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.
