Danger Signs - Fact or Myth?

Rhys

Active member
AIUK Saviour
Now we dont have danger written on our safety signs, but today I heard the story about Danger signs making you more liable. The argument going Danger is an admission that what you are doing is dangerous.

Does someone on here know one way of the other if this is true?

If someone gets shot, there was obviously a danger, so I dont see how one word on a sign can have any significance in the end
 

Rhys

Active member
AIUK Saviour
I just want to be clear on this point.

There is something else I want to know the truth about, but I thought I'd PM someone on this forum to see if they knew for sure first
 

Dave

Administrator
Staff member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
American Shoot
NOCO
Does it matter, Rhys? Because none of the goons that walk onto a shooting field ever read the damn thing anyway.
<Deepbreath>Doesn't matter whether they've read the sign or not it's when it comes to court you were doing something that you described on your sign as dangerous so therefore you knew it was dangerous and you shouldn't have been doing it so are therefore responsible for the damage done to the idiot who ignored your signs and you're going to be significanlty poorer in the near future. </andbreathe>


Not heard of it happening Rhys, but we were advised by a solicitor not to use the word 'danger' on the signs around our field.
 

Rhys

Active member
AIUK Saviour
Not heard of it happening Rhys, but we were advised buy a solicitor not to use the word 'danger' on the signs around our field.
Ok at least I know of a case where an actual solicitor has advised this then and not just word of mouth, ta
 

Rabid Hamster

Well-known member
Ironman
after I had made up many humourous danger signs I was told not to use the word DANGER for the very reason mentioned by dave.
 

Jean Baptiste

New member
We have been told that to the entrance of our field, the sign should read "Caution", which places responsibility in the hands of whomever read the sign to take such caution, as they are now aware of where they are entering.
 

Rhys

Active member
AIUK Saviour
If I remember correctly one of the laws stated that you could, in some cases (or something along those lines), avoid being in trouble as long as there were signs that "give warning of the danger, or discourage persons from incurring the risk"

So how is a sign that states that there is a danger of being hurt by an arrow if they continue going to make you more liable in the event that the very real danger of being hit by an arrow should occur if someone runs behind your targets?
 

Jean Baptiste

New member
I think it is because of the emphasis on who is causing the danger.

I think what is meant, is that if you put "danger", then it implies you are performing something dangerous and that the reader is consequently in danger due to this.

Whereas something like "caution" will place the cause of danger in the hands of the reader. IE: if they do not behave as instructed by the sign, then they will cause a danger to themself. Rather than you causing a danger to them.
 

Rhys

Active member
AIUK Saviour
I still fail to see how the warning sign can decide who is the blame. Surely if such an incident happened the fault would be decided on many other factors
 

Dave

Administrator
Staff member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
American Shoot
NOCO
If I remember correctly one of the laws stated that you could, in some cases (or something along those lines), avoid being in trouble as long as there were signs that "give warning of the danger, or discourage persons from incurring the risk"

So how is a sign that states that there is a danger of being hurt by an arrow if they continue going to make you more liable in the event that the very real danger of being hit by an arrow should occur if someone runs behind your targets?
Iirc Warning was the terminology agreed less likely to cause problems. The tresspasser has been warned that archery is in progress and then the liability is with the tresspasser to progress in a manner suitable to not getting themselves in a situation where they're lying down and bleeding.
 

Jean Baptiste

New member
You are totally right.

But I think people would assume you created the sign, so the message that it gives off would perhaps provide some proportion of the end result of an accident.
 

Dave

Administrator
Staff member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
American Shoot
NOCO
You are totally right.

But I think people would assume you created the sign, so the message that it gives off would perhaps provide some proportion of the end result of an accident.
In a perfect world we should be able to put up a sign saying Danger, together with a picture of a figure being impaled with multiple arrows and a hideously tortured expression on its face as it's bowels seep out. But.... these days, we have to pitch everything at the lowest common denominator so unfortunately we can't afford to be slap dash with words on signs and how they may or may not be interpreted by 'the other side's' legal team :(
 

Jean Baptiste

New member
Exactly.

Hence the use of the word "caution". Place the blame directly in the hands of the reader of the sign. Enforce wording that would place their safety in their own hands.
 

moo-mop

New member
umm. we were told there had to be a visible warning for those that can;t read English too so we have a man walking crossed out (note though that the pubic are allowed to wander close to our ground as it's a paid-for attraction).
 

grimsby archer

New member
last time this question (or something very similar) was asked I put in a reference to what construction sites use and I never heard of a construction site being sued for using the word "danger":

Safety Signs|Construction Signs|Your Custom Door Sign - Product: CC512/A1L-3M#|#3mm heavy duty rigid pvc sign#-#800mm x 600mm



no use of the words "danger" or "caution" or "warning".
the warning symbol and command symbol are official and approved by the health and safety exec.
change "construction site" to "archery range"

simple yes?
 
Last edited:
Top