International Railroad Discussion > OZ AutoHaul to run its autonomous trains without driver in cab

https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/641323/rio-tinto-autonomous-trains-get-regulator-go-ahead/

"The mining giant today announced the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) had approved fully-autonomous train operations, which will transport iron ore from Rio’s mines to port facilities in the Pilbara region of Western Australia....
Autonomous trains are fairly common across the Asia Pacific region, with fully driverless operations in China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, Taipei, South Korea and Singapore...."

Wow, 940 million dollars to have driver less trains. That would pay for crews longer than the mining operation will probably last.

They seem to have been working on this project for some years.That's a lot of R&D dollars.
Regards,DK

i have seen videos of "automated" baristas and vehicles in America with NO backlash..........

66

You say no backlash. There is much concern about driver-less cars and trucks after several accidents with those thing. They are not being sold to the public because of program changes needed in their test driving. So at this point no one knows exactly what one of those vehicles will cost. When that becomes public you will see plenty of back lash.

a "driverless" anything's sole purpose is to take away jobs.

I have seen NO backlash over that. the people that will lose jobs or have lost jobs over "driverless"/automated modes of transportation have remained pretty silent.

the politicians of BOTH PARTIES that are supposed to represent us have also remained silent during the development/testing of driverless vehicles........

66

My bet is that driverless cars will be more safe, ie less accidents that cars with human drivers. And..I don't see a driverless car taking away many jobs. Now trucks and trains, likey will do so.
RB

Lurch_in_ABQ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Autonomous trains are fairly common across the
> Asia Pacific region, with fully driverless
> operations in China, Hong Kong, India, Japan,
> Malaysia, Taipei, South Korea and Singapore...."

Bahaha. Such hype. Don't forget the people movers at OUR airports, which are "trains" that are "driverless." Even "driverless" people movers have cameras that allow "virtual" drivers to watch what's going on. Besides, these are isolated systems, where things are simpler by design.

Huge majority of trains in Japan have drivers. This sounds like a typical financial media white lie.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, 940 million dollars to have driver less
> trains. That would pay for crews longer than the
> mining operation will probably last.


This is why GE/Wabtec are salivating over how much they can get from the Class 1s for autonomous trains.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a "driverless" anything's sole purpose is to take
> away jobs.
>
> I have seen NO backlash over that. the people
> that will lose jobs or have lost jobs over
> "driverless"/automated modes of transportation
> have remained pretty silent.
>
> the politicians of BOTH PARTIES that are supposed
> to represent us have also remained silent during
> the development/testing of driverless
> vehicles........
>
> 66

Don't forget the media playing into the hype. That means views opposing autonomous vehicles might not get fair coverage. I've heard plenty of opinions expressing suspicions against "self-driving" anything, whether here in Silicon Valley, or out of state. Don't quite jive with the "excitement" the media has portrayed about the technologies so far.

I did run into some young techie folks onboard a flight last year, and their blind faith in such technology was alarming. I politely told them to be more cynical, but I don't think the message got across.

I wouldn't rely on our politicians to do ANY representation anyway.

I've said it already long before the self-driving accidents have been reported recently, that self-driving vehicles don't have the reaction time needed to make safe evasive maneuvers - they are at best "driver assist." But we deserve the foibles of this technology, because people are too stupid to realize how wonderful our brains are, that we can anticipate things BEFORE it happens, as opposed to sensors REACTING to what's already happened.

I've been observing driver behavior for several years now, and it seems self-driving vehicle is a perfect "invention" for those addicted to SmartPhones who are desperate to spend time on their gadgets, even while driving. They think they don't have to pay attention when they drive - idiots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/18 17:24 by cchan006.

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My bet is that driverless cars will be more safe,
> ie less accidents that cars with human drivers.
> And..I don't see a driverless car taking away many
> jobs. Now trucks and trains, likey will do so.
> RB

There's a reason why Uber has been "headhunting" design engineers with self-driving experience, from Google and Tesla. Per small chance that their goal is met, there won't be anymore Uber drivers, much less taxi drivers. Since Uber drivers aren't organized, they'll never know what hit them... but I still have doubts about the success of self-driving technology, so they can remain ignorant. I guess "sharing economy" jobs will be lost, which to me is comedy anyway.

Until taxpayer-subsidized roadside sensors are installed system-wide to improve the "intelligence" of self-driving vehicles, it's too early to talk about whether it's safe or not. It's all about driver-assist at the current level. I haven't seen any "leap" in technology that would allow the years of research to come to fruition. All the self-driving "testing" is collecting more and more data (adding complexity) instead of coming up with an elegant solution to make it work. Our brains are much more efficient at learning, not in terms of time, but in terms of converting information into abstracts, where we can develop logic and instinct.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, 940 million dollars to have driver less
> trains. That would pay for crews longer than the
> mining operation will probably last.

Give them a call and let them know they've got their sums wrong...

Maybe this is why they're pushing for driver-less vehicles:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/uber-driver-sexual-assault/index.html

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe this is why they're pushing for driver-less
> vehicles:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/uber-dr
> iver-sexual-assault/index.html

Here's a scenario: hacker hijacks a self-driving vehicle, "drives" it to a remote location of his choosing, then commits assault.

I'm surprised people aren't scared yet.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe this is why they're pushing for
> driver-less
> > vehicles:
> >
> >
> http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/uber-dr
>
> > iver-sexual-assault/index.html
>
> Here's a scenario: hacker hijacks a self-driving
> vehicle, "drives" it to a remote location of his
> choosing, then commits assault.
>
> I'm surprised people aren't scared yet.

Here's a scenario, regular controller of vehicle i.e. engineer or pilot either messes up or decides to commit suicide - then lots of people die. I'm surprised at your particular concern over driverless vehicles...

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a scenario, regular controller of vehicle
> i.e. engineer or pilot either messes up or decides
> to commit suicide - then lots of people die. I'm
> surprised at your particular concern over
> driverless vehicles...

Spoken like a clueless techie. How about an "AI" malfunction that cause those tragedies, where there's no pilot/driver available to intervene and prevent the mass deaths?

The horror of Internet-based technology is the ANONYMITY of the criminal, where he or she feels the crimes can be committed without being detected, or seen by witnesses. Your example insinuates "human fault" and shows disrespect for your own kind, where you are convinced technology will eliminate human faults, including criminal activities.

You're welcome to become the next cyborg experiment to save the human kind from itself.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exhaustED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here's a scenario, regular controller of
> vehicle
> > i.e. engineer or pilot either messes up or
> decides
> > to commit suicide - then lots of people die.
> I'm
> > surprised at your particular concern over
> > driverless vehicles...
>
> Spoken like a clueless techie. How about an "AI"
> malfunction that cause those tragedies, where
> there's no pilot/driver available to intervene and
> prevent the mass deaths?
>
> The horror of Internet-based technology is the
> ANONYMITY of the criminal, where he or she feels
> the crimes can be committed without being
> detected, or seen by witnesses. Your example
> insinuates "human fault" and shows disrespect for
> your own kind, where you are convinced technology
> will eliminate human faults, including criminal
> activities.
>
> You're welcome to become the next cyborg
> experiment to save the human kind from itself.

Would not an emergency fuel cut-off in the passenger area prevent this? Or power cut off for electrics? Race cars (and locomotives) have been using this simple idea for decades. This seems like a minor issue that is easily preventable.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > exhaustED Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Here's a scenario, regular controller of
> > vehicle
> > > i.e. engineer or pilot either messes up or
> > decides
> > > to commit suicide - then lots of people die.
> > I'm
> > > surprised at your particular concern over
> > > driverless vehicles...
> >
> > Spoken like a clueless techie. How about an
> "AI"
> > malfunction that cause those tragedies, where
> > there's no pilot/driver available to intervene
> and
> > prevent the mass deaths?
> >
> > The horror of Internet-based technology is the
> > ANONYMITY of the criminal, where he or she
> feels
> > the crimes can be committed without being
> > detected, or seen by witnesses. Your example
> > insinuates "human fault" and shows disrespect
> for
> > your own kind, where you are convinced
> technology
> > will eliminate human faults, including criminal
> > activities.
> >
> > You're welcome to become the next cyborg
> > experiment to save the human kind from itself.
>
> Would not an emergency fuel cut-off in the
> passenger area prevent this? Or power cut off for
> electrics? Race cars (and locomotives) have been
> using this simple idea for decades. This seems
> like a minor issue that is easily preventable.

Correct Portlander, it seems that cchan006's paranoia/technophobicity prevents him from seeing what many people know about the statistics of accidents. Nothing at all to do with 'disrespect' for humankind, just an appreciation of reality and human frailties.