Championship 2011 - St Louis - Your Thoughts Please?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I feel like we should start a new thread specifically about FIRST's safety glasses policy.

Arguments that there's a non-zero chance of eye injury are not persuasive. There's a non-zero chance that a rock will shatter your car windshield into a million pieces. To paraphrase JVN, do you drive with your safety glasses on? I should hope not, as the loss of peripheral vision is much more dangerous.

Which is to say, perhaps we should examine whether the costs of wearing safety glasses outweighs the benefits.

I'm wondering if we might get more benefit if we pull the volunteers and team "volunteers" from the safety glasses Maginot Line* and distribute them around the pits to monitor other, more serious safety issues. Issues like teams standing around crowding pits and aisles, teams working on robots outside their pits, minibot towers outside of pits, and various other dangerous doings. I have to think that it's better to reduce the possibility of accidents than to reduce the potential severity of a small class of those accidents.

*We all surely realize that the door guards are useless once someone's behind them without safety glasses, right?

[MrForbes]

My cars have laminated windshields.

My guess is that the safety glasses issue is something that has to do with insurance, and it's unlikely that we'll be able to modify it.

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I feel like we should start a new thread specifically about FIRST's safety glasses policy.

Arguments that there's a non-zero chance of eye injury are not persuasive. There's a non-zero chance that a rock will shatter your car windshield into a million pieces. To paraphrase JVN, do you drive with your safety glasses on? I should hope not, as the loss of peripheral vision is much more dangerous.

Which is to say, perhaps we should examine whether the costs of wearing safety glasses outweighs the benefits.

I'm wondering if we might get more benefit if we pull the volunteers and team "volunteers" from the safety glasses Maginot Line* and distribute them around the pits to monitor other, more serious safety issues. Issues like teams standing around crowding pits and aisles, teams working on robots outside their pits, minibot towers outside of pits, and various other dangerous doings. I have to think that it's better to reduce the possibility of accidents than to reduce the potential severity of a small class of those accidents.

*We all surely realize that the door guards are useless once someone's behind them without safety glasses, right?

There's no question that the other safety issues need to be looked at. There were many other violations in the pits that could be avoided. Running in the pits was a particular problem at this event with the distances involved.

I have to ask you if you've ever worked in a manufacturing plant/test lab/machine shop environment. If so, then you were required by your employer to wear eye protection. This is not just for their insurance, employers are required by OSHA regulation to ensure compliance.

I understand that FIRST isn't an employer except for a few people but they are following industry best practices regarding eye protection and it is probably part of their liability insurance as well.

The facts are that safety glasses are a simple method to reduce potential injury. You say that the cost of safety glasses isn't a benefit? What is the cost of an eye?

[EricH]

I'm almost with Kevin on the safety glasses issue. However:

There are only three ways to deal with this. You either make darn sure that every casual spectator going to a pit field puts on safety glasses to go there (and then have someone to take them at that end, possibly), you move the fields out of the flying debris area, or you make a "No debris" zone all the way down the route to the field.

Ideally, of course, you move the fields back to the Dome area. Not exactly practical.

The safety glasses for "transit" purposes is tricky. I know I don't want to be the volunteer forcing everyone to put them on!

But, I think the "No debris" zone is a reasonable alternative. On some industry assembly/production floors, you can walk around without safety glasses. However, you do not go beyond a certain clearly marked line! This line is far enough from the equipment that you have time to try to dodge or deflect anything thrown off the machines. Granted, this is not in a machine shop. But that doesn't mean that stuff doesn't occasionally go flying.

I would suggest the following, actually: One extra safety glasses distribution point at each pit field AND a marked "No Debris" zone. Anybody just there for matches can go to the fields without safety glasses, provided that they stay in the "No Debris" zone. If they change their mind while at the field, or are there for the pits in the first place, they can pick up a pair of glasses at either end of the zone to wander around the pits (and drop them of at either end as well.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by EricH

Ideally, of course, you move the fields back to the Dome area. Not exactly practical.

I emphatically disagree. Without an entertainment stage taking up half the dome floor, all four division fields would have been in the dome, where they belong in the first place.

Not only did having fields in the pits cheapen the championship experience for the teams that had to play on them, and their team members, parents and sponsors who could not find seats, it also unnecessarily exposed spectators to an unsafe environment, possibly leading to serious eye injury. All of which was foreseeable and preventable by the organizers of the event.

Lawyer: "Members of the jury, FIRST made the decision to place the production of a promotional television show above the safety of the attendees of their event. As a result, my client sustained irreparable injury and needless emotional distress. For this reason, we ask you to award maximum monetary damages so that this organization and others like it think twice before placing publicity and self promotion above safety."

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by ToddF

Not only did having fields in the pits cheapen the championship experience for the teams that had to play on them, and their team members, parents and sponsors who could not find seats, it also unnecessarily exposed spectators to an unsafe environment, possibly leading to serious eye injury. All of which was foreseeable and preventable by the organizers of the event.

Lawyer: "Members of the jury, FIRST made the decision to place the production of a promotional television show above the safety of the attendees of their event. As a result, my client sustained irreparable injury and needless emotional distress. For this reason, we ask you to award maximum monetary damages so that this organization and others like it think twice before placing publicity and self promotion above safety."

Really? Unsafe environment? Possibly leading to serious eye injury? Is this really how you are thinking?

[Don Wright]

Likes:

- The relaxed security into the dome
- Allowing us on the upper levels in the Dome for Finals
- Once they finally opened the doors to the shorter route to the Dome, the walk from the pits to the Dome
- I actually like the fields in the pits
- Parking
- Bus unloading here was significantly better than that huge long bus queue line in Atlanta
- I didn't like it at first, but the semi-intertwined pits caused me to see some robots and teams I probably wouldn't have sought out specifically if I hadn't just run into them.
- Lots of other displays for people to visit

Dislikes:

- No broadcast of the action on the fields in the pits so we can see some matches without leaving the pit area
- Need better display of rankings
- Practice fields not open earlier (I know this was to protect for opening ceremony)
- Some refs not seemingly knowing the rules (speculation)
- Need better food near the pits
- Over zealous volunteers
- need routes on the maps - the maps were great, but didn't tell you that if you walk down that long hallway and get to the end, the doors will be locked.

Overall I think it was a tremendous start and I look forward to the next two years in St. Louis.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

Really? Unsafe environment? Possibly leading to serious eye injury? Is this really how you are thinking?

For me personally, not really. I do all kind of crazy activities that most people would find way too risky.

But, reviewing the thread, I think a skillful lawyer could make that case. I have seen many posts about "unsafe" actions committed by teams which were tolerated by the FIRST safety monitors. When unsafe practices are allowed to exist by the responsible authority, that creates liability.

I think it could be argued that the pit area is inherently more dangerous than the spectator seating in the dome. If there were not a threat of serious eye injury, there would not be a requirement for safety glasses to be worn in the pit areas at all times. At the regionals I have attended, it was not a requirement that spectators expose themselves to this increased level of hazard in order to simply watch the matches. But at the finals, it was.

Statistically, at some time, some spectator IS going to be injured. Their health insurance company lawyers are going to examining the circumstances which lead up to that injury. If FIRST has in any way been negligent, they are going to get taken to the cleaners.

If I were on that legal team, the first thing I would do is subpoena any video footage shot by every team at the event that might show unsafe conditions which FIRST could have or should have anticipated, but did not prevent from occurring. I'm betting that if I were to review the footage that even our one team took of the matches, I would find many, many people in the stands of the pit fields not wearing safety glasses. I would present this to a jury as evidence that FIRST created a known safety hazard, and allowed it to exist, even in violation of it's own rules.

Why should FIRST even go there? Putting the match fields back in the dome shows that FIRST exercises due diligence to protect spectators from preventable harm. We live in a lawsuit happy culture where hanging a "Beware of Dog" sign is not evidence of concern that visitors not be harmed. It is evidence that the owner knew that their pet was dangerous and yet did not take steps to prevent the public from harm.

And in the interests of full and open disclosure, I personally don't believe that anywhere at the competition was unacceptably dangerous. But, I am willing to use this hypothetical argument as a way to get the pit fields out of the pits and back into the dome.

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

Really? Unsafe environment? Possibly leading to serious eye injury? Is this really how you are thinking?

Yes, the pits are an environment where you could sustain an eye injury. All eye injuries are serious! That's why safety glasses are mandatory

There were many other hazards and bad behavior in the pits as well.

People running down the aisles
Teams crowding the aisles
Teams pushing robot carts too fast through/around slower traffic
Teams operating robots in the aisles
Facilites/Production company people operating carts/forklifts/manlifts in pedestrian traffic without using their horn

A good lawyer could turn spin all that into a negligent/unsafe environment.

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Cyberphil

Although the event was proposed to be a complete disaster by some people, I was pleasantly surprised.
Edit: The only other complaint I had was the placement of the HOF booths. It seems they were figured out last minute where they would go, so they were put in a corner. Maybe this is bias because I was over there more than most people, but I think they should be celebrated a bit more.

Overall, a great experience. I am glad the negative feelings were proved wrong. Great job volunteers, planning committees, and FIRST!

I definitely agree with Phil here. After seeing everything that Bill Miller was blogging I had visions of this event being a complete disaster, and for those of you who remember Houston in 2003, I thought it was going to be worse than that. I must say, I loved Championships in Saint Louis. I loved the intimate setting of the whole thing. I loved the two fields in the pits, although, the stands could have been bigger. My one BIG complaint is where the Hall of Fame teams were located. I feel as though the HOF area could have been placed in a different location in the pit area and more in the FRC area for teams to come and interact with the students more.

The performance was absolutely awesome! I thank the Black Eyed Peas and Will.I.Am for putting on such a fantastic show and for celebrating FIRST. It was also very gracious of FIRST to provide boxed dinners on Saturday as well.

All in all I felt like the event was great and I can't wait for next year!

Cassie Beck

[TD78]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

My one BIG complaint is where the Hall of Fame teams were located. I feel as though the HOF area could have been placed in a different location in the pit area and more in the FRC area for teams to come and interact with the students more.

Perhaps they could have been relocated to just outside the main FRC pit entrance (in the huge common area where people waited in the mornings to get into the pit)? Everyone would have to walk by them then! My only thought against it would be a possible fire hazard for mass exit from the pits?

Lots of positives from St. Louis makes me think next year will be even better. The issue of needing safety glasses to get to a field was a bit of a pain. Since I forsee pit fields in the future, perhaps the fields could be moved closer to the main entrances, and put the pits where the fields were this year? The side doors to the halls could have been better utilized, even if it required more volunteers and more safety glasses to distribute. Would have made the commute to the dome a little easier.

Other than the food at the after party being less than desirable and the mass confusion that was the after party, I thought everything at Championship was great!

[Bill_B]

Lots of thought fodder in this thread. I'd like to see some diagrams made to support some of the relocation ideas proposed. Want larger bleacher areas? where? Better routing? sketch out what you mean. No debris zones? how can that be laid out.

Hey, you're not designing a robot for a while, why not try your hand at "venue" design.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

Lots of thought fodder in this thread. I'd like to see some diagrams made to support some of the relocation ideas proposed. Want larger bleacher areas? where? Better routing? sketch out what you mean. No debris zones? how can that be laid out.

Hey, you're not designing a robot for a while, why not try your hand at "venue" design.

This could include debris zone containers. If trash cans are overflowing, that provides an opportunity to think inside the box and how to keep it there. It also provides an opportunity to think about portability and effectiveness.

(I don't know about stadium venues but I know one of the first job positions to get cut in the educational systems - is janitorial services and supplies. They need support and help, not just complaints.)

Jane

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

No debris zones? how can that be laid out.

It's kind of tricky--you'd want a 25'+ wide path. 5'+, marked, for people to walk in, with a good, solid 10'+ on either side, running on the most direct route possible. Anybody not in safety glasses needs to stay in the marked area; everybody wearing safety glasses can go wherever they need to.

Looking at the load-in diagram (I don't have a pit map), the run to Curie would run from the corner entrance area around Pit Admin. Ideally, Galileo and Curie pits in that area would be swapped, and the aisle right behind the first aid station would be widened to the minimum distance. Newton would run along the wall (15'+ wide--the wall prevents anything flying from the other side) where the robot route is now up to the end of the practice field, then go straight to the field from there. Where possible, all those paths would go along walls (lower space requirement due to the wall on one side).

[BrendanB]

If FTC expanding is what started the move of one FRC field then how about some FTC fields move to the pits for a year!

I have a serious question about the initial plans for fitting items in the new arena before the concert was in the works. IF FTC was growing and needed more space, what about the far ends of the dome? Remembering back to Atlanta there was space on the ends for some smaller event to be held like FTC or FLL.

Maybe there are some things I am not considering as I am not involved with FTC, but when someone mentioned Bill saying that with FTC growing they had to move a field but that didn't make sense to me since I remember space leftover in ATL.

my $0.02