More Safety Beliefs by Semiotics

I saw recently a so called ‘safety expert’ discussing the nature of safety methodologies. Despite no understanding what is methodology (philosophy) is, his discourse was, that it doesn’t matter what you believe in safety, it is method that matters. There can be no separation between methodology (philosophy), method (doing) and Ethics.

This podcast is the kind of naivety expected from Safety, with no expertise in what it talks about and no comprehension that beliefs (philosophy) drive behaviour (ethics).

We have started our module on Safety Beliefs and as a first assignment each participant had to submit their own semiotics that demonstrated a safety belief. These are in addition to other examples of safety beliefs by semiotics discussed here: https://safetyrisk.net/safety-beliefs-by-semiotic-evidence/

Here is a sample of some of their findings:

Semiotic	Belief
	The iceberg semiotic and metaphor is common in safety and often refers to what can’t be seen. Unfortunately, all that is critical in what is not visible is never mentioned eg. the unconscious, ethical matters, affordances, cognitive biases, habits, heuristics, beliefs, moral meaning etc. These are never discussed using this model.
	This is another classic belief: ‘YOU ARE SAFETY’. No, you are not. No-one is Safety. This then creates a belief of identity as a thing, process and outcome. Such a projection is dangerous and creates the most absurd arrogance and superiority in the safety role.
	Yet another myth of ‘beyond zero’ which means what??? How does one go beyond the infinite? In the end safety makes language meaningless through such discourse.
	This collection of posters anchors Safety to the belief that rationalism determines choice in safety. If 95 % of all decisions do NOT come from the brain, what then is ‘thinking’. Yet again, Safety returns to the belief in the brain-as-computer.
	This one is interesting complete with anchoring to Homer Simpson, the metaphor for dumb. What this fosters is, blame -centrism whilst at the same time repeating the slogan ‘blame fixes nothing’. The semiotic is also anchored to Zero and each of the 4Ds is old safety stating that it is ‘new’. All of this discourse is profoundly negative masked in some strange alignment to positivity?
	Coupled to the belief in 4Ds is all the traditional safety stuff of dashboards, colours and tracking, that are myth. None of this is much more than connecting subjectivity to some myth of certainty via semiotic.
	The old clipboard semiotic an metaphor surfaces often, linking safety to paperwork, checklisting and policing.
	This is but one example of how Safety develops belief in its own superiority. So many images of people doing things wrong is so popular in the safety industry. The hidden belief is: I’m not that stupid.
	This one showed up as an adaption of the Bradley Curve and belief in the Take 2. The belief is that if more time it spent doing safety things, then the less likelihood of accidents.
	This one is similar to the iceberg but yet again, all the important matters that should be considered as hidden, are not.
	The old linear fishbone is another semiotic of causation mythology. The belief is that asking 5 whys gets to root cause, which of course doesn’t exist.
	Here we have the old favourite belief, that the presence of injury is a demonstration of safety. And, again, zero is never far away from this semiotic myth.
	Similar to the poster above, the counting of injury rates, that goes back to the concoctions of Heinrich, sets in concrete the belief that safety is about counting metrics. The other myth attached to this semiotic is the old favourite that safety is a choice. This also fosters the belief that un-safety is also a choice. Setting Safety up for blame and punishment.
	Apart from not knowing what myths are, this semiotic maintains the belief that all accidents are preventable. Similar discourse to zero is possible and the belief that humans can be infallible.
	Here is the belief that ‘safety saves lives’ through rules and procedures. How fascinating, and when something goes wrong, is there any belief that the rule doesn’t work? Where is there space for adaptability, ambiguity, flexibility in such discourse?

So, some interesting observations by the group and clear demonstration (evidence) of more safety beliefs.

Unfortunately, none of these beliefs are person-centric, ethical or humanising. All of this stuff is focused on objects and the long tradition of Safety anchored to beliefs in hazards and controls.

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Prof. Robert Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)

• We Don’t Want Workers to Think Consciously at Work - July 5, 2026
• Stop Saying ‘Complacency’, Its Meaningless - July 5, 2026
• More Safety Beliefs by Semiotics - July 5, 2026
• You Practice What You Believe and You Believe What You Practice - July 2, 2026
• Belief and Faith in Safety - July 2, 2026

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.