Safety Issue: Robots Moving in Pits

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

Here's the thing though,
you can't visibly tell if a team has disabled drive. I don't doubt you or your team's skill to disable code, but some teams aren't as savvy or experienced with FRC programming. If this is introduced, it only takes one incident (See the OP's) to instantly ban it again. It's safer to just not allow it to be run on the ground at all.

TL;DR it only takes one bad apple etc etc.

Following that logic:

"You can't visibly tell if a team has a safe robot. I don't doubt you or your team's skill to make a safe robot, but some teams aren't as savvy or experienced with making them safe. If a rule to allow robots at competitions is introduced, it only takes one incident (see any) to instantly ban them again. It's safer to just not allow robots at the events at all.

TL;DR it only takes one bad apple etc etc."


The reality is this isn't a soft pillow tossing competition. It's robotics. It's going to be more dangerous, and there is going to be a higher potential for mishaps. Robotics is what is it - the more you try and change it, the further you get from what it is. Don't change the game - change the approach.

[asid61]

I can see a robot being on the floor of the pit, but I definitely agree that robots should not be driven in the pit at all. Disconnecting motors would be the safest way to test IMO if the robot has to be on the floor and enabled.

EDIT: I can see "safety culture" being a good thing, but it should be taken as a given that although not everyone will follow the rules, most will if there is a rule and it's at least mildly enforced, especially by people with authority like safety inspectors. But there will always be exceptions. Without a rule it makes it a lot easier to justify doing unsafe things.
Promote safety culture but don't expect everybody to just be safe all the time with no penalties. It's naive to expect everybody to follow something ethereal like that.

[robochick1319]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

Here's the thing though,
you can't visibly tell if a team has disabled drive. I don't doubt you or your team's skill to disable code, but some teams aren't as savvy or experienced with FRC programming. If this is introduced, it only takes one incident (See the OP's) to instantly ban it again. It's safer to just not allow it to be run on the ground at all.

TL;DR it only takes one bad apple etc etc.

Exactly. I'm sure teams like 1902 can take precautions to disable the drive train but accidents do happen. Even lifting the wheels a little bit off the ground shouldn't drastically affect what you're testing, right? And it adds an extra layer of protection for everyone. It accounts for what causes most accidents--operator error.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by robochick1319

I'm glad to see that there are so many people out there who recognize this safety issue. And you are all absolutely right: politely reminding teams and reporting issues to the UL Safety Judges are the ways to handle it. I'm just dreaming of a time in FIRST when running the robot on the pit floor cause you want to go for a "test drive" will be as obviously wrong as wearing open toed shoes and no safety glasses in the pit.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this standpoint. Operating a powertool like a table saw or mill is inherently dangerous. There is an accepted and understandable level of risk that people have to accept when doing any activity. We can strive to be accident free and have a good safety culture, but having a safety culture means understanding there is a certain amount of risk in any activity.

The safety argument you're making always sounds good - you always have the 'we can prevent accidents' and 'think of the children' arguments to fall back on. It is up to us filter those arguments through a seive of common sense that says there is a certain amount of risk pursuing any activity and that we accept that risk as part of what we do.

I disagree with restricting our ability to safety test a robot on the pit floor.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this standpoint. Operating a powertool like a table saw or mill is inherently dangerous. There is an accepted and understandable level of risk that people have to accept when doing any activity. We can strive to be accident free and have a good safety culture, but having a safety culture means understanding there is a certain amount of risk in any activity.

The safety argument you're making always sounds good - you always have the 'we can prevent accidents' and 'think of the children' arguments to fall back on. It is up to us filter those arguments through a seive of common sense that says there is a certain amount of risk pursuing any activity and that we accept that risk as part of what we do.

I disagree with restricting our ability to safety test a robot on the pit floor.

I wholeheartedly agree.

This is a robotics competition which means there are large moving objects, power tools, pinch points, heavy lifting, etc which means by being involved in the program or being present in the pits you are exposing yourself to risks. While I agree that the pits should be a safe environment they should also be an environment that still allows teams to operate as a team which occasionally does require testing. Yes some testing can be done on the practice field however teams do not get sufficient access to practice space at events nor are they suitable for quick testing when something breaks or you need to tweak something and quickly test it before getting to your match.

Always exercise caution, talk to the team, and consult the safety advisers if you need be. I don't think a once size fits all approach works in these situations.

[robochick1319]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I wholeheartedly agree.

This is a robotics competition which means there are large moving objects, power tools, pinch points, heavy lifting, etc which means by being involved in the program or being present in the pits you are exposing yourself to risks. While I agree that the pits should be a safe environment they should also be an environment that still allows teams to operate as a team which occasionally does require testing. Yes some testing can be done on the practice field however teams do not get sufficient access to practice space at events nor are they suitable for quick testing when something breaks or you need to tweak something and quickly test it before getting to your match.

Always exercise caution, talk to the team, and consult the safety advisers if you need be. I don't think a once size fits all approach works in these situations.

There are practice fields for you to fully test your drive. Placing safeguards (like blocks) for the robot to sit on while testing in the pits is an easy way to prevent avoidable and HIGH risk accidents. What can you not test with the robot on the blocks? Do the wheels run? Does the robot turn appropriately? Do encoders work? Can the arm lift? My teams tests all of these things with the robot lifted off the ground. There is inherit risk in this industrial sport, of course. But our tools have safeguards.

I don't get the counterargument against the very simple and effective safeguard of some wooden blocks. I especially don't understand it after I saw my own father run over by 120 lb robot and when I see small children like my 3 year old niece visiting the pit. There is no reason not put these safeguards in place.

[GreyingJay]

Thanks for starting this thread, I think it is a good topic.

I agree with robochick1319, I don't think running the robot in your pit is a good idea. Granted, I'm the new guy here, and I've only been to one regional, and seen the pits at that one venue, but they were cramped, and crowded, with people in every pit working and people in the alleyways transporting robots and there were kids walking around, judges, inspectors, scouting teams... people everywhere.

The pits at my venue were about 8x10 and especially this year with the robot size restrictions (apparently) removed, there were some very large robots. We barely had enough room for someone to squeeze past either side. What I'm trying to say here is: even if we wanted to try actual driving in our pit, there was only enough room to go one way: Out. Into the alley!

On the other hand there were two practice areas and the lineups were never too long to get on there to try some things. If the concern was that there wasn't enough then maybe the organizers can look at adding additional practice or drive areas.

I would want to highly discourage testing your driving in your pit, but I don't know that I would necessarily outright ban it. However, should your robot suddenly charge out of your pit area and run someone over, there should be serious consequences.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Originally Posted by robochick1319

There are practice fields for you to fully test your drive. Placing safeguards (like blocks) for the robot to sit on while testing in the pits is an easy way to prevent avoidable and HIGH risk accidents. What can you not test with the robot on the blocks? Do the wheels run? Does the robot turn appropriately? Do encoders work? Can the arm lift? My teams tests all of these things with the robot lifted off the ground. There is inherit risk in this industrial sport, of course. But our tools have safeguards.

I don't get the counterargument against the very simple and effective safeguard of some wooden blocks. I especially don't understand it after I saw my own father run over by 120 lb robot and when I see small children like my 3 year old niece visiting the pit. There is no reason not put these safeguards in place.

I agree. The pit spaces are very small so it is sketchy to run power tools in. If we let robots on the ground then running power tools is even more sketchy. You could make the argument that frc is inherently dangerous, to which I say all the more reason to enforce safety elsewhere in the competition.

It's about reducing the risk of injury short of not having a competition at all.

Have you guys ever run someone over in a car? It's terrifying. Imagine running over someone's little brother visiting his older brother in the pits with a 120 pound robot. Not as terrifying, but would probably make you feel guilty for at least a couple hours.

[JamesCH95]

I would be quite upset if we were prohibited from driving the robot on the ground in our pit because it is very easy to do it safely.

When we test our robot on the floor (which is about the only way to evaluate certain performance changes) we establish what we call the 'kill radius.' This terms stems from my experience using axes/mauls/chain-saws - the radius around an operation where a bystander could be hurt. We spread team members around this 'kill radius' to keep people away from our robot when it's being run. This is a practice that has earned us compliments from various safety officials.

In addition to establishing a kill radius around the robot we put one person on the controls whose sole job is to mash the disable button if anything goes wrong. To avoid confusion only one person is ever allowed to issue verbal commands to the drivers, with the exception of "STOP" which everyone is allowed to say.

Now, if teams are at a loss for how to operate their robot with the drive disabled... pull the drive motor breakers. This is what we do when we operate the robot on workbench or other place where we want the wheels on the ground but cannot afford to have it drive. It requires no nuances or expertise and takes just a few seconds.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by robochick1319

There are practice fields for you to fully test your drive. Placing safeguards (like blocks) for the robot to sit on while testing in the pits is an easy way to prevent avoidable and HIGH risk accidents. What can you not test with the robot on the blocks? Do the wheels run? Does the robot turn appropriately? Do encoders work? Can the arm lift? My teams tests all of these things with the robot lifted off the ground. There is inherit risk in this industrial sport, of course. But our tools have safeguards.

I don't get the counterargument against the very simple and effective safeguard of some wooden blocks. I especially don't understand it after I saw my own father run over by 120 lb robot and when I see small children like my 3 year old niece visiting the pit. There is no reason not put these safeguards in place.

That's great your team can test everything on wood blocks but 1319 isn't every team out there and I mean that with the utmost respect. Your 15 safety awards mean something and its obviously a culture your team strives towards each season. Keep it up!

Like I said under the current practice field rules teams do not have access to practice space that is flexible and available for them to test these items that some find un-safe such as testing your robot in the pits. At the beginning of the day I have to send a student to the practice field to sign up for one or two 10 minute slots that fall between our match schedules. If we wait all the time slots will start filling up and I run the risk that I can't use my time because it falls under the window of when we'll be in the que line (which happened this weekend and we lost a slot each day). Occasionally we've been able to trade slots with other teams but they also have a schedule they are following. Even though I have those two slots I never know if and when something is going to break that will require us to put the robot on the floor and make sure it works and sometimes it involves making sure we can move even just a few inches but we try to do as much as we can on our cart.

We try to save big testing for those two slots we have each day however there are still items we found we need to test in our pit. Due to the unique nature of our intake this year we can't test picking up game pieces on our cart since its a roller bar that comes under the game pieces. Once I block the robot up the intake is now higher than it will be on the field and useless.

Again I would honestly be fine with a rule that says no testing in the pits IF a suitable alternative is put in place that greatly increases the availability and quantity of teams that can test their robots at a time but that does put more pressure on events to make the space available and have the space to begin with.

I've liked how the championship has turned the practice spaces into a first come first serve basis however for a 400 team event (and now 600) there still isn't enough access to them. At the championship having a much longer turn around time between matches means you can wait for 30 minutes in line to access those areas but at some regionals and districts you can have two matches in the span of 30 minutes. Personally I wish the championship added more areas with just carpeting also first come first serve basis in addition to what they have now.

The same can be said for tools in pits. If events start taking certain power tools away from teams due to safety concerns (while other events have different reasons) then steps need to be taken to make sure the event machine shop has more tools and is better staffed so it becomes a more viable option for teams instead of trying to attempt less safe alternatives for when your mini drill press gets taken away. I've had to wait over an hour to get some parts back at an event that would take less than five minutes in our pit.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

When we test our robot on the floor (which is about the only way to evaluate certain performance changes) we establish what we call the 'kill radius.' This terms stems from my experience using axes/mauls/chain-saws - the radius around an operation where a bystander could be hurt. We spread team members around this 'kill radius' to keep people away from our robot when it's being run. This is a practice that has earned us compliments from various safety officials.

In addition to establishing a kill radius around the robot we put one person on the controls whose sole job is to mash the disable button if anything goes wrong. To avoid confusion only one person is ever allowed to issue verbal commands to the drivers, with the exception of "STOP" which everyone is allowed to say.

I like these policies.

(Although, again, our pit was standing room only for the robot and the couple of people working on it, I can't imagine having enough room for the robot and a kill radius AND people standing around a perimeter - not without going into the alley!)

Again, I would support the ability to be flexible but if a team loses control and someone gets hurt because they were not following safe practices, I would want to see that team get appropriate training and reprimanding. I don't necessarily want to see all punitive actions but that should be a step along the way if a team is being egregriously unsafe despite attempts to train and warn them.

My first retail job was at a Canadian Tire and I still remember what my boss said on day 1. He said that if you do it wrong, there are three possible reasons. (1) You didn't know, which isn't necessarily your fault if you weren't taught. (2) You forgot, which is forgivable once or twice. Beyond that, it's (3) You don't care [enough].

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

I like these policies.

(Although, again, our pit was standing room only for the robot and the couple of people working on it, I can't imagine having enough room for the robot and a kill radius AND people standing around a perimeter - not without going into the alley!)

Again, I would support the ability to be flexible but if a team loses control and someone gets hurt because they were not following safe practices, I would want to see that team get appropriate training and reprimanding. I don't necessarily want to see all punitive actions but that should be a step along the way if a team is being egregriously unsafe despite attempts to train and warn them.

My first retail job was at a Canadian Tire and I still remember what my boss said on day 1. He said that if you do it wrong, there are three possible reasons. (1) You didn't know, which isn't necessarily your fault if you weren't taught. (2) You forgot, which is forgivable once or twice. Beyond that, it's (3) You don't care [enough].

We did grow into the alley, slowing down traffic. However, it was only for 15-60s at a time so it never seemed to be a large impediment. Our pit-neighbors seemed to appreciate us being safe.

[Tungrus]

There are so many rules you can make and try to enforce...still it will never be foolproof.

Everyone in the team who can turn on the robot must be trained to operate it safely. This is imperative this season, not just the rogue drive can hurt someone, with many robots designed with extended actuators can easily maim someone. In FIM Howell district event, during a match the refree had to dodge a swinging arm. If the robot operators cultivate this habit to ensure robot operates in safe environment.

[who716]

whats the next step gloves being mandatory for all pit members?

[robochick1319]

Originally Posted by who716

whats the next step gloves being mandatory for all pit members?

That is an entirely different issue that is unrelated to the robots running on the floor of the pit. Gloves are not always the right PPE for every situation so the short answer is no. Let's not devolve into a slippery slope argument because that was not my intention, I promise.

But it stands to reason that if people can't be on the field when robots are running during a match (or even put their hands over the wall a tiny bit to feed a noodle) why is it ok for a robot to run around in a crowded pit space with lots of bystanders?