safety measures in place, hazards are still present.  Safety measures typically address known and likely hazards to reduce the risk of those hazards harming workers or other persons in the workplace.  Workplaces, however, are not static.  The activities of those present in the workplace, lighting, weather conditions, and many other factors continually alter hazards and risks even with safety measures in place.  The dynamic nature or risk means safety is rarely a “one and done” consideration.

Safety-mindedness

Next time you consider an action in the name of safety, be mindful about your options and choices.  Include multiple perspectives and be willing to change your implementation for options that improve safety overall.

Is it time to introduce cone-zone cameras?

It happened again.  Another flag person was hit and badly hurt in another roadway incident.   Another community shocked by the tragedy; another call from police looking for witnesses. Add another tragic case to approximately 400 or so that occurred in this province alone in the last decade.  This particular incident occurred in Northern BC on July 21^st, but a quick scan of any news feed will show you just how common this sort of incident really is in North America. 

In the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports in their Fatal occupational injuries by selected characteristics, 2003-2011 publication 373 entirely preventable worker deaths while directing or flagging traffic.  Despite our best efforts at education, on-site warnings, large signs proclaiming “My Mommy works here”,  even labeling cones with the words “Mom” and “Dad”,  it just keeps happening. 

A few days ago I was out for a walk.  At one intersection, a crew of electricians was working on the overhead traffic signals.  A flagger was controlling some of the traffic lanes and also directing pedestrians to cross when safe to do so.  She was about five and a half feet tall but with the hi-viz fluorescent green/yellow coveralls and jacket, hard hat and safety boots she had a six foot presence.

I watched as she used her body language, voice, stop/slow sign, and eye contact to effectively manage the flow of most drivers and pedestrians.  However, in the space of two minutes, she was nearly hit twice.  Both drivers were down the road in an instant; and one actually slowed down, turned and sheepishly mouthed “Sorry”… the other just accelerated through the intersection in a literal cloud of dust. Through all of this, the flagger stayed calm and focused on her immediate task: the safety of crew, drivers and pedestrians like me.

In an extended break in the action as the equipment and crews were out of the intersection, I asked her about her job and, in particular, what she thought was behind the two close calls I witnessed.  She said, “It happens all the time” and added, “If you could see the [stuff] I see…”. 

She described people on their cell phones or texting, others with dogs on their laps, and even a cab driver—supposedly a professional driver—eating noodle soup from a bowl.   “If you could see the [stuff] I see…”

Her comment got me thinking.  Red light cameras are widely accepted.  I note some jurisdictions are putting photo radar in construction zones (Saskatchewan).  Others are banning cell phone use in construction zones (in Illinois, any phone use at all, hands-free or hand-held, is illegal statewide in school and construction zones) but I don’t know of any jurisdiction that installs “cone zone cameras” –not to detect speeding in construction zones but to actually record what the flagger actually sees.  Why don’t we have “cone zone cameras” ? 

Police cruisers are fitted with dashboard cameras, cabs have cameras that record passengers, some police forces and security personnel have wearable video recorders.  Why not flaggers?  Video evidence is curtailing property crime and has been invaluable to investigators when serious incidents occurs on transit systems, in airports and at public events. 

Most of us respect flag personnel.  Most of us understand the inherent risk their jobs entail.  Most of us will not speed by them, cut corners, or disobey their directions.  For the few that do, my guess is that the behavior is not isolated to a particular cone zone and one particular time.  Identification and intervention may make a difference but most of our ad campaigns and public education are preaching to the converted.  Perhaps a database of outrageous violations will help us identify those that really need to hear the message.   

Flagging should not mean putting your life on the line or under the wheel of a distracted driver’s car or a bloody image in the rear view mirror of someone who really couldn't care less.  Cone zone cameras focused on the “stuff” flaggers actually see might be an added deterrent and could help make a difference.