Dedicated, demarcated and physically separated zones for pedestrians and vehicles would seem the trick here Stuart. Have seen it done effectively in some carparks where guardrails guide pedestrians and prevent people crossing anywhere other than a dedicated crossing point. Relatively low cost. Signs (no matter how great) should only be supplementary to real 'hard' controls.
I would also suggest the carpark in the photo (plus many others I come across) could benefit from a reverse parking policy. Risk is increased when exiting these places in reverse (skinful after visiting the brewery, excited to get home and try on new clothes, etc) so best to reverse in upon entry. Plus if ever need to evacuate it would be so much easier and safer.

Agree with all, we had a worker suffer a leech bite to the stomach in a Victorian rainforest some years ago and he had a severe reaction to the anticoagulant released from the leech around the bite area. His stomach swelled up and had a rash the size of a dinner plate. 48 hours in hospital and some days off work to recover. This was our one and only LTI on the pipelaying project. A preventable injury through better hazard identification and risk mitigation.

Hi Rebecca,
If the Pike29 had their time over again and they could turn back the clock what is the one thing you think they would do differently from a workers perspective?

TRIFR is driven by clients and in the absence of anything else that is universal (or close to being such) we are kind of obliged to use it as a benchmarking metric. If we could all agree on some other lead indicator measure and associated definition I'd suggest we would all get rid of TRIFR. We track it but only really for client reporting purposes. The focus is much more on critical risks mitigation, HiPo events, competency, etc.

On a somewhat related topic what say the group to a situation where an operator has a medical certificate exempting them from having to wear a seat belt due to impracticality or undesirability? This raised itself for me today and created a predicament or conflict between what is legally and technically allowable but what doesn't quite sit right in terms of risk and 'what if' scenarios.

Great success story Carl and well done to you and the team in taking on this new approach. My question relates to how this came about and did you have to fight tooth and nail to get it endorsed or was there unlimited support for it from organisation leaders or perhaps somewhere in between (a natural curiosity about taking a curious approach if you will).