Reflective Safety Glasses

[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.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

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.

"Take off those glasses because tinted glasses are not allowed."

How are those two scenarios even at all similar?

It's like a police officer arresting someone for speeding but not knowing why speeding is a law.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by Gregor

"Take off those glasses because tinted glasses are not allowed."

How are those two scenarios even at all similar?

It's like a police officer arresting someone for speeding but not knowing why speeding is a law.

Yeah that's what I meant to say, sorry for the confusion.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

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.

I am not sure I understand your logic. It more like the police officer enforcing a law without knowing the reason behind the law. Somebody correctly says reflective safety glasses are against the rules, take them off. They don't need to know why they are against rules.

[Foster]

I'm a little confused by this entire thread. Rules are "no tinted safety glasses." Nobody cares if you bought a trailer load, you can't wear them in the pits / field / etc. Give them to your fans and they will enter in FIRST history along with Moe Sticks, Daisy Daisys hats, Rolling Thunder Camo, Pink's Pink, Bacons Pigs, Sabotage Vests, etc. etc.

Rules, no matter how stupid, are rules. Follow them without question. Works for FIRST and will work for your next stop with the police. Welcome to my world!

Three pages of posts? Really?

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Foster

I'm a little confused by this entire thread. Rules are "no tinted safety glasses." Nobody cares if you bought a trailer load, you can't wear them in the pits / field / etc. Give them to your fans and they will enter in FIRST history along with Moe Sticks, Daisy Daisys hats, Rolling Thunder Camo, Pink's Pink, Bacons Pigs, Sabotage Vests, etc. etc.

Rules, no matter how stupid, are rules. Follow them without question. Works for FIRST and will work for your next stop with the police. Welcome to my world!

Three pages of posts? Really?

So you are ok with those who are supposed to uphold said laws/rules and those in power to break those laws/rules?

[SenorZ]

And if the driver said, "I've never been in an accident while speeding, so the rule shouldn't apply to me," would the officer's argument be moot? Should we wait until a documented event of someone getting injured because their glasses prevented a second person from noticing that they weren't looking up?

I don't think so. The bar has to be set somewhere, and FIRST evidently decided that lenses with a coating to increase the natural reflectiveness of the surface would make it unnecessarily difficult for volunteers and teammates to see your eyeballs, and for you to see well enough in the pit/competition areas to avoid hazards. Volunteers can't walk around with reflective-coated safety glass sample swatches to compare to you glasses all day.

Perhaps you can lobby FIRST to expand the rule and list only specific brands and models of glasses that will be allowed, like they do with batteries?

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by dodar

So you are ok with those who are supposed to uphold said laws/rules and those in power to break those laws/rules?

You obviously never seen policemen drive.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

You obviously never seen policemen drive.

That was the "law" part of my statement.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

I use Oakley flak jackets as my safety glasses. Originally I was using tinted because that is what they come with but after someone pointing it out at a regional I have since bought new clear lenses. Is ANSI Z87.1 good enough?

[Cynette]

Reflective glasses have been an issue for many years.

Our team had problems with the lightly reflective tinted glasses a few years ago during Lunacy. That was the year that the glare from the field made it difficult to see the robot for the drive team. We found these wonderful safety glasses to use and received a description from the manufacturer which described them as anti-glare tint rather than reflective. And yes you could see our eyes. We used them for two regionals without a problem and actually got kudos from the safety advisors on the amount of research we had put into the selection of our team safety glasses. However the story took an ugly twist at Champs. The safety advisors rejected our safety glasses for use in the pit. We could wear them walking to the pit, but if you were in the 10x10 square, they had to be clear. We didn't own clear. So off we went to the FIRST Store to buy enough safety glasses for our pit crew. Any guesses on what was for sale in the store? OUR TINTED SAFETY GLASSES! Even with the evidence in hand, we still lost that battle. We have used the clear version ever since, but many of us still prefer the anti-glare version.

Story aside, as an auditor and implementer of international standards, I always have a problem when "guides" become "rules." Guides are suggestions, recommendations, best practices, encouragements, good ideas. Rules are rules, requirements, shalls, must dos (or must not dos) as the case may be.

This is the purpose of the FIRST Safety Manual:

This safety manual is an easy-to-use guide for important safety information and provides FRC participants with a basic set of requirements to maintain a safe environment during the build season and at competition events.

Which is it? A Guide or Requirements?