These are a no-no in my opinion, it sends the wrong signals and in a safety II world is not appropriate language. I do like the velociraptor signage that Michael recommends above, sets a positive and fun tone while getting the message across.

Some thoughts to add:
What are they doing, might a visor be a better option? they can be fitted over the turn by adjusting the strap.
What do your sikh team do for reading/sunglasses in their off time - that might lead you to an in-work safety solution.

From my perspective I think there are a several things to consider here.
Investigation process - why not get a member of the H&S committee involved in the investigation, investigations are best reviewed by a team of at least 2, so the line manager and the H&S committee member might be a good combination.
Outcomes - when the investigation is conducted is it looking at what was put in place previously and considering the effectiveness of those preventative measures? if you're having repeat occurrences, it may be that the measures have simply not been robust enough or even may not have tackled the causal factors.
Communication - it sounds as if your formula has been to integrate changes and results in toolbox talks, but repeating messages like this does have a negative effect, perhaps try an alternate mechanism - brief the team on the incident and ask them what would work better, get the person involved to talk about what they would do differently.
Trend analysis - sounds as if you have a trend, what is your company's approach to trend analysis and considering the wider implications? Consider all aspects of the work environment, and again, engage with team on what they need in order to stop the incident happening again.
Finally, in terms of engagement, toolbox talks absolutely have their place, but perhaps alternative mechanisms might be considered in addition, different people absorb information in different ways and at different rates, so try to have several ways of sharing the message.
Hope that's helpful

I agree that they are rarely read. From an Aviation SMS perspective, they are part of our regulatory documentation, and supposed to be read by all. There are specific elements that must be included, such as leadership commitment, acceptance of and support to auditors etc. Its partly to create a commitment to hold personnel to at audit and mainly (in my mind at least) a mechanism to hang a out your shingle and declare what type of organisation you are striving to be. In my last company, the statement was part of induction, included in the individuaks' skills record and tested as part of their bi-annual regulatory assessments. I think they should be easy to break down into SMART statements that are demonstrable individually and as a whole...

Thanks David, one to get for my next trip away. Breaking habits ( and making positive new ones) is a hot topic at the moment...

Tbh my personal solution is to put my phone in my bag in the boot unless I'm using google maps to navigate. That takes willpower...a simpler alternative is to switch off the sound/ vibrate modes so you don't know its ringing...I would do that, but have a tendency to forget to switch them back on again...some kind of autosilence activation might be a future option, then if you're a passenger you can continue to use, and the phone won't be as distracting...I do think engineering controls will be the solution in the medium term.

From my perspective, the Civil Aviation Act would be an example, compliance with that act, controlled via the regulations, included safety management systems expectations, risk management, assurance and investigation of incidents...

Interesting, thank you for the clarification.

My perspective is that a person in procurement, say, who is purchasing materials for use in safety sensitive environments needs to be fully aware of their actions lest they purchase something that will prove an issue. Given that I have always worked in aviation, and that Reason's cheeses described the fallibility of the system, that logic has always worked for me. In addition, it removes the them and us aspect.
With respect to legality of having random testing regimes, some regulators make it a requirement to have a regime, and they also conduct random testing themselves... having worked cincurrently under both CASA and FAA regulations, which are more stringent than CAANZ, i find it easier to operate in a 'all of one company approach'. However as I move into the wider community, I will take the information you have provided as my framework for future reference...

Great video recommended by Craig, I found myself nodding as I listened. You don't have to document toolbox talks, though it is (in my opinion) good practice to know who has participated. The key is that the documentation has to be easy and clear to follow, filled out correctly and the subsewuentvxction taken must be in line with it. So if a toolbox talk is given and signed for, then the team do not or cannot comply with it, it's not only a waste of time, but also will be what gets you into trouble in court.

From my experience there are 2 barriers to looking at better alternatives - awareness and perception of cost. I am pleased to say that the management I deal with regularly pushes the team to look at more permanent options to admin and PPE, engineering and isolation are common for structural issues. I have one example where the team are working together to substitute non-toxic alternatives to chemicals in use, supported by the management who are enthusiastic about the positive knock-on effects and I think that is the key - make the positive impact on personnel health, reduction in lost time and positive reputational effects, along with ease of use and offset of costs clear for 1 or 2 quick wins and they get onside with better improvements...

In Aviation, random testing is part of a larger strategy - Alcohol and other drugs...the testing is supported by a requirement in individual contracts not tk work while impaired by drugs. If you are prescribed drugs that may impair you, both need to be declared through the business medical management system, and if randimlyvtested these drugs are taken into account. The company reviewing can ggen provide additional support to the the person concerned.
In terms of 'what is a safety sensitive position?' In my view and experience, all positions are safety sensitive and in my opinion all personnel including top management should be liable for testing...decisions making has widespread impacts and are not limited to personnel operating machinery...

I completely agree, as an auditor you're trained to ask open questions and follow the trail of answers, root cause analysis requires the same skill. However, it's not as easy as it sounds and responding to the answer you get rather than the answer you expect requires concentration and active listening, and that needs practice. As a H&S manager, you need to be able to get personnel to ask and answer their own questions, facilitating realisation and the best solution, rather than dictating the answer without recourse to the context of the situation. That's difficult to do...

Some great ideas here. My only thoughts are to check out different combinations for different workers (what works for one will not for another) and also alternative methods such as visors rather than glasses.

Yep, agree with the comments here. For example, Safety n Action do a great course and do both public and in-house training, which enables context and your own kit to be used. The rescue piece is a key element, particularly if you're operating a complex site.