Some thoughts on safety...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JohnYayas
I have no desire to disrupt a LEM. I am all for them. I just know that rules are blantantly broken left and right there and the justification is that since you are all experts and that you know what you are doing so the rules don't have to be followed. That's like a race car driver going 150mph down the highway when no one is around. He's probably completely safe until an unsuspecting deer jumps out.
False analogy. It's more like the race car driver is going 150 mph down a closed race course, and a deer jumps out. In that case, the driver (and the deer) are toast, but there are no fans in the audience to get hurt when his car explodes and sends engine and chassis fragments into the stands.
LEM's are closed events. The public is not invited. If you bring a guest (spouse or friend), you are responsible for their safety. Period. We're not doing this in a downtown club while patrons sip drinks at the bar and watch what we're doing...
Quote:
My point is that there seems to be a lot of so called experts here who don't even follow there own rules who are condemning others.
There is some of that, true, but the one's beating the drum of laser safety the loudest are not among them. Furthermore, while I agree that there has been far too much attention applied to this topic already, using the behavior of a group of seasoned laserists at a private event does not imply that behavior (and actions) at a public one would be the same.
Quote:
maybe before you start policing others you ought to think about policing your own.
I would say that we don't need to do any "policing". None of us were elected to be laser police. Furthermore, the ones decrying the looming threat from these new diodes are already well informed as to the dangers of lasers, and thus do not need policing.
To wit: the people aiming green pointers at the toy helicopter in the youtube link above are not the ones posting about the need for increased safety in this thread. I know, because I was there when that video was shot, and I was one of the people holding a pointer. (Laserjock was piloting the toy helicopter.)
All of the people in that video knew what they were doing. Was it a bad example? Yes. Was it unsafe? No, not in my opinion. Everyone there knew what the risks were, and no one got hit in the eye. Having said that, I do agree that it's a lousy example to set, and I'm embarrassed that the video was uploaded. Perhaps it's a good reminder to all of us to be mindful of our actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JohnYayas
These things don't seem to private to me. You just have to sign up and go. You can post a sign at a disco saying "anyone coming in might have a laser in their eye if they don't watch it" and expect that to fly. If the disco is a "private" club and you have to have a membership to go in does it make it ok to ignore the rules? If not, then why is it any different at a LEM? I am just playing devils advocate here. I really don't care or think LEMs are a problem. But the potential for an accident exists. You have lots of lasers, darkness, alcohol, an unlocked/unguarded door, etc. Where is the safety in that?
You raise a good point. Allow me to address them. (And for the record, this topic is part of the shit storm I've been dealing with over the weekend, and it's going to result in some changes for SELEM this year.)
The main difference, under US law, is that in order for the CDRH to have jurisdiction, there needs to be commerce involved. So if you do a show at a night club, even if you don't get paid, since the lasers are likely to draw more people to the club (and the club will thus sell more beer and wine), then commerce is involved and you need to be 100% legal.
The flip side of this is a private show in your basement or garage. Obviously the CDRH has no jurisdiction there. Same goes for churches. No commerce = no jurisdiction. (Churches are by definition non-profit organizations over here.)
So, by making the LEM a private event, with no direct or indirect commerce involved, you can claim exemption from the CDRH. Now, if I were to set up a business to organize these events, and charge admission above and beyond the cost of the venue itself, and promote it as a laser show (rather than a hobbyist meeting), then I'd soon run afoul of the commerce clause and the CDRH would once again have jurisdiction.
So your example of a private disco still fails the commerce clause distinction, because even if it is a private club, it is still engaged in the act of commerce (selling drinks). Conversely, a LEM is essentially a private meeting of volunteers who donate money to help pay for the venue. Thus no commerce.
Where this all breaks down, however, is in the case where someone is injured, and in that case it's not the CDRH you have to worry about, but rather lawyers and judges. True, we always explain that these events are "at risk", meaning that you are responsible for your own safety *despite* the actions of others. But after some careful consideration, I've decided that this is not enough. For if someone ever tried to file a lawsuit, it would be painstaking to prove this assumption to a court. It needs to be explicitly stated, read, understood, and accepted by all attendees beforehand.
Thus, in the future, every attendee at SELEM (or any other LEM that I have a hand in organizing) will be required to sign a liability waiver form, which among other things will state that the person understands that the event is fundamentally an engineering and technology meeting (not a laser show), and that as a consequence of having this technology on display, there will be class 3b and class 4 lasers in operation without safeguards in place to prevent exposure to laser light.
We will explicitly state that laser projectors will be in operation which are not following the rules set forth in 21 CFR 1040, and that this is in fact a requirement for many portions of the event. Furthermore, there will be electrical hazards, tripping hazards, and other dangers present at well.
The person must accept that it will be a dangerous environment, and he or she must certify that they are capable of understanding these hazards and willing to accept sole responsibility for their own safety while in that environment, even if they are exposed to unsafe actions by others. (This part is key. If someone else does something stupid, it's still your job to protect yourself.)
Under no circumstances will it be deemed appropriate to seek compensation from another member for any injury incurred at the event, even in the case of perceived negligence on the part of the other party. It is understood that it will be a dangerous environment, and if a person is unqualified to assess the hazards in that environment and protect themselves, then they should not attend.
For those people who have attended several LEM's in the past, I agree that this sounds childish. Truthfully, a little part inside of me died when I decided to implement this. But the alternative is to scary to contemplate. And I'm not going chance losing my house because someone got hurt and is looking for someone to sue.
Adam
