Croydon Tram Crash

[philthetube]

Try it and find out. Just one look into it will realise its not goin to harm you

Have a quick look into a microwave, no problem, now try looking in it for ten mins as it cooks and see how your eyes feel.

 

[rebmcr]

Have a quick look into a microwave, no problem, now try looking in it for ten mins as it cooks and see how your eyes feel.

IR is not microwave though. You are quite literally saying (by treating all electromagnetic emissions as the same) that lightbulbs and LEDs are the same as X-Ray machines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have a quick look into a microwave, no problem, now try looking in it for ten mins as it cooks and see how your eyes feel.

IR is not microwave. If IR was harmful, we'd be knackered, any hot item gives it out to some extent.

The hazards posed by microwaves are very specific, it is because the precise frequency resonates with water molecules and causes a heating effect.

And you can stare into an open microwave as long as you like, if the door is open the magnetron is not producing anything.

 

[Clip]

Have a quick look into a microwave, no problem, now try looking in it for ten mins as it cooks and see how your eyes feel.

I'm not sure you quite understand what you are writing.

 

[Clip]

Do you spend hours looking at your TV remote control? 8-12 hours? Up to seven days in a row?

Do you understand what an IR beam is?

 

[philthetube]

IR is not microwave though. You are quite literally saying (by treating all electromagnetic emissions as the same) that lightbulbs and LEDs are the same as X-Ray machines.

What I am saying is that you cannot tell, by taking a quick look, wether anything is damaging to the eyes, unless research has been done on year after year exposure then we cannot be sure

 

[najaB]

What I am saying is that you cannot tell, by taking a quick look, whether anything is damaging to the eyes...

I think you can quite quickly that some things are damaging...

 

[Chris M]

Do you understand what an IR beam is?

Yes.
Can you explain the difference between emitted light and reflected light?
Can you explain the difference between looking at something for a few moments and a few hours?
Can you explain the difference between light at different intensity levels?
Can you explain, given the above, how looking at your TV remote control is at all relevant to this conversation?

 

[rebmcr]

Yes.
Can you explain the difference between emitted light and reflected light?
Can you explain the difference between looking at something for a few moments and a few hours?
Can you explain the difference between light at different intensity levels?
Can you explain, given the above, how looking at your TV remote control is at all relevant to this conversation?

Human skin emits a high amount of IR light 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

 

[Chris M]

Do you spend 8-12 hours at a time, for several days in a row, staring at your skin?
What does human skin have to do with a television remote control? What does either have to do with the system used on Tramlink?
Can you explain the difference between light at different intensity levels?

 

[Clip]

Do you spend 8-12 hours at a time, for several days in a row, staring at your skin?
What does human skin have to do with a television remote control? What does either have to do with the system used on Tramlink?
Can you explain the difference between light at different intensity levels?

you don't have to sit staring at your skin for 8-12 hours at a time as you should always be able to see your hands or nose at all times unless your eyes are closed.

If you cant see the relationship between what he has said about human skin and the same beam emitted from a tv remote then you may not understand why he is making the comparison.

I could spend all day telling you but I'm guessing you already know. And thus you will also know that the beam that they are using is of such low power that no harm will come of it and they certainly wont be exposed to it for 8-12 hours a day

 

[Caterpillar]

I cannot believe anyone could think any infrared system trained directly on the eyes is not a serious Health and Safety concern. The wavelength is the key factor. I have no clue what your skin give off, or indeed a remote control, but I would wager it is not 400nm-1400nm. Some facts...

1) Following is the manufacturer guideline (the people who actually make the infrared devices, as opposed to those who put them to use in any other device)

Depending on the mode of operation, these devices emit highly concentrated non visible infrared light which can be hazardous to the human eye. Products which incorporate these devices have to follow the safety precautions given in IEC 60825-1 and IEC 62471.

2) Infrared light emission of these devices is stated (by manufacturer) as 850nm and 860nm peak. The ocular hazard region is 400-1400nm.

3) https://sciencing.com/infrared-light-effect-eyes-6142267.html
http://www.lasermet.com/resources/classification_overview.php
https://seminex.com/lasers-and-eye-safety.aspx/ (use google this information is commonplace)

4) Many manufacturers make infrared safety goggles, why, if its not harmful to eyes?

5) Exposure will be average of 7 hours 20 minutes each working day.

Sufficient cause for concern.

 

[rebmcr]

The wavelength is the key factor. I have no clue what your skin give off, or indeed a remote control, but I would wager it is not 400nm-1400nm.

Infrared is 700nm-1000nm. Everything that has heat in it (skin included) gives off exactly the same IR light.

The ocular hazard region is 400-1400nm.

Every colour of the rainbow, and every light you have ever seen, is 400nm-700nm.

3) https://sciencing.com/infrared-light-effect-eyes-6142267.html

That's a nonsense website with no scientific reference to prove its claims.

http://www.lasermet.com/resources/classification_overview.php

That's a site trying to sell you safety equipment, not very impartial.

https://seminex.com/lasers-and-eye-safety.aspx/

That's about lasers, which is not the thing we're talking about.

(use google this information is commonplace)

Anyone can use Google to find pages that agree with them, it doesn't mean they're correct.

4) Many manufacturers make infrared safety goggles, why, if its not harmful to eyes?

Many manufacturers make homeopathic 'remedies' too. They're also just nonsense.

5) Exposure will be average of 7 hours 20 minutes each working day.

Exactly like THE SUN.

Scaremongering like this, without even a trace of scientific understanding, is pretty irresponsible. Even a 14-year-old doing their GCSEs would know about this...

 

[Caterpillar]

1) Your flesh does not direct IR into your eyes and it is extremely weak. This, and other IR are not directed at eyes. These systems do. Shine a torch in a dark place, illuminates, GREAT NO ISSUE. Now shine it directly into your eyes, different story. This IR is not visible, unlike other light, so you do not shield eyes.
2) If you bothered to read articles, you would have discovered that laser and IR are treated equally, in many articles it states this, including govt. websites. Therefore there is no difference in laser and IR at say 900nm.
3) Light damages the eyes, that is why it is not advisable to look at the sun! This IR is directed not ambient, thus your eyes have no option but absorb it, and as you cannot see it damage can occur. Every site you care to google will tell you this. Fact. IR in the range of 400-1400 can be dangerous to the human eye. This is the spec of the Osram emitter https://www.osram.com/os/ecat/Platinum DRAGON® SFH 4232/com/en/class_pim_web_catalog_103489/global/prd_pim_device_2219730/
it is SFH 4232 ( datasheet) and the system has 6 of them.

4) I fail to see (pun intended) what your agenda is. If the manufacturer of the IR states it can be hazardous to the human eye, what makes you arrogant enough to think you know better?

 

[edwin_m]

1) Following is the manufacturer guideline (the people who actually make the infrared devices, as opposed to those who put them to use in any other device)

Depending on the mode of operation, these devices emit highly concentrated non visible infrared light which can be hazardous to the human eye. Products which incorporate these devices have to follow the safety precautions given in IEC 60825-1 and IEC 62471.

You need to post sources for this, to make clear what device you are describing, whether it is used in the equipment under discussion, or what the "mode of operation" is in that equipment.

 

[14xxDave]

OK, please separate lasers from general IR emitters. A laser is a very different beast to to an overall IR emitter. Laser light is focused and coherent hence it's ability to travel long distances and cause damage. Now I'm not saying shining an IR beam in someones eye for 8 hours is a good thing, to be honest as an ex chemist, I wouldn't like it, but the two systems are different.

 

[Caterpillar]

You need to post sources for this, to make clear what device you are describing, whether it is used in the equipment under discussion, or what the "mode of operation" is in that equipment.

This is the information from the actual manufacturer, we do not know the 'mode' . But with something as sensitive as the eye, personally I would take no chances. Several drivers have reported eye issues and 'sunburnt' skin around eyes. If these were one or two people I would be concerned. Over 20 issues thus far.

 

[Caterpillar]

OK, please separate lasers from general IR emitters. A laser is a very different beast to to an overall IR emitter. Laser light is focused and coherent hence it's ability to travel long distances and cause damage. Now I'm not saying shining an IR beam in someones eye for 8 hours is a good thing, to be honest as an ex chemist, I wouldn't like it, but the two systems are different.

They are not. It all depends on the wavelength. An IR can be more dangerous than a laser under the right conditions.

I do not KNOW whether these IR are damaging. I simply think there is sufficient cause for concern AND WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. I ask the question again, if the manufacturer states the IR can be hazardous to the human eye, why are you so sure it is not?

 

[14xxDave]

They are not. It all depends on the wavelength. An IR can be more dangerous than a laser under the right conditions.

I do not KNOW whether these IR are damaging. I simply think there is sufficient cause for concern AND WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. I ask the question again, if the manufacturer states the IR can be hazardous to the human eye, why are you so sure it is not?

They are different. A laser can cause eye damage in micro seconds, ask me how I know! An IR emitter is not focused and will give a broad spread. As you say an IR emitter can cause damage. Been there and done that.

 

[Caterpillar]

They are different. A laser can cause eye damage in micro seconds, ask me how I know! An IR emitter is not focused and will give a broad spread. As you say an IR emitter can cause damage. Been there and done that.

Sorry but you are very wrong an IR can be focussed and in the words of the manufacturer 'concentrated'. It would depend on the power/ wavelength of the laser and IR respectively. As stated, drivers will be exposed to this for over 7 hours a day, 240 days a year. This may cause more damage long term than a 2 second laser exposure of the same wavelength.

 

[14xxDave]

Yes any frequency can be focused. Lasers are different though and I think you are intelligent enough to realise this.

 

[rebmcr]

1) Your flesh does not direct IR into your eyes and it is extremely weak. This, and other IR are not directed at eyes.

Every time you close your eyelids, IR is being directed into your eyes.

This happens for 7hours 20minutes or more, every night. It's called 'sleeping'.

2) If you bothered to read articles, you would have discovered that laser and IR are treated equally, in many articles it states this, including govt. websites. Therefore there is no difference in laser and IR at say 900nm.

Completely untrue, this is plain wrong.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Guardian system has been activated since 25th September.

Approximately 20-25 reports of following issues:

Dry eyes
Tired feeling eyes
Head aches
Feeling of something in your eye
Increased rate of blinking and need to rub eyes

2/3 drivers have had sick time and have consulted opticians or doctor.
1 driver may have an occular lesion. Being treated as coincidence.

System still active. Aslef still in dispute.

Worth noting ASLEF voted to strike before the system even went active over their belief their health and performance should not be monitored, its also a thermal imaging camera its recording natually emitted heat (primarily from eyes) with around 2% daylight emission to help distinguish non-organic items in the dark. The system has also been active in Lorry cabs for years. Seriously if you look out the cab window during daylight you are being exposed to 50 times as much infrared.

 

[Caterpillar]

Look up BS EN 60825-1 as referred to in the Osram spec. It explains laser and LED emitters are classed together. Find it yourself but this is the relevant section under 'scope'.

Throughout this part 1 light emitting diodes (LED) are included whenever the word "laser" is used.

It references the same protection from laser and led products. I can only ask the question for the 3rd time... If the manufacturer states they can be hazardous to the human eye, what makes you think you know better?

 

[Caterpillar]

Worth noting ASLEF voted to strike before the system even went active over their belief their health and performance should not be monitored, its also a thermal imaging camera its recording natually emitted heat (primarily from eyes) with around 2% daylight emission to help distinguish non-organic items in the dark. The system has also been active in Lorry cabs for years. Seriously if you look out the cab window during daylight you are being exposed to 50 times as much infrared.

Not quite, aslef has legitimate H&S concerns and were not given any details of the system until well after it was installed. Unite union are dealing with similar issues (health and safety) on buses somewhere in Reading, I think. The problem as I under it is Aslef has an agreement re the fitting of equipment to driver cabs. This system is new and has not been installed on Lorrys for years. Have to disagree for reasons already stated, re the sunlight comment. The problem, I think, is the concentrated and focused nature of it. Light from the sun is fine and dandy but one should not look at the sun, for similar health and safety reasons.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes it has been on lorrys for years, its also been in Lexus cars since 2006! and also fitted in Premium Citroens, Nissans and Subaru's.

 

[Caterpillar]

I know about these, but they are not the same spec system. Similar but not the same. Had the Lexus, guess it was an option as mine didn't have it.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would a combined device with similar functionality to the DSD and Vigilance devices used on any train running on NR metals be able to be fitted into a tram or would there not be the room? Also how safe would it be to use?

 

[bramling]

Would a combined device with similar functionality to the DSD and Vigilance devices used on any train running on NR metals be able to be fitted into a tram or would there not be the room? Also how safe would it be to use?

Yes I can't see why it wouldn't be feasible to have some sort of device which has to be acknowledged if a control isn't moved for a period of time. Trouble is, this wouldn't necessarily prevent an accident where a driver is conscious but driving on "auto pilot".

Some form of speed check is in my view the way to go. Obviously the ideal is a continuous speed supervision, however this could be expensive, especially if it's deemed to require a high degree of integrity. One could presumably quite easily install a GPS-based system for example, but can this be guaranteed to be dependable 100% of the time? Politically I think people would settle for a TPWS-type system which checks speed at the most important locations.

I don't see the point of this infra-red system. It doesn't stop a driver overspeeding, and to me the whole thing seems like a typical TFL employee relations mess.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its to monitor fatigue and catch a driver falling asleep or on the verge of falling asleep.