Disabled drivers

[Kevin Sevcik]

In the course of helping out in another robotics competition (BEST) I started thinking about the challenges the game design presented to disabled drivers in wheelchairs and shorter drivers in general. I couldn't recall the current approach to this issue in FRC and delved into last year's rules and Q&A. As many of you probably know and are preparing to reply, FRC only allows "special clothing and/or equipment required due to a disability." Presumably this would include ramps and platforms to allow those in wheelchairs access to the control shelf. However, as nearly as I can tell, this would be the only accommodation allowed and doesn't begin to address the visibility issues these drivers would face. Specifically, this would put their eye level at about 4 feet, well below the 5-5.5 feet of the average driver and would likely still put them at a disadvantage. Similarly, FRC has a diverse population of students ranging from middle school to high school. Thus, I feel safe in saying the students participating in FRC range in height from around 4'6" to 6'4" with the mean around 5'6"

So, an average student might have about a 1' advantage over shorter student. And an even greater advantage over a student in a wheelchair. That'd almost certainly mean the difference between looking down at the tops of robots versus looking up through a forest of robots, certainly a significant advantage. I'll note that I've seen posts on CD from teams with drivers that couldn't see over the driver station at all. Obviously short people on a team aren't likely to be chosen as drivers, which doesn't seem fair or sensible to me. Short drivers or disabled drivers should be allowed platforms, stools, etc to put them at a reasonable eye level compared to other drivers.

Okay, okay, I know. Life isn't fair. The competition isn't fair. Dean said so. I'll say it right now, I don't buy it. I can't see any sense in this position for several reasons.

Completely separate from the typical connotation of "disabled", if someone isn't able to do something thanks to poor design based around a "normal" person, they're disabled at that task. So declaring that shorter people aren't disabled because they aren't in a wheelchair is completely arbitrary. They are being disabled in this situation by the design of the field and having their ability to drive a robot reduced or completely removed simply because of their stature.

Disabled or shorter people are just as likely to be excellent drivers as anyone else, at least when it comes to controlling the robot. But a 4'6" driver is still at a great disadvantage compared to a taller driver.

The GDC has already declared that the competition is only between robots and not between robots and drivers or drivers and drivers. So how does it make sense to put some drivers at such a disadvantage?

Finally, FRC purports to be a super bowl of smarts. Engineering, science and technology are field where physical ability is almost completely irrelevant to a person's ability to do the job. So it seems odd to me that FRC would make it difficult for students to fully participate in the program simply because of their height. Especially when this particular problem is pretty easy to solve. All you have to do is make it legal for any driver to stand on a platform that will bring their eye level to 5'0" plus or minus two inches. If anyone is planning on using one, they could have it checked very quickly and easily during inspection. I mean, if theme parks can check 40+ people in 2-3 minutes, I think we could manage.

I don't know, perhaps I have a solution here in search of a problem, but I'm in an advocating mood at the moment. Have any teams had issues with disabled students trying to be drivers? Has anyone had difficulties driving or been turned down as a driver because they were short?

[artdutra04]

In the past four years, I've only seen one occasion where special accommodations were made. In the 2004 (FIRST Frenzy) season, one of the student drivers for team 181 was in a wheelchair and had access to a special ramp in the driver station, which elevated him at least another foot above the ground.

But on the same topic of visibility, at 6'0", I found myself over many occasions having to duck quite low (sometimes just above the top of the driver station) to have enough visibility of the playing field to drive/operate the robot due to objects blocking my view. In 2004, it was the robots and mobile goals near the ball drop. In 2005, it was robots with tetras. In 2006, it was robots on the ramp. In 2007, it was changing one's perspective to see the far side of the rack or to see around ramp bots.

It always seems that no matter what your height is, you can never see 100% of the action, 100% of the time. But...

For the sake of fairness and cool factor, let's just equip every regional with an iBOT.

[Alivia]

You have made some very valid points here...
FIRST should be willing to allow the use of such devices for the disabled, and I believe they would if a team asked for it.
While the competition is said to not be "fair", equipping the field to better suit disabled people really isn't a question of being fair or not. It's moreso about giving the opportunity to be a driver, human player, etc...to anyone and everyone. To not allow such accomadations to the disabled would definitely make me think less of the FIRST organization. However, like I said before, I don't think that FIRST, or even Dean Kamen for that matter, would have any problem with allowing the use of ramps or stools for those that need it.
I mean, after all...Dean Kamen DID invent the iBot, giving people with disabilities the mobility (both physically and socially) that they didn't have previously.

Kudos goes out to all those who are going to make sure that FIRST does their job and makes the FRC-and all programs-accessible to everyone.

[Cooley744]

There is also a disadvantage to people who want to be a human player and are really short, or if someone wanted to be a coach but was mute. Or a deaf driver that couldn't communicate with the other members of the drive team. Or someone who wants to do the mechanics but is blind. Life isn't fair in general. On the otherhand, if there is something FIRST can do to make things fair, or possible for disabled drivers, they should do so. This issue can go both ways, but overall, no matter how hard you try to make life fair, you can't.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

In the past four years, I've only seen one occasion where special accommodations were made. In the 2004 (FIRST Frenzy) season, one of the student drivers for team 181 was in a wheelchair and had access to a special ramp in the driver station, which elevated him at least another foot above the ground.

The year before, another team's driver (or one of them) was in a powered wheelchair, so the crew got out the ramp. He was pretty good at driving, too.

Let's face it, in some venues it's harder for a disabled person to get to the field/pit level than become "high enough" to drive. If we're so concerned about "height challenged" people, how about just making the whole operator station out of Lexan? As long as they can see over the diamond plate, they're usually fine.

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by EricH

If we're so concerned about "height challenged" people, how about just making the whole operator station out of Lexan? As long as they can see over the diamond plate, they're usually fine.

I'm not saying I'd ask for a ramp or anything, but...I'm 5'5", and I'm our team's drive coach. Our drivers are nearly always taller than me. In my case, it's not the driver's station that needs to be made of lexan...it's our drivers.

[Covey41]

Over the years FIRST has made many adjustments for people who have one challenge or another. In NJ one year a deaf student was allowed to have sign language specialist as a 4th drive team member. The very first year BAE sponsored the Granite State event there was a driver that was under 3' tall, (age 16) they were allowed a step stool. At the championship event in 2001 on Newton there was a blind student on a drive team. ( I don't remember what he/she did on the drive team.)

Remember we now have an FRC team made up of entirely deaf students.

Over the years FIRST has done everything they could to help out students with challenges. A part of every field is a wheel chair ramp that raises the chair at least a foot off the floor.

While it is necessary to help people who are truly challenged, I would hate to see exceptions made for perceived handicaps. Unfortunately as Dean says "Life is not fair".

I also have to ask: Is it FIRST, or the teams that limit challenged students activities? It appears to me FIRST has done everything it could to encourage / inspire all students.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Covey41

Over the years FIRST has done everything they could to help out students with challenges. A part of every field is a wheel chair ramp that raises the chair at least a foot off the floor.

I'm not sure it was a whole foot of height, but this ramp was used at GLR and Detroit. A heavy beast - we got one of the bigger field-reset guys to move it about when it was needed. If it wasn't needed for a driver in a wheelchair, it was made available to a team with a short person driver. (Sorry if that's not the correct term.) Otherwise that team had a box he could stand on.

The rule interpretation was made so that the person in the wheelchair could be up on the ramp during autonomous, even though he would be in front of the foot-fault line.

[whytheheckme]

Because our team is half made up of students from the American School for the Deaf, we have quite a few disability issues.

As far as drivers and driver stations go, last year, we had a deaf human player. Our primary driver could sign, so would interpret drive meetings for José (our deaf human player), and he would understand what to do during the game, and what the primary strategy is, etc.

This worked out fine. We had no problems as far as miscommunication between our human player and what his job was on the field for that particular match.

So I guess in this case, we worked around the problem and found a solution without providing additional equipment, because this is what would have had to have been done in the real world.

On the flip side though, I don't see why providing a stool for a short person would be such a big deal. This is a real-world aid that is easily accessible, and doesn't require any expensive or complicated device. It's a stool.

My 2 cents.

Jacob