5 ms·

GPS, especially inexpensive GPS, is widely considered unsuitable for life-safety applications, for a variety of reasons. The bottom line is that it is not accur

GPS, especially inexpensive GPS, is widely considered unsuitable for life-safety applications, for a variety of reasons. The bottom line is that it is not accurate or reliable enough. This is why all commercial uses of GPS have a backup mechanism of some sort, and indeed most navigation is far less reliant on GPS than people believe (e.g. airplanes continue to make extensive use of VOR and ILS). Ships at sea are perhaps the only environment in which satellite positioning is sometimes relied on exclusively, and of course as soon as they are near any other object (land, another ship) they rely on visual navigation for safety. The problem with the rail network is figuring out this backup system.

CamperBob2 11y ago
GPS, especially inexpensive GPS, is widely considered unsuitable for life-safety applications, for a variety of reasons. And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. The problem with the rail network is figuring out this backup system. Well, considering there's no backup system in place on many routes now, I'd say even the flakiest iPhone speed-alarm app is better than nothing. I can program my car to tell me if I exceed the speed limit. I'm sure multiple people will chime in to tell me several very good reasons why trains can't do that (or downmod me for asking.) In this case it might not have been enough to save the train, though, if the speculation is correct about the engineer being temporarily knocked out due to hitting his head while ducking a rock that might or might not have been chucked through the windshield. Wow, it's 2016 and I just typed that. I feel like I fell down a rabbit hole that leads straight to the 1890s.
- vacri 11y ago
  > And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. "reliable enough" != "perfect". You're strawmanning the parent. As for downmodding, if you goad people to do it, you lose the right to complain about it.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Sorry, but I believe it's insanely stupid that things are being done the way they're done, and I believe the arguments that I'm "strawmanning" are part of the reason why. In a rational world, the burden of argument would fall on those who advocate human control of trains, not on those who simply can't fathom why they're not already automated. Sometimes it makes sense to call out stupidity for what it is... even on HN. I'm not trying to come across as personally disrespectful.
    - vacri 11y ago
      In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. Similarly, in a rational world, anyone advocated that X control the train should have to present their arguments. 'automation' doesn't 'win by default' - people favouring automation still have to present their arguments. 'automation' is not the null hypothesis here.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        Me: There's this thing called GPS. It would cost about $100 to have the train "know" where it is. You: In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. And I'm the guy with the lighter and the pile of straw?
        vacri 11y ago
        I apologise - you did say that the controls would cost more than $100. A lot of what you have been saying is fantasy though - for example, that there is no need for a train to be going 1mph faster or slower than the last time. Apparently weather conditions should be ignored? However, just because I made an error (or even strawmanned) doesn't mean that you're not strawmanning.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  Something unreliable is useless - if it stops the train when there's no need, it will cause delays and annoy passengers. It won't be trusted and the drivers' unions will ensure any fault in driving detected with it had no disciplinary effect. But the politicians won't want to spend more on a useful system after buying GPS. A better question is why didn't the USA adopt European train control systems. Those are well regarded, and many countries buy them. Is it a lack of budget, political will, or "not invented here"?

CamperBob2 11y ago

GPS, especially inexpensive GPS, is widely considered unsuitable for life-safety applications, for a variety of reasons. And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. The problem with the rail network is figuring out this backup system. Well, considering there's no backup system in place on many routes now, I'd say even the flakiest iPhone speed-alarm app is better than nothing. I can program my car to tell me if I exceed the speed limit. I'm sure multiple people will chime in to tell me several very good reasons why trains can't do that (or downmod me for asking.) In this case it might not have been enough to save the train, though, if the speculation is correct about the engineer being temporarily knocked out due to hitting his head while ducking a rock that might or might not have been chucked through the windshield. Wow, it's 2016 and I just typed that. I feel like I fell down a rabbit hole that leads straight to the 1890s.

vacri 11y ago
> And unaided humans are perfect. Got it. "reliable enough" != "perfect". You're strawmanning the parent. As for downmodding, if you goad people to do it, you lose the right to complain about it.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Sorry, but I believe it's insanely stupid that things are being done the way they're done, and I believe the arguments that I'm "strawmanning" are part of the reason why. In a rational world, the burden of argument would fall on those who advocate human control of trains, not on those who simply can't fathom why they're not already automated. Sometimes it makes sense to call out stupidity for what it is... even on HN. I'm not trying to come across as personally disrespectful.
  - vacri 11y ago
    In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. Similarly, in a rational world, anyone advocated that X control the train should have to present their arguments. 'automation' doesn't 'win by default' - people favouring automation still have to present their arguments. 'automation' is not the null hypothesis here.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Me: There's this thing called GPS. It would cost about $100 to have the train "know" where it is. You: In a rational world, people wouldn't suggest that a $100 off-the-shelf GPS is all you need to retrofit a train to be automated enough to remove the human overseer. And I'm the guy with the lighter and the pile of straw?
      - vacri 11y ago
        I apologise - you did say that the controls would cost more than $100. A lot of what you have been saying is fantasy though - for example, that there is no need for a train to be going 1mph faster or slower than the last time. Apparently weather conditions should be ignored? However, just because I made an error (or even strawmanned) doesn't mean that you're not strawmanning.
Symbiote 11y ago
Something unreliable is useless - if it stops the train when there's no need, it will cause delays and annoy passengers. It won't be trusted and the drivers' unions will ensure any fault in driving detected with it had no disciplinary effect. But the politicians won't want to spend more on a useful system after buying GPS. A better question is why didn't the USA adopt European train control systems. Those are well regarded, and many countries buy them. Is it a lack of budget, political will, or "not invented here"?