SashaLemon
Active Member
I want someone to answer these questions clearly and concisely: if there is no elevator operator on board the elevator, how does an automated elevator conduct an evacuation in the event of a breakdown or fire?
That wasn't the question. The SkyTrain has so far had a pretty good safety record, yes. My question is: what if something unsafe did happen? What is their SOP for dealing with the variety of scenarios I outlined?What even is the standard you're asking for? We're now approaching 40 years of safe uncrewed operation in Canada alone. This is presumptively unsafe because?
I mean if you said the same thing about shipbuilding today it would literally be 100% true. we have nuclear reactors on ships now. Radar, sonar, and weather detection systems have made it 100% impossible for a sophisticated vessel to not be aware of any storm systems or large objects in their vicinity. Making a fuss about driverless trains (when grade-separated) is comparable to anti-nuclear fear mongering in my opinion. Harmful, uninformed thought processes that ignore evidence make all of us poorer and more insecure. Germany and the UK are a poster child for this at the moment. Making decisions based on irrational fear or anger (nuclear phaseout, Brexit) will measurably harm your economy and the wellbeing of your populace. Sometimes, we shouldn't be asking plumbers or retail workers to determine national energy policy or have retirees dictate complex transport projects. (also wearing a helmet while cycling is most definitely useless if you are over 18 and on a public road)In 1907, SS Kronprinz Wilhelm, a German liner, had rammed an iceberg but still completed her voyage, and Smith said in 1907 that he "could not imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that."[154][j]
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the aspect that it would be a nice have to have someone onboard that could help assist passengers in case of emergencies. However, I do believe that majority of accidents that happen when flying planes occur due to pilot error rather then when an airplane is on autopilot. I'm sure it is also the case that trains have emergency issues due to operator error or neglect in maintenance rather than due to trains running automatically. And of course, as we all know, the vast majority of car accidents are by operator error as well. So while your ask is relatively reasonable in having an attendant on board, the quote you used in your prior message makes it sound like something will go wrong or that automation is less safe than manually operated trains or automated trains with attendants on it (Not like the attendant would be able to anything to stop an accident from happening when it is already happening in most cases).Ah, my favourite UrbanToronto line of argument. Someone questions some commonly accepted line of thinking, such as light metro being the unquestionably best tech for the OL, that we need to build expensive subways everywhere, or that automation everywhere is an unquestionable benefit for our civilization, and rather than meaningfully engaging with the discussion, the person is called irrational, behind the times, etc. I certainly don't think there is any shame in being hesitant to unquestionably accept a new technology (or at least there shouldn't be) just because our overlords, who as we all know from careful reading of history are a generous and kind demographic of people who always have our best interests and well being at heart, foisted it upon us and assured us it's safe.
If wanting someone trained in evacuation procedures, emergency evacuations, and who can contact the authorities clearly and accurately on my trains is irrational or paranoid, then wearing seatbelts, locking your house at night, keeping computer backups, looking both ways before crossing the street, wearing hi-vis clothing in the dark, having a first aid kit, wearing a helmet while biking, having Two Factor Authentication, or having emergency contacts must also be irrational and paranoid. I have found in my life that I have not really needed to do any of these things up until this point, but I still do them, because it only takes one misadventure for the decision to do these things to pay off.
I want someone to answer these questions clearly and concisely: if there is no employee on board the train, how does an automated metro conduct an evacuation in the event of a derailment or fire? How does the general public know where to go, or how to avoid debris on the track bed? What about if police or paramedic intervention is required? In a dark tunnel, everything looks the same and no one knows where they are (or even what happened). How does anyone know where they are or how to get help? And no, meaningless platitudes about how the metro systems are safe don't mean a thing. Everything is safe, until it's suddenly not. Of course, the wikipedia article on automatic train operation doesn't mention anything about safety.
So far I have voiced several pressing concerns with automated trains in this thread and I've not had a single one of them refuted, but at least I can rest assured in the knowledge that I am paranoid and behind the times. Stellar debating, I am so much more knowledgeable and in step with the times now
if highways were held to the same safety standard as this user wishes to hold mass rail transit projects to, there would be thousands of lives saved every year in this country.That wasn't the question. The SkyTrain has so far had a pretty good safety record, yes. My question is: what if something unsafe did happen? What is their SOP for dealing with the variety of scenarios I outlined?
"just trust me bro" is not an answer.
It is irrational to say "I don't care about proven safety track record in dozens of systems across countless operating hours, I don't trust it." If you take that stance, you shouldn't trust anything.Ah, my favourite UrbanToronto line of argument. Someone questions some commonly accepted line of thinking, such as light metro being the unquestionably best tech for the OL, that we need to build expensive subways everywhere, or that automation everywhere is an unquestionable benefit for our civilization, and rather than meaningfully engaging with the discussion, the person is called irrational, behind the times, etc. I certainly don't think there is any shame in being hesitant to unquestionably accept a new technology (or at least there shouldn't be) just because our overlords, who as we all know from careful reading of history are a generous and kind demographic of people who always have our best interests and well being at heart, foisted it upon us and assured us it's safe.
If wanting someone trained in evacuation procedures, emergency evacuations, and who can contact the authorities clearly and accurately on my trains is irrational or paranoid, then wearing seatbelts, locking your house at night, keeping computer backups, looking both ways before crossing the street, wearing hi-vis clothing in the dark, having a first aid kit, wearing a helmet while biking, having Two Factor Authentication, or having emergency contacts must also be irrational and paranoid. I have found in my life that I have not really needed to do any of these things up until this point, but I still do them, because it only takes one misadventure for the decision to do these things to pay off.
I want someone to answer these questions clearly and concisely: if there is no employee on board the train, how does an automated metro conduct an evacuation in the event of a derailment or fire? How does the general public know where to go, or how to avoid debris on the track bed? What about if police or paramedic intervention is required? In a dark tunnel, everything looks the same and no one knows where they are (or even what happened). How does anyone know where they are or how to get help? And no, meaningless platitudes about how the metro systems are safe don't mean a thing. Everything is safe, until it's suddenly not. Of course, the wikipedia article on automatic train operation doesn't mention anything about safety.
So far I have voiced several pressing concerns with automated trains in this thread and I've not had a single one of them refuted, but at least I can rest assured in the knowledge that I am paranoid and behind the times. Stellar debating, I am so much more knowledgeable and in step with the times now
Radar, sonar, and weather detection systems have made it 100% impossible for a sophisticated vessel to not be aware of any storm systems or large objects in their vicinity.
AIrlines have been providing safety videos at the beginning of flights for decades now instructing what to do in certain emergency situations.
Despite never saying that we are ready for attendant-less aircraft, the stakes are much higher in an aircraft than in a train. For example, there is almost no scenario where trains will need to evacuate in water. Plane fights are generally longer on average than the average train ride. For long-distance trains it makes absolute sense having attendants (to service drinks and snacks, as well as being there in emergency circumstances). However, on a train in a large metro area like Toronto? Well its not like the train will be derailing in the middle of nowhere as it could be with VIA rail or even GO. Emergency services would likely be able to reach the trains in a reasonable amount of time as well.Do you think society is ready for attendant-less aircraft? I realize you are not trying to draw a direct parallel, but I suppose some of the argument of automated trains could apply. Most modern commercial aircraft and major airports have the technology to take-off, fly and land on automation. Ground attendants could load the plane but stay at the terminal? Once you are locked in, the safety brochure/video is sufficient, right? There must be oodles of instances where emergency procedures and evacuation were properly handled by passengers alone. On the vast majority of flights, the only thing that would be lost is beverage and snack service.
In ye olden days, nearly everyone worked on the farm as a subsidence farmer. The mechanization of agriculture, such that only 2% of all laborers could be easily seen by pre-industrial farmers as "throwing everyone out of work"The previous history of innovation has never had the end goal of throwing everyone out of work the way the current push of automation is. It is disingenuous to make this comparison.
In the past, technology evolved because the need existed for it. The horse and cart gave way to the steam locomotive. The steam locomotive gave way to diesel. Food production still involves people, the process and machinery though is different. Today's push for automation, with machines doing all the labour human beings did previously, will render everyone, unless they are an engineer, scientist, or otherwise specialized in their craft, out of work. It is very very obviously not about propelling the human race forward, but about creating more profits for CEOs and shareholders, who won't have to pay for labour, which is the largest part of the costs for many organizations. It is pollyannaish to think that the rulers of today will scramble to provide a UBI or anything of the sort as many of them are in bed with these same corporate ghouls, so many people will be left destitute and struggling. Hooray for progress!
We don't have to trust the general public to do that themselves. Thats what emergency services and intercoms are for. Thats what signs and tunnel lights are for.And I stand by my statement that having driverless trains is INSANE. I do not, and nor should anyone else, trust the general public to evacuate themselves out of a dark, dirty tunnel in the event of a fire or derailment.
This line of thinking is impossible to disprove and spurious.The generally acceptable safety records of contemporary rapid transit systems do not impress me as an argument - they said the Titanic was unsinkable, and it was, until it wasn't.