4 ms·
> there is always an attendant monitoring them I actually highly question the efficacy of this approach. Humans are good at driving (for some values of "good"
by radarsat1 10y ago
> there is always an attendant monitoring them
I actually highly question the efficacy of this approach. Humans are good at driving (for some values of "good") partly (imho) because it is an active task. As soon as we enter the "monitoring" zone, and not actively engaging in the task, it is very easy to become quickly bored and have attentions wander and miss important details, like getting too close to other traffic, veering the wrong way, etc. This is not the fault of the person doing the monitoring being bad at their job, but rather simply how humans work, and this needs to be taken into account when designing systems that are automatic but "require human monitoring."
Really, humans are better at the active task, and computers are better at monitoring, but we are constantly trying to reverse these roles, sometimes to dangerous effect.
- ptaipale 10y agoQuite true. I believe a part of the job is just to advice passengers, but anyway as the "bus" rides only at a very low speed over a short journey (500 m back and forth) it wouldn't matter that much even if the attendant fell asleep. And a part of it is surely just to convince the potential passengers (who don't have to pay anything in this trial) that "it's safe, we even put our own guinea pig to prove it".
- sandworm101 10y agoForgetting that this is a bus, it is still a confined space containing members of the public. You need an attendant of some sort to deal with unusual situations (ie fires). Even the most advanced and sensor-filled Disney ride still requires a human being to monitor the behaviour of the other human beings.
- radarsat1 10y agoThat is true. I've used the computer controlled metros in Paris often enough and there don't seem to be too many problems but I suppose there are guards around. As for buses, I find there are two cultures, either the bus driver has some amount of responsibility for what happens on board his vehicle, answering commuter questions, announcing stops, checking tickets etc., or he completely dissociates, and just drives, sometimes not even being the one to check your ticket. In the latter case you tend to have a lot more theft no buses. (In my limited experience. I'd love to see data on that, actually.. although the distinction is perhaps a bit hard to define.)
- ptaipale 10y agoThere's always the concern about calamitous fellow passengers. This story concentrates on women suffering from perverts, but I expect that most life-threatening violence is, as usual, experienced by men. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/will-the-night-tube-protect-women-against-public-transport-perve/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/will-the-night-tube-pr...
- ptaipale 10y agoI wouldn't think fires are much of an issue, but disruptive, obnoxious and sometimes violent passengers are more common.
- kalleboo 10y agoIt would be cheaper to have a guy in a room watching it on CCTV along with whatever other infrastructure is being monitored. That's how the Copenhagen Metro is - automated and completely unmanned (aside from occasional patrols/ticket checks)
- icebraining 10y agoAren't most subways unsupervised? I mean, they have a driver, but as far as I know they can't usually even see what's happening inside the train.
- derefr 10y agoPerhaps the bus will have a very conservative driving AI, like subway trains do, where "anything in front that isn't getting out of the way" means "slow to a stop and ping the driver to decide what to do."