They should be. Artificially keeping jobs alive that are better, safer and cheaper performed by machines is bad for everyone in the long run, even the train drivers.
you want to explain why its better for train drivers to be out of a job? creative destruction might be better for the system as a whole, that's different than saying there aren't winners and losers, only winners the further we go down the wormhole of automating away work, that's a question we shouldn't just blow off
Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
41–50 of 52 posts
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#42This is a rhetorical question. Of course it could. I've ridden driverless trains in at least three countries - the technology is unquestionably available, proven, and safe. Is it possible politically? That is the real question. Perhaps not, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with technology.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#43BART is already automated. The "drivers" just make announcements, check that the doors don't close on someone's leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#44BART is already automated. The "drivers" just make announcements, check that the doors don't close on someone's leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.
Interesting comment, but it would be a lot intererestinger with a citation attached.
"BART was one of the first U.S. systems of any size to have substantial automated
operations. The trains are computer-controlled via BART's Operations Control Center
(OCC) and headquarters at Lake Merritt and generally arrive with regular punctuality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_Rapid_...Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot speak for BART, but in NYC the MTA has been trying to automate its trains for many years (since the early 90s for the latest effort) and has only barely been able to keep everything working on the one line chosen for the pilot program -- and that is one of the simpler routes in the system. While I am sure that automation is possible and that the technology is available , the MTA seems to be making all the wr…
So ... lots of people have a financial stake in automated trains not working, and for some reason MTA is moving in a direction that consistently doesn't work. Quite a coincidence there.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#46BART is already automated. The "drivers" just make announcements, check that the doors don't close on someone's leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.
This is the same kind of "automation" that is in place at most mass transit systems in the US (sans DC, which still uses human operators). The requirement of having that human operator is typically born strictly of labor requirements first, and not necessarily the need of having someone's hand over the "Oh shit" button.
The human driver instead serves as a sort of last-ditch assurance that the transit company values human life sufficient that a jury wouldn't destroy them in the event of an accident. He performs a sacrificial function by being the first one to die in the event of a crash, at which point it becomes a tragedy for the operator company, milliseconds before the people behind him die, at which point it becomes a tragedy for the passengers. There is no point, therefore, at which a disaster can be seen as a tragedy for the passengers but not the operating company, a position which is fraught with political-legal consequences in the US corporate and municipal environment, ever obsessed with liability. The driver's failure to respond adequately is implied to be at least partially the fault of the late driver, sufficient to draw fire until the panic dies down.
Absent liability issues, we would all be riding perfectly safe labor-less cars and trains, which were perfectly safe because we insisted on using them once they were mature enough to be safer than individual automobile drivers, and learned from each crash that happened afterwards, and improved our algorithms iteratively. Instead, every time we have a crash we blame the algorithm's existence rather than tweak it, switch to using a more human-intensive mode, let the automated infrastructure rot, add weight to our trains, and decry the tragic no-fault coincidence of driver inattention and algorithm failure that doomed the driver and the passengers.
The DC Metro was designed for full automation. Rather than implement the automation and improve on it over time, the predictable initial failures resulted in scaling back the automation partially and later fully and now it's not even a realistic capability, the infrastructure has degraded.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caltrain seems to operate on the principle "users are the enemy". I wanted to travel between San Francisco and Santa Cruz, where my family is. Driving, that takes about 2.5 hours depending on traffic. In theory, the mass transit way of doing things is to take Caltrain from SF to San Jose and then a bus over highway 17. Here are some of the problems I encountered. - Caltrain leaves once an hour. This is forgivable, bu…
The frequency of the trains will be increased once the trains are moved from diesel to electricity (will take 2 more yrs?), since the operating costs will decrease. Whether the Caltrain schedule matches the highway 17 bus's schedule is not solely the fault of Caltrain -- it's either a 2 way street, or else they're both neglecting it, unless you have proof otherwise. I have ridden MTA (NYC) and BART when they have sto…
You're talking about a bus route with two stops. The only thing it does is travel between Diridon station and downtown Santa Cruz. I'm assigning responsibility for the station's scheduling to the station, which is Caltrain.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#48BART is already automated. The "drivers" just make announcements, check that the doors don't close on someone's leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.
This is the same kind of "automation" that is in place at most mass transit systems in the US (sans DC, which still uses human operators). The requirement of having that human operator is typically born strictly of labor requirements first, and not necessarily the need of having someone's hand over the "Oh shit" button.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
you want to explain why its better for train drivers to be out of a job? creative destruction might be better for the system as a whole, that's different than saying there aren't winners and losers, only winners the further we go down the wormhole of automating away work, that's a question we shouldn't just blow off
Same reason for anyone in that situation: The sooner they learn/do something else, the sooner they can acquire a new useful skillset, instead of dragging on their now useless one. It's not like this is an intermediate problem and if we just subsidize them long enough, there'll suddenly be a need for train drivers again.
so how are they better off?
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#50I wonder if TechCrunch articles could be automated. Have the TC editors ever bothered to ask, or are they too afraid of the interests of the contributors to explore the question?
If everyone could just email their PR pieces to a common techcrunch email address, someone could write a bit of code to check any links and then bung the text and pictures into an article template on the homepage.
Mailgun In -> TextTeaser API [1] -> Mailgun Out to reader mailing list/Deploy to S3 site.