2015-08-10 - Lone working discussion
BC - Lone Working is a difficult one because sometimes there isnt anyone in the space for whole evenings
nottinghack have 350 members and still have the same issue
they have a lone working system, which purportedly doesn't work very well
CH - Have a deadmans switch for lone working? With webcams and a speaker for if somthing happens, allowing us to call 999?
Might want to add an emergency services over-ride to the buzzer with webcam for the next hackspace
BC - So noooooow i'm allowed webcams
CH - Emergency makes sense?
KR - define the times that count as "emergency"
CH - Deadmans switch failsafe
Dangerous equipment requires two member swipe to use
If not utilising dead mans switch
BC - Lone worker button makes sense - press button, it chirps every 15 minutes and you need to press the button or turn it off so we know you're still alive
CH - maybe wrist mounted, with pulse sensor?
KR - that would be very annoying
CH - yes, exactly Kat... that's kinda the point :)
the chirping would mean the alarm wouldn't go off, and all hell wouldn't break loose
and if it's that or no lone working...
KR - that's going to get to a "rule 1" level of annoyance
and also would make it so no one actually turns it on
CH - if it's not on, then equipment won't start
BC - It'd only be a blocker for band saw / table saw / grinder really
KR - i'm all for making things safe to work with, but forcing certain actions to "protect" me from myself will - like a chirp that i have to respond to, just won't get my vote
CH - well, @BinaryKitten, you don't exactly use that equipment frequently? Is it going to negitively affect you and others in a way that would be as harmful as the risk?
What i finstead of a chirp, it was the thing from lost and you had to type in numbers
KR - I don't care if i don't use the equipment as much as you think should warrant the blockade
CH - I'm cool with it having a 1min or so leeway, and having it buzz for the first 10 sec
KR - that's not the point i was going for, but not really going to get into an argument over it
CH - no, that wasn't the point... i may have phrased it ineliquently @BinaryKitten
my point was more that these tools are not heavily used, so this is not going to be particularly onerous
and it's not so much of a blockade as having to have two people in the hackspace to use the tool is
that infantilises members far more
KR - come back to me with which tools would be covered and how the system would work fairly ... and I might reconsider my position
CH - Cool, will do
KR - atm the proposed system doesn't work with Rule 1.
BC - I think the proposed system is fairly sensible TBH.
TK - Although I think having more than one person in the space is, in this instance a more sensible solution than a lone working button. I'm happier with a lone working button than the current complete lack of safety.
The problem with the lone working button is that, if you have managed to cut your hand off, by the time someone gets to you you're already dead and so is hackspace.
KR - can we not have a swipe in, swipe out on equipement that if the machine is run for a longer than "usual" time frame requires a reswipe, to confirm you're not in harm
BC - Thats how haccess is going to work anyway
KR - protect the people on the equipment not from being in the space alone
BC - Swipe in, press out
TK - Any major accident or death WILL SHUT US DOWN.
CH - HSE standard is no lone workers on machinery full stop
and risk EVERY OTHER HACKSPACE
TK - that's what we're avoiding here. I don't care if people are annoyed. Annoyed people are alive/uninjured people.
KR - the issues i have atm are: 1) determining "Lone worker" 2) protecting the people in the workshop environment
CH - and @BinaryKitten hoping for compliance from members won't work either - we need compliance to be mandatory, otherwise we can still be liabal
KR - I'm all for protection on all things, but i don't feel that the space itself be locked down if you go in on your own
CH - 1) one RFID swipe for one worker, two different for a second person in the space
@BinaryKitten that's what I want to avoid, as it would suck and we would loose members quickly
KR - swipe out on toilet breaks, swipe out when leaving
CH - easier if it's purely on the machines, and less intrusive surely
KR - exactly my point
thus the "every 15 minutes press a buttoin" is what i'm saying is bad
CH - button can be on the machine, surely?
BC - How would you clarify theres a second person in the space?
CH - second key used to access the machine
KR - thus returning to 2 people in space to operate machinery, rather than 15minute chiirp alarm
CH - if they pinch someone elses, that's fraud and we are protected
BC - So every time i want to turn the bandsaw on i have to ask tas to stop feeding bran and come and turn on the machine for me?
CH - I was suggesting both working in tandum
KR - how?
CH - go to machine, swipe, asks for second person, first person swipes again and it's in first person mode
TK - Why the hell would we lock down the whole space.
CH - or Tas throws you her fob @thinkl33t
TK - I'd just give you my keys thus invalidating the system.
This is only about the machines that can kill you.
BC - If you are alone in the space, you press the lone worker button. This allows you to turn on the dangerous machines, with the corrolary that you have to re-press a button every X minutes
CH - this is purely for:
- Chop saw
- Table saw
KR - i'm in favour of that per machine, regardless of amount of people
BC - If you arent alone in the space, you get the other person to scan their card on the lone worker box, which turns everything on, accessbile from a single tag, for 30 minuites
CH - laser should be safe enough for no ID10T errors of this form
BC - The haccess nodes on the machines control the actual machine istelf
KR - I think we should forget about the 2nd person part
just make all dangerous machines (like @Badspyro's list for e.g.) to follow that
BC - so its just an interlock for the haccess system
CH - yep, as at the moment, we are potentially in deep problems, as I know a fair number of members do not follow that rule... including me up to this point we also need to think about the summoning of help bit, as it shouldn't put too much of an onus on us either
infact, technically, the only ones who are allowed to break that rule are Tas and Bob, as directors
BC - The problem with locking things out entirely is that people will use other tools to achieve the same effect, which will most likely be more dangerous
CH - yep
or just disconnect the interlock, which is also an ID10T error waiting to happen
KR - ok. let me calrify my points here.
1) Am not against lone worker protections 2) now understand per machine 3) am in favour of protecting people 4) would suggest that we don't need a "2 person in the space" overrride system
I am just making sure that we cover issues that are there, but in the end, @thinkl33t since you'll probably be implementing how it works am not going to argue against the end result
BC - I read the insurance documents, I think there are some bits of "our understanding of you" that are incorrect
lone worker policy is limited to certain tools for example