Well a train crashed into a New Jersey station...

Tuba

This is scary and details are still coming out as expected. I have a feeling this could have been a terrorist attack, because from what I have heard, reporters say the train driver was not hurt, but others have died... I don't know sounds sketchy... They also mentioned multiple witness's have said they did not hear the breaks activate, and it just crashed. Others say they saw a explosion..

bumbertyr

Honestly surprised that the driver wasnt killed, pretty crazy crash thats for sure.

Aggraphine

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

Aggraphine

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

That's almost always the reason for these crashes. What I don't understand is why they don't replace the drivers with pseudo AI. I mean it's a train... on a set track... there's no reason at all why that can't be automated.

Automation, by nature, does not handle the unexpected very well.

forumsareannoying

Aggraphine said:

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

That's almost always the reason for these crashes. What I don't understand is why they don't replace the drivers with pseudo AI. I mean it's a train... on a set track... there's no reason at all why that can't be automated.

Automation, by nature, does not handle the unexpected very well.

It would also make it susceptible to cyber attacks.

Tuba

bumbertyr said:

Honestly surprised that the driver wasnt killed, pretty crazy crash thats for sure.

Aggraphine said:

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

That's almost always the reason for these crashes. What I don't understand is why they don't replace the drivers with pseudo AI. I mean it's a train... on a set track... there's no reason at all why that can't be automated.

forumsareannoying said:

Aggraphine said:

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

That's almost always the reason for these crashes. What I don't understand is why they don't replace the drivers with pseudo AI. I mean it's a train... on a set track... there's no reason at all why that can't be automated.

Automation, by nature, does not handle the unexpected very well.

It would also make it susceptible to cyber attacks.

Lol why did I think of that Kinesis quest line where he/she is on the train saving people and when all the people are off safely the train starts going really fast and loses control o-o

Aggraphine

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

One dead, 108 injured according to this

Appears to be accidental or operator error.

That's almost always the reason for these crashes. What I don't understand is why they don't replace the drivers with pseudo AI. I mean it's a train... on a set track... there's no reason at all why that can't be automated.

Automation, by nature, does not handle the unexpected very well.

Um... it's a train... on a track... there is no "unexpected". That's generally the point. Have you ever researched this stuff? Normally the "operator error" comes from the driver trying to make up lost time by running the train too fast around a corner. If there was even just a minimum level of AI to forcibly limit the speed when coming up on turns the majority of these crashes wouldn't even happen.

Also, there would be little concern of any kind of electronic attack. It would be exponentially easier for a terrorist to kill a driver and take control of the train directly than it would be for a terrorist to somehow take control of the trains software. Especially if they were proprietary systems with endless failsafes and redundancies built in. It's not that difficult to make things secure.

You must be unfamiliar with this new concept called a "railroad crossing", in which the rails currently occupied by a train bisect a roadway occupied by your average motor vehicle.

Not only that, but there's plenty of unexpected crap that can happen far and away from roads. Random idiots walking on the tracks, homeless people, the occasional suicide attempt, animals.

Sandwich

I don't usually agree with Deathmob but he's kind of right. AI could totally be implemented in trains and in fact a fair number of trains are already automated. I mean, generally there is still human crew aboard to monitor but the train is driving itself.
But it isn't as simple as he makes it sound either. Most of those trains only travel short distances or are isolated in less populated areas, because keeping a railway free and clear of obstacles takes a lot of coordination between people with different jobs. Trains move much faster, have much less friction, and take much longer to stop than a car, so you can probably imagine sensors to detect obstacles are that much less effective given the insane distances they would have to scan ahead to be reliable. It's actually far more complicated than automating car.
Also, trains do stop. They don't just plow through anything in their path. If there is an obstacle and the train needs to stop to avoid that obstacle the train will stop. They usually can't stop in time if someone jumps in front of it suddenly, but trains can totally stop, and if you've ever seen a train hit something, even in a video, you'd know the driver stops the train after the impact anyways (unless they didn't notice at all).
There's other issues too... People have jobs that they don't want to give up, and many people don't feel safe putting their lives in the hands of a robot over another human being.
Long story short, it's happening, but it's really not that simple.

Aggraphine

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

You must be unfamiliar with this new concept called a "railroad crossing", in which the rails currently occupied by a train bisect a roadway occupied by your average motor vehicle.

Not only that, but there's plenty of unexpected crap that can happen far and away from roads. Random idiots walking on the tracks, homeless people, the occasional suicide attempt, animals.

So... wait a minute... let me see if I got this right... you um... you think that a train STOPS at a railroad crossing? I mean... seriously? You think trains STOP at RAILROAD CROSSINGS... uh... I hate to break this to you, but um... no they don't. Trains do not stop at railroad crossings. Trains do stop for random idiots walking on the tracks, homeless people, suicide attempts or animals. Look up the usage of "cow catchers" if you want to know how trains handle such things. They don't normally slow down and they don't stop. And, even if they did, the AI could certainly handle that. We already have AI that can handle real world driving conditions. A train is MUCH simpler than that. A train follows a preset path on a preset track, it's very simple.

Here, educate yourself...
https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/

Trains don't stop at railroad crossings, no. But other things might.

Aggraphine

Deathmobs said:

Aggraphine said:

Trains don't stop at railroad crossings, no. But other things might.

Cars, people, etc.

nenenenene

Er.... the video was removed.

Tuba

nenenenene said:

Er.... the video was removed.

sorry here it is again..