There has been a lot of petty and personal criticism aimed at Roger in this thread which saddens and bewilders me. It was all quite unnecesary!

The argument is will the FRAs proposed power-on lamp rule lead to complacency and from that to accidents?

Some of us, including Roger, took one viewpoint.

Other people took another viewpoint.

At no time did Roger directly criticise any other robot. He made clear his opinion that the proposal was flawed, and gave very good and well-informed arguments to back his opinion.

He did NOT name or attack any robots or roboteers - so why were attacks made against his experience and expertise, not to mention his robot?

I know that people dont like it, but Rogers experience in Safety-Critical engineering are HIGHLY relevant to this issue. YOU DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM. But what he says is well worth listening to!

I think we need to agree to differ on this issue.