Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line
And therein lies the rub. Many of us don't believe that to be the case. Many of us believe in the concept of acceptable risk.
You continue to return to the argument of 'but safety!'. A number of very experienced individuals have pointed out that there are any number of situations where a robot needs to be on the ground to test particular functions.
The 'but safety!' argument doesn't hold water with me. All too often it's applied in lieu of common sense.
It would be... entertaining... to try to tell the 600 teams attending worlds that they are not allowed to operate their robots any place accept the couple of practice fields provided.
|
LOL I didn't think my argument was "but safety!" I thought it was more let's mitigate the risk by putting in a basic safeguard. Test it, sure. We test ours in the pits. But test it in such a way that it doesn't pose a serious risk to other teams in the pits.
I don't think having a robot hit men, women, and children in the pits is an acceptable risk. The severity is high and the likelihood is high and that seems unacceptable.
And as cliche as it is, common sense isn't so common. If it were, I wouldn't have had to start this thread based on previous incidents.