14 ms·

I think the author (Hugh Landau) is making a point about the nature of machines. I accept this point, and the related one that humans can use machines to enforc

by TimK65 2y ago

I think the author (Hugh Landau) is making a point about the nature of machines. I accept this point, and the related one that humans can use machines to enforce ruthlessness, and that the machine interface means that there's no human who can readily be blamed for the ruthlessness. However, the point is a little bit undermined by Landau's erroneous assumption about slam-door railway stock in the UK. It absolutely was not abandoned to improve schedule-keeping; on the contrary, it was abandoned because it was unsafe as hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam-door_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam-door_train

hlandau 2y ago
Author here. Can you elaborate? I don't see anything to support this claim from the link you provide. You are correct that the completion of the phase-out of slam-door rolling stock in the UK will relate to modern safety (and accessibility) regulations, amongst other factors. But that is different to what motivated the initial introduction of remotely controlled doors, which as that article states, dates back to the London Underground in the 1920s. While it might be the case that centrally controlled doors are mostly more safe (with some exceptions), that mere fact doesn't imply that it is the primary motivating factor behind the historical adoption trend. So it's an interesting claim, but unless I'm missing something in the link I don't see it as supporting this claim?
- haswell 2y ago
  > "These newer units are safer as the doors have central locking ... In the past, the doors on slam-door trains could be opened at any time, even while the train was moving." > "Due to a number of high-profile accidents in the 1990s, the manually-locked slam doors were supplemented with electronic, driver- or guard-operated central locking before they were gradually phased out in favour of sliding doors through the 2000s, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of deaths per year from passengers falling from trains" > "Some units had individual compartments, each with its own door and no access to any other part of the train; however, these were unpopular due to security concerns and the lack of access to toilets ... The phase out was speeded up after the Murder of Deborah Linsley in such an individual compartment in 1988." The Asbestos in many of these slam-door trains is less relevant to the central point, but was also a factor in the transition.
  - hlandau 2y ago
    The first quote is simply a statement that central locking is safer. I don't think that's really disputed, but it's not the same as saying that it was the defining motivation, especially in the 1920s. The second quote relates to the greater adoption in the 1990s. But this is far after the initial adoption by the London Underground in the 1920s, and presumably these safety issues during the period 1920-1990 weren't so great as to be a showstopper, even if a safer design is preferable. This suggests to me that there was some other, much stronger motivating factor behind the development of the technology in the 1920s on the London Underground, with safety being a trailing motivator. The third relates to a design issue entirely orthogonal to the design of the doors.
    - haswell 2y ago
      > presumably these safety issues during the period 1920-1990 weren't so great as to be a showstopper, even if a safer design is preferable. Many things are not considered "showstoppers" during the early (or even later) stages of technology despite obvious ongoing harm. For example, there were 42,000 motor vehicle fatalities in the US in 2022. Despite this being a large loss of human life, it's not deemed a "showstopper", largely because we really don't have better options and because of the freedom that these vehicles enable. Now let's assume for a moment that self driving tech is perfected, and would theoretically cut down deaths by 75%. The safer design would be preferable, but for purely practical reasons would not be widespread for probably decades to come. > This suggests to me that there was some other, much stronger motivating factor behind the development of the technology in the 1920s on the London Underground, with safety being a trailing motivator How does this suggest that? > The third relates to a design issue entirely orthogonal to the design of the doors. The third relates to the cultural context driving adoption of updated designs, and the point is that this transition can't be reduced to any single factor. I'm really trying to understand your position here, but you seem to continue reverting to your thesis and framing everything in terms of that thesis instead of explaining why the thesis is justified.
      - hlandau 2y ago
        The context of this discussion is my claim that "the adoption of electric, centrally controlled doors was naturally motivated in major part by timeliness." You're claiming that this is refuted by the Wikipedia article, but I don't see any evidence for that. To be clear, I'm open to evidence that this isn't the case, there just isn't any there, because it discusses motives for adopting centrally controlled doors in the 1990s when the technology for centrally controlled doors was already widely available. It doesn't tell us anything about the initial motives for developing the technology for centrally controlled train doors many decades earlier, just that later on an additional motive showed up which drove some additional (late) adoption.

by TimK65 2y ago

hlandau 2y ago

Author here. Can you elaborate? I don't see anything to support this claim from the link you provide. You are correct that the completion of the phase-out of slam-door rolling stock in the UK will relate to modern safety (and accessibility) regulations, amongst other factors. But that is different to what motivated the initial introduction of remotely controlled doors, which as that article states, dates back to the London Underground in the 1920s. While it might be the case that centrally controlled doors are mostly more safe (with some exceptions), that mere fact doesn't imply that it is the primary motivating factor behind the historical adoption trend. So it's an interesting claim, but unless I'm missing something in the link I don't see it as supporting this claim?

haswell 2y ago
> "These newer units are safer as the doors have central locking ... In the past, the doors on slam-door trains could be opened at any time, even while the train was moving." > "Due to a number of high-profile accidents in the 1990s, the manually-locked slam doors were supplemented with electronic, driver- or guard-operated central locking before they were gradually phased out in favour of sliding doors through the 2000s, resulting in a sharp decline in the number of deaths per year from passengers falling from trains" > "Some units had individual compartments, each with its own door and no access to any other part of the train; however, these were unpopular due to security concerns and the lack of access to toilets ... The phase out was speeded up after the Murder of Deborah Linsley in such an individual compartment in 1988." The Asbestos in many of these slam-door trains is less relevant to the central point, but was also a factor in the transition.
- hlandau 2y ago
  The first quote is simply a statement that central locking is safer. I don't think that's really disputed, but it's not the same as saying that it was the defining motivation, especially in the 1920s. The second quote relates to the greater adoption in the 1990s. But this is far after the initial adoption by the London Underground in the 1920s, and presumably these safety issues during the period 1920-1990 weren't so great as to be a showstopper, even if a safer design is preferable. This suggests to me that there was some other, much stronger motivating factor behind the development of the technology in the 1920s on the London Underground, with safety being a trailing motivator. The third relates to a design issue entirely orthogonal to the design of the doors.
  - haswell 2y ago
    > presumably these safety issues during the period 1920-1990 weren't so great as to be a showstopper, even if a safer design is preferable. Many things are not considered "showstoppers" during the early (or even later) stages of technology despite obvious ongoing harm. For example, there were 42,000 motor vehicle fatalities in the US in 2022. Despite this being a large loss of human life, it's not deemed a "showstopper", largely because we really don't have better options and because of the freedom that these vehicles enable. Now let's assume for a moment that self driving tech is perfected, and would theoretically cut down deaths by 75%. The safer design would be preferable, but for purely practical reasons would not be widespread for probably decades to come. > This suggests to me that there was some other, much stronger motivating factor behind the development of the technology in the 1920s on the London Underground, with safety being a trailing motivator How does this suggest that? > The third relates to a design issue entirely orthogonal to the design of the doors. The third relates to the cultural context driving adoption of updated designs, and the point is that this transition can't be reduced to any single factor. I'm really trying to understand your position here, but you seem to continue reverting to your thesis and framing everything in terms of that thesis instead of explaining why the thesis is justified.
    - hlandau 2y ago
      The context of this discussion is my claim that "the adoption of electric, centrally controlled doors was naturally motivated in major part by timeliness." You're claiming that this is refuted by the Wikipedia article, but I don't see any evidence for that. To be clear, I'm open to evidence that this isn't the case, there just isn't any there, because it discusses motives for adopting centrally controlled doors in the 1990s when the technology for centrally controlled doors was already widely available. It doesn't tell us anything about the initial motives for developing the technology for centrally controlled train doors many decades earlier, just that later on an additional motive showed up which drove some additional (late) adoption.