4 ms·
> you can’t get them to be vigilant for a low probability event. How about starting by simply removing their phone? Isn't that easy? The driver was looking at
by Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> you can’t get them to be vigilant for a low probability event.
How about starting by simply removing their phone? Isn't that easy? The driver was looking at her phone at the time when she was supposed to be looking at the road. This is a simple violation. The phone should have been banned and the driver fired after a first violation.
I am pretty sure that while what you say might be hard to do for some people, there are individuals out there for whom sitting and looking at the road for hours would not be such a big problem. If she couldn't handle the job, she shouldn't have worked there.
- ocbyc 6y agoI believe it was "his" phone at the time.
- thedrbrian 6y ago> I am pretty sure that while what you say might be hard to do for some people, there are individuals out there for whom sitting and looking at the road for hours would not be such a big problem Those people are known as drivers and they’re doing more than just looking at the road. The driving/feedback from the controls is keeping them engaged.
- gambiting 6y agoThat's all fine, but we also have decades of experience designing systems for exactly this - they are called train drivers. Driving a train can be the most boring job in the universe, in ways that driving a truck isn't - there is very little feedback from the controls, you can be going for hours in a straight line without any need for input or change of speed - so locomotive controls are designed to require constant positive input to keep the driver engaged. This should be the same - the system should require the backup driver to keep confirming/selecting something on the dash, even if it's inconsequential to the operation of the system.