Slashdot Mirror
A Rogue Robot Is Blamed For a Human Colleague's Gruesome Death (qz.com)
A new lawsuit has emerged claiming a robot is responsible for killing a human colleague, reports Quartz. It all started in July 2015, when Wanda Holbrook, "a maintenance technician performing routine duties on an assembly line" at an auto-parts maker in Ionia, Michigan, called Ventra Ionia Main, "was 'trapped by robotic machinery' and crushed to death." From the report: On March 7, her husband, William Holbrook, filed a wrongful death complaint (pdf) in Michigan federal court, naming five North American robotics companies involved in engineering and integrating the machines and parts used at the plant: Prodomax, Flex-N-Gate, FANUC, Nachi, and Lincoln Electric. Holbrook's job involved keeping robots in working order. She routinely inspected and adjusted processes on the assembly line at Ventra, which makes bumpers and trailer hitches. One day, Holbrook was performing her regular duties when a machine acted very irregularly, according to the lawsuit reported in Courthouse News. Holbrook was in the plant's six-cell "100 section" when a robot unexpectedly activated, taking her by surprise. The cells are separated by safety doors and the robot should not have been able to move. But it somehow reached Holbrook, and was intent on loading a trailer-hitch assembly part right where she stood over a similar part in another cell. The machine loaded the hardware onto Holbrook's head. She was unable to escape, and her skull was crushed. Co-workers who eventually noticed that something seemed amiss found Holbrook dead. William Holbrook seeks an unspecified amount of damages, arguing that before her gruesome death, his wife "suffered tremendous fright, shock and conscious pain and suffering." He also names three of the defendants -- FANUC, Nachi, and Lincoln Electric -- in two additional claims of product liability and breach of implied warranty. He argues that the robots, tools, controllers, and associated parts were not properly designed, manufactured or tested, and not fit for use. "The robot from section 130 should have never entered section 140, and should have never attempted to load a hitch assembly within a fixture that was already loaded with a hitch assembly. A failure of one or more of defendants' safety systems or devices had taken place, causing Wanda's death," the lawsuit alleges.
And so it begins...
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'd trust it more if it didn't have a fallible human behind the wheel.
I trust computers not to drink, drive sleepy, fiddle with the radio, talk to the hounddog on the CB, text cousin Willy, be aware of what was happening around it for a full 360 degrees every microsecond.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
My experience with industrial accidents is that it's almost certainly human error. I've seen someone deliberately disable the safety systems because they were inconvenient, then get mutilated doing something stupid the safeties would have prevented them from doing.
Personally, I've operated machinery on manual override when it should have been on automatic, the machine blaring warnings at me the whole time which just didn't register because I heard them so often at work. Luckily, the passive safety systems (the big steel protective cage I was in) kept me from harm.
With robots, failures are more likely to stop the system than to start it up. To accidentally start something when it shouldn't be started usually takes human interference.
The term "human colleague" immediately reveals that the writer has no idea of what a "robot" is. The most important thing always to keep in mind is that a "robot" is a machine - or, more likely nowadays, a collection of machines. It is a tool, even if that tool is capable of a limited set of autonomous actions. The accidental death described in TFA is a perfect illustration of this vital principle. Maybe there should be signs ten feet tall prominently displayed on all walls in workplaces that use robots: "A ROBOT IS *NOT* A 'COLLEAGUE'!"
Mind you, this confusion has been inherent since the word was first coined. "The word 'robot' was first used to denote a fictional humanoid in a 1920 play R.U.R. by the Czech writer, Karel Capek but it was Karel's brother Josef Capek who was the word's true inventor". [Wikipedia] The word is derived from the Slavic language root meaning "work" or "worker", and strongly suggests that a robot is to some extent intechangeable with human workers. Of course, that is absolutely not the case.
Isaac Asimov confronted these issues head-on when he began writing science fiction stories about robots. His "Three Laws of Robotics", which essentially forbid any robot to harm a human being, are treated as indispensable in his stories. But Asimov blandly ignored the obvious fact that there is no known way to implement such laws, which incorporate high-level abstract notions and moral principles. Until robots become at least as intelligent and complex as human nervous systems, such commands cannot be implemented. And if they ever do, we will immediately face even more tremendous problems.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
The problem is that was *unrelated* machinery. She disabled the robot for the relevant cell. A robot from neighbor cell performed an action it had absolutely no business doing.
"Robot" engineer here. And when I say "Robot", I really talk about "Industrial Robot". Not the one that look like human.
It's 2015 all over again when another "Robot" killed a Volkswagen worker. People were all "Matrix have begun" rogue.
First, let me tell you to scary part : "The robot have done exactly what it have been programmed to".
Second, let me tell you the encouraging part : "The robot have done exactly what it have been programmed to".
It's always the same thing, "industrial robot" kill/hurt someone, and we see an headline about Robot revolution coming to kill us all in Terminator style. Those robot are just basic program controlling a bunch of servomotor, nothing "AI rogue humanoid robot with a shutgun" like. But there's on thing that are common to each of those story : "Safety violation".
In my mind, industrial robot are still the most dangerous piece of hardware you'll ever work with, period. And that's why there's a shit ton of safety measure for them. Yeah gears are dangerous and could tear off your finger, but you indistinctly know that as long as you don't put your finger close to them, they won't bite you. It's not the case with robot.
Back to the Volkswagen case, the worker didn't respect the safety procedure. The robot are connected to a safety gate that "must" be open when there's a worker inside the cell. You enter the cell, you put your lock in the gate to deactivate everything dangerous inside of it. But, from what I've understand, those worker wanted to work fast and took a "shortcut" while testing their equipment and decided to close the gate while a worker was inside. Of of the system then activated the robot that started it's wielding procedure with the worker right between both : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Look between 0:05 and 0:30, everything else in this video is shit).
I work constantly in this sort of system and you'll be amazed how many "close call" I've seem so far. The thing is, people are completely clueless about robot (Hell, one time I was presenting a robotic cell with two KUKA robotic arm to some potential customer and one of the cute asian girl asked me if she should "see" the body of the robot. She was thinking there's was a huge robot under the floor controlling the two arm).
Long story short : Respect the freaking safety procedure.
Elok
The issue has very little to do with the lockout in the robotcell (well.. see below)).
The problem is that you have two adjacent cells that can interact. If Cell A is in lockout mode then the Robot from Cell B should not be allowed to reach into Cell A, but it may well still be allowed to work in it's own cell.
So the possible faults here are:
1. User failed to use correct lockout (climbing over door, having other human help reset door (it's supposed to be impossible from insdie the cell))
2. The lockout failed/hardware error (this can basically not happen, the odds are astronomical since the lockout is required to use dual channels with supervision)
3 a. A design mistake was made: A non secure* function (Software and/or Hardware) was used to stop robot B from moving into Cell A and it failed.
3 b. A design mistake was made: A secure* function (Software and/or Hardware) was implemented the wrong way.
I'm guessing 3a or 3b.
* secure codes runs in a safety PLC or or similar module. This code basically cannot fail (it has internal comparison like aircraft) and the hardware is fault resistant (basically everything is doubled so two errors must happen within a very limited time for there to be any risk). However this code must still be good. The secure function only makes sure that the code the programmer wrote actually functions as written. Tests and design documents needs to decide what the code should do.
Source: European Industrial Engineer
Looks like the factory has both a history of accidents (2 previous deaths) and owner/name changes. That could indicate a culture of disregard for safety.
Perhaps even welcome. From The President Changed. So Has Small Businesses’ Confidence
The owner of an automotive parts assembler gave thanks that he would not be receiving visits from pesky environmental and workplace overseers.
The president of a trucking company spoke of a “tremendous dark cloud” lifting when he realized he would no longer be feeling the burden of rules and regulations imposed by the Obama administration.
“My gut just feels better,” said Bob Fleisher, president of a local car dealership. “With Obama, you felt it was personal — like he just didn’t want you to make money. Now we have a guy who is cutting regulations and taxes.
Thankfully, those pesky environmental and safety rules and regulations protecting people and getting in the way of profits over disposable employees will be going away...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You haven't actually read Asimov's Robot stories, have you? If you had, you'd know that the implementation of the three laws of robotics was entirely irrelevant to the points he was trying to make.
My experience with industrial accidents is that it's almost certainly human error.
My experience with human error is that the only way to avoid future human error is to find the underlying cause which permitted that error.
I've seen someone deliberately disable the safety systems because they were inconvenient, then get mutilated doing something stupid the safeties would have prevented them from doing.
Sheer stupidity exists. The only way to eliminate it is by removing the stupid people. I remember a palatising machine at a biscuit factory where one employee asked the other to lock him into the cage and start the machine because of a faulty sensor was misplacing every 8th box. When a manager walked in, he hit the e-stop. Shortly after security walked in and escorted both the person in the cage and the person who locked him in the cage off site.
When they said "no one told me" they were made a huge example, and management made sure that everyone at the plant knew the story of the two idiots who got themselves instantly fired.
It is one area that is really difficult to manage.
I think calling it a "war" is disingenuous. Name a single regulation that was not based on a real public need. The only one I can think of was the whole anti-pipeline thing (KXL and Dakota Access), which was just straight-up ignorant. I wouldn't call that a war on businesses, though. In fact, my company made money off of TransCanada due to that debacle.
Compare that to what we have now, though. The president can cause stock prices to drop 5% or more with a single vindictive, vapid tweet. Obama's administration could lay out a damning white paper with detailed explanations of why mining tailings were bad for drinking water supplies, and nobody gave a shit because they knew the Republicans in congress would never actually do anything about it. God forbid we have an EPA or OSHA that actually, you know, defends we the people.
I'm pretty pro-Tenth, but honestly how are you going to handle river pollution at the state level? Is Louisiana really going to tell Texas to keep their cadmium on their half of the Sabine? Air pollution: can Arizona tell California to get its cars off the road when the wind is blowing? What about global warming? Anything requiring an international treaty is by definition a federal issue.
I'm tired of people claiming that all regulations are anti-business, and that all businesses just want to screw people for a buck. There's a real benefit to the American people when a smoothly functioning federal government does it's job. Also, there are real financial incentives when businesses act ethically. Unfortunately we haven't seen either in so long, most people have forgotten what it looks like.