Safety Issue: Robots Moving in Pits

[Tungrus]

Originally Posted by who716

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

Well talking about the gloves, safety personnel questioned many teams at FIM Howell district event. The main reason they stated was sharp edges and what not. I get their concern, but its not a rule. Our drive team does not use them anymore, some of them don't feel comfortable. Its a personal choice.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by robochick1319

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?

I am going to assume that this is an honest question (not a rhetorical one) and answer it as such.

No one, I assume, will be driving their robot in the pit like they drive it in a match. At a race track no one is allowed to be on or near the track when cars are racing, but they are allowed near the cars in the pits where speeds are slower and there are considerably fewer cars at any given time. The same should hold true for robots: go easy on driving in the pits, do as little as is needed, and do it reasonably safely and slowly.

No one is allowed to interact with a robot on the field for safety reasons as well as interference/performance reasons. The rules are the rules, and we have had games with significantly more human interaction (I'm specifically thinking of 2005 and 2014 where the human player was right next to the field with very little between them and the robot). I believe the rules this year are more of a design constraint than a safety concern.

[Sperkowsky]

Im sorry to hear that your dad was hit by a robot. I personally was hit by a robot last year and it hurt but I laughed it off. It was going full speed and I had a bruise on my thigh but I still would not want a rule to prevent people running robots on the floor of a competition. We built our first real robot cart this year and it does have pegs to lift the wheels but I still want to put it on the floor to test some things.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Im sorry to hear that your dad was hit by a robot. I personally was hit by a robot last year and it hurt but I laughed it off. It was going full speed and I had a bruise on my thigh but I still would not want a rule to prevent people running robots on the floor of a competition. We built our first real robot cart this year and it does have pegs to lift the wheels but I still want to put it on the floor to test some things.

I don't think people have any problem with other functions being tested while the robot's on the floor (i.e. no one's getting mad at us for running our elevator when the robot's on the floor). The problem is robots driving when they're on the floor.

[nrgy_blast]

With the tight quarters, heavy, elevated robots and many years with flying objects, I think we need to have a full set of rules enforced. Everyone inside the pits should be wearing bump caps (hard hats would be acceptable), have shirts tucked in, no jewelry (rings or otherwise), and steel-toed shoes with met-guards. The pits are an incredibly unorganized multi--function-shop-workspace that would be completely unacceptable in a real-world enviornment to OSHA or any other regulatory body, and we're so lightly scratching the surface of real-world safety standards that UL Safety Award is a joke. I'm surprised they're willing to put their name on the award.

[who716]

Originally Posted by nrgy_blast

With the tight quarters, heavy, elevated robots and many years with flying objects, I think we need to have a full set of rules enforced. Everyone inside the pits should be wearing bump caps (hard hats would be acceptable), have shirts tucked in, no jewelry (rings or otherwise), and steel-toed shoes with met-guards. The pits are an incredibly unorganized multi--function-shop-workspace that would be completely unacceptable in a real-world enviornment to OSHA or any other regulatory body, and we're so lightly scratching the surface of real-world safety standards that UL Safety Award is a joke. I'm surprised they're willing to put their name on the award.

Lol. Touché

[Tungrus]

Originally Posted by nrgy_blast

.... we're so lightly scratching the surface of real-world safety standards that UL Safety Award is a joke. I'm surprised they're willing to put their name on the award.

I am sorry, FIRST awards are not a joke, at least for us. If we are comparing the safety at FIRST events to industrial safety... they are like apple and oranges. The UL safety award represents the team that best represented the safety among all the teams competing at that event. This is not like a certification to the team.

Anyhow, when accidents do happen, the action was unintended. It could be due to many reasons, like bad piece of program or failure of a sensor etc. This is why we need to exercise safety.

[philso]

Originally Posted by 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.

This post has made the most sense to me so far. It shows a thorough understanding of the hazards inherent in their robot and the countermeasures that minimize the probability of an accident and minimize the impact when an accident occurs. It is a lack of that understanding of the hazards that leads to preventable accidents.

This is supposed to be a "sport for the mind". Teams should be using their intelligence and creativity to create a culture of safety that employs good practices to adapt to the conditions as required rather than codifying very specific practices in "full sets of rules" that will be difficult to enforce as each year's game causes the hazards to change. The GDC has a hard enough job covering all the "holes" in the Game rules. How would one expect them to create rules that anticipate all the possible hazards, especially if there are so many teams that take creative approaches to the game? The Game Q&A is up to over 400 questions about the game. We would probably have to have a separate Safety Q&A each year if there are more rules regarding safety than there are now.

[nrgy_blast]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

Anyhow, when accidents do happen, the action was unintended. It could be due to many reasons, like bad piece of program or failure of a sensor etc. This is why we need to exercise safety.

Thanks for making my point. You're simply picking a version of 'safety' that's a functional joke, and we aren't comparing apples and oranges. We're saying 'be safe', yet ignoring industry standards for safety - standards that will be enforced for every individual that goes into engineering fields and works in any sort of test facility.

[hunterteam3476]

I keep hearing people say in the "Real World" you do this and that. I work in the "real world" and at my company we have the bigger machine shop on the West Coast and in the Machine shop all you wear is pants closed toed shoes and safety glasses or even just regular reading glasses. In the "Real World" for most advanced machining shops you must be 18 years of age or older. The best way to be safe is to have some common sense. Think about what you are doing. You can try to be as safe as you want but there will be someone who doesn't think before they do there action. It's like measure twice cut once.

[SousVide]

Common Sense is definitely agreeable. The unfortunate thing is that what's common sense for me, for an absolute beginner, for a complete novice, for Danger Dan, and for Evel Knievel, it's all completely different things... Problem more so if you have all of them working together.

We might need more Common Common Sense.

I really think that if teams are going to be moving their robots, they ought to at least let their neighbors know. That way, at least I know to move away if my own common sense tells me that I'll never be able to jump out of the way or save anyone else fast enough.

[JefferMC]

For those who say that there is not enough practice space/time at a regional to test out autonomous driving routines, I agree. I feel your pain in trying to schedule a practice time on the field between matches. But that is something to be addressed separately, because I've not seen a 10' x 10' (or smaller) pit yet that will safely accommodate autonomous driving, human cordon or not. (With one hand, I applaud the efforts to try to make an unsafe practice safer, the other hand insists it would be better to eliminate the unsafe practice entirely, so I guess you get the sound of one hand clapping.) Unless your pit comes with rails similar to the practice or competition field to contain the robot...

Some have objected that they have to operate their robot on the floor, then proceed to describe non-driving actions. That's not what the OP was talking about. Most non-driving actions won't allow your robot to leave the pit. Removing the circuit breaker for the drive motors is an excellent compromise where carts or blocks are not practical.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

If you're serious about safety, straighten up, buckle down, and make a culture within your team and your community where safe practices are expected and respected, not celebrated.

Safety should be celebrated in the same way that excellence is celebrated. If everyone on your team during the build and competition season stays injury free and goes home in one piece every night, that is cause for celebration - regardless of how your robot performed, your team did it exactly right in the aspect that matters the most.

Because the alternative is much, much worse. No event or match or championship is worth risking injury to people. This is clearly evident because out of bounds and unsafe robots are disabled during matches.

[Alan Anderson]

Without putting the robot on the ground, it is not possible to fully test a robot mechanism that is designed for picking objects off the ground. Without putting the robot on the ground, it is extremely difficult to test closed-loop wheel speed or position software.

Putting robot wheels in contact with pit floors has legitimate uses. I believe a rule against it would go too far.

[robochick1319]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Without putting the robot on the ground, it is not possible to fully test a robot mechanism that is designed for picking objects off the ground. Without putting the robot on the ground, it is extremely difficult to test closed-loop wheel speed or position software.

Putting robot wheels in contact with pit floors has legitimate uses. I believe a rule against it would go too far.

Yes, so put it on the floor of the practice field.