Reflective Safety Glasses

[Steve W]

As an LRI I find it necessary to be able to see people's eyes. I agree with FIRST on this one. People communicate through verbal, body language and eye contact. You may not think it is important but it is one of the tools we use to make sure that people are listening and understanding.

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Steve W

As an LRI I find it necessary to be able to see people's eyes. I agree with FIRST on this one. People communicate through verbal, body language and eye contact. You may not think it is important but it is one of the tools we use to make sure that people are listening and understanding.

I don't think we are talking about some kind of FBI/ CIA blackout shades or one way mirrors here. I had this pulled on me during Orlando this year with safety glasses that where not even reflective beyond the point of creating a glint under field lighting.

The point is if a light tint is acceptable to prevent lights from getting in your eyes then I think a slightly reflective surface should also be acceptable.

[rbrown1]

The rules are you must be able to see your eyes. That way it takes out the guess work of if the reflective glasses are dark or light.

[Lil' Lavery]

This isn't an unusual restriction. Every industrial workplace I've visited has had the same restriction. Mirrored and tinted safety glasses are designed for outdoor use, not indoors.

[dtengineering]

Observe the CD safety smiley: Tinted glasses, with eyeballs visible.

One of my favorite aspects of the rule is that it keeps people who are trying to look cool by wearing tinted glasses from looking like fools for wearing outdoor gear indoors. (I don't recommend wearing parkas or bathing suits into the pit area, either.) Many FRC rules are there to HELP teams, remember. I think there is also a rule about having appropriate team logos and such. It just contributes to an overall more professional appearance for the event, which benefits all the teams.

There is also the simple fact that when working indoors we generally need MORE photons hitting our eyeballs, rather than fewer, particularly for close-up or detailed work. Here's a good summary of illumination levels http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/li...oms-d_708.html

If I had to rewrite the rule, though, I'd get rid of the exceptions for lightly tinted glasses unless medically necessary. Clear safety glasses are more than adequate for indoor use.

Jason

[Pault]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Observe the CD safety smiley: Tinted glasses, with eyeballs visible.

One of my favorite aspects of the rule is that it keeps people who are trying to look cool by wearing tinted glasses from looking like fools for wearing outdoor gear indoors. (I don't recommend wearing parkas or bathing suits into the pit area, either.) Many FRC rules are there to HELP teams, remember. I think there is also a rule about having appropriate team logos and such. It just contributes to an overall more professional appearance for the event, which benefits all the teams.

There is also the simple fact that when working indoors we generally need MORE photons hitting our eyeballs, rather than fewer, particularly for close-up or detailed work. Here's a good summary of illumination levels http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/li...oms-d_708.html

If I had to rewrite the rule, though, I'd get rid of the exceptions for lightly tinted glasses unless medically necessary. Clear safety glasses are more than adequate for indoor use.

Jason

But is this a good enough reason to tell teams who have already purchased 50 slightly reflective safety glasses that they aren't allowed to use them? It seems just a little ridiculous.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Pault

But is this a good enough reason to tell teams who have already purchased 50 slightly reflective safety glasses that they aren't allowed to use them? It seems just a little ridiculous.

Are you really asking if the existence of a rule against them is a good enough reason to keep them from being used?

Teams who buy things prohibited by the rules should not be allowed to ignore the rule just because they ignored the rule and bought something prohibited by the rules.

[SenorZ]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Teams who buy things prohibited by the rules should not be allowed to ignore the rule just because they ignored the rule and bought something prohibited by the rules.

Thank you. I think the real question is, "Why do you need those slightly reflective glasses?" Is it image?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

Thank you. I think the real question is, "Why do you need those slightly reflective glasses?" Is it image?

The answer is that you don't (although I'm relatively confident that anyone would argue that reflective safety glasses are better than no safety glasses).

Aesthetics can come at a cost, but that cost should never be safety.

[sanddrag]

Could it be that they don't want to confuse them with non-rated sunglasses? If you let it go tinted and/or reflective, then people could wear sunglasses and claim they are safety glasses, and it would result in a lot of debate. Just a thought.

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Are you really asking if the existence of a rule against them is a good enough reason to keep them from being used?

Teams who buy things prohibited by the rules should not be allowed to ignore the rule just because they ignored the rule and bought something prohibited by the rules.

Rookies. I'd be fairly impressed if every rookie team (specifically the member of the rookie team who orders the glasses) has read the administrative manual before ordering the glasses.

Also, as long as the rule is in place, teams who aren't in the situation above should follow it. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that the rule should be changed, because it seems like it has the potential to do harm and not that much good.

There's a differencing between forcing teams to wear safe, family friendly attire and forcing them to wear attire that makes them look "more professional."

Edit: although, trying to see the other side of the argument, maybe it is so that safety inspectors/ a team's mentors can know that you are actually focusing on your work and self-aware when you are walking down aisles. That would cause some safety issues, and is a valid argument to keep this rule in place.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Our team was given a donation of lightly mirrored glasses this year. We understood, given the wording of the manual, that this COULD be an issue for team and thus came prepared to competition this weekend. I believe it was limited only to the over-the-glasses safety glasses. I don't have a picture, but when I say lightly mirrored, it was sort of a mirror at the top that gradually faded out. Eyes are VERY visible when talking face to face.

Sure enough, several team members were not allowed into the pit with them this weekend. The reasoning from the safety judges, however, it what gets me. The safety judge said "I can see my lips in your glasses." What does that have to do with anything??? I can see myself in the reflection of ANY GLASSES, safety or otherwise, mirrored or not.

If there's a valid reason for disallowing something, that's fine and great and I'm all for it. But when the people enforcing the rule can't give that reason, there is a fundamental flaw.

[Qbot2640]

What if...hypothetically, of course, a team's Human Player used reflective safety glasses to protect his (or her) eyes from the bright vision tracking light?

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

If there's a valid reason for disallowing something, that's fine and great and I'm all for it. But when the people enforcing the rule can't give that reason, there is a fundamental flaw.

I think the rule is poorly considered. We still have to follow it. The people enforcing the rules are not the ones that created them. It is not their job to justify them.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

I think the rule is poorly considered. We still have to follow it. The people enforcing the rules are not the ones that created them. It is not their job to justify them.

That's like saying a police officer can enforce a law without telling who he is arresting what crime they have committed because he doesn't know what the law is.