UK’s first full-sized autonomous bus takes to the roads of Scotland
fusionproc.com
fusionproc.com
He said DLR introduced a policy many years ago where after 8pm or so (maybe just on Fri/Sat night?) the PSA needs to sit at the open drivers console ready to smack the emergency stop in case of people on the tracks. Before then it's optional, but some PSAs like to do it anyway in case "their train" hits someone.
Not really much point to this but I thought it was interesting how the PSAs are effectively put in a position of responsibility for the actions of the autonomous vehicle but presumably are not compensated the same as an active(?) driver would be.
Maybe a lot of the desire to move to "autonomous" (or really just more automated if it requires a safety driver) is a workaround for union wages by reclassifying drivers as new made up things.
Presumably like a DLR these buses will always require a human to take responsibility in case of crash, accident, fire etc - but this way for arbitrary reasons you can pay less!
This is an interesting question. Most drivers on the underground aren’t active drivers at. I think every deep level tube line, except the Bakerloo, is autonomous, and the trains can’t be driven manually in normal operations because a human driver can’t react fast enough to continuous adjustments that are sent to train. Adjustments that are needed to safely operate the tube system at the frequency and close follow distance or achieves during peak.
Instead the only things a tube driver does is check the doors before closing them, instructing the train to depart, and hitting the emergency stop if something goes wrong. They probably do get paid more than PSA, but I know they get extra compensation due to amount of time they work underground.
I do want what level of liability a PSA is exposed to in that position. Presumably they would be in trouble if they were obviously not paying attention during the evening hours. But assuming they’re playing in their phone, I suspect they have little to no liability at all in the event of an incident. But I suspect that the emotional toll if “their” train hit someone would be high, regardless of their responsibilities.
> Maybe a lot of the desire to move to "autonomous" (or really just more automated if it requires a safety driver) is a workaround for union wages by reclassifying drivers as new made up things.
TfL actually have no desire to automate existing lines. The costs involved are astronomical, the saving minimal, and service improvements almost non-existent. For TfL there number one priority is improving capacity, and the biggest blocker to capacity on the underground isn’t drivers, it’s trains, signalling systems, and above all dwell time in stations.
The signalling systems place a hard cap on maximum trains per hour, and the existing systems haven’t performed as well as hoped (it should be mentioned that these systems were cutting edge when installed, TfL tech tends to be on the absolute bleeding edge of metro technology, but the problem is fundamentally harder to solve than original expected), and dwell time (the time spent in stations getting people on and off the trains) his hard to reduce much further, without re-engineering trains and stations to increase the number of doors and platform crowding.
Central government has been pushing the automation angle because it’s a “simple” solution to TfL finance problems. But as usual the problem is vastly more complex than that, and the “simple” solution is only good because it feel intuitively correct to public that doesn’t understand the actual problems TfL faces.
London reconnections has a number of fantastic articles covering all this:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/driverless-trains-p...
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2020/tfl-the-impossible-...
I suppose the crux of my ramble was in the fact I had to invent the term "active" driver (there may be a more appropriate way to describe how low level in the feedback loop of vehicle control a human operator is, but I don't know it).
How we draw a line between who is a "driver" and why does the DLR (which is arguably pretty close to an ATO tube in terms of automation level) have PSAs whilst the tubes have drivers? If it isn't cost related is it a public perception thing (ooh this fancy train must be automatic it doesn't have a driver). Although as a passenger, being able to sit in the front seat of a DLR is very fun!
If the safety monitor human (PSA/safety driver/whatever) has to be trained and licensed to operate the vehicle in manual mode, why is that any different to a driver of a traditional mainline train? Should a traditional train driver get a higher wage because they spend more time in a lower level feedback loop?
The crew on the DLR were originally called "train captains", which i think is an excellent name, and should be brought back.
Piccadilly and Waterloo & City are also manually driven.
AIUI, the SelTrac system on the Northern and Jubilee lines _can_ often be beaten performance-wise, but for reasons of service consistency and predictability this isn't allowed (by policy) on-peak.
And if you need to keep at least one employee in the bus, why would you take them off the wheel and very likely increase the risk of an accident, while also making it more complicated legally in case an accident happens. I don't see a gain, unless the end game is to get rid of employees inside the bus altogether in which case the service quality would decrease drastically, because that half of the bus driver's job I talked about earlier is ignored completely.
Maybe it's a good fit in that specific case with the "pre-selected roads", but I am legitimately concerned about this technology being adopted widespread (esp. in the cities) and I don't like the thought of it.
Driver can help passengers if they’re driving. I could imagine a world where you move the employee to the middle of the Bus and have them help with passenger loading/unloading and providing ticketing and help while the vehicle is in motion.
This is something you see on the trams in Amsterdam, they have a conductor in booth in the middle of the tram that can sell tickets etc. That way trams don’t need to wait at stops while the driver is selling tickets and dealing with customer queries. As a passenger it means you can ask about what stop to get off without distracting the driver.
Helping customers can also be made through intercoms at stations (some cities already have that).
Also note that you have fully autonomous metro without any driver in many cities and a metro contains much more people that can have the problems you mention, so I don't see why it would be impossible to have a bus in the same way.
They use to call these "bus conductors" before they sacked them all to save money.
However to me it’s like doormen and bellboys at US hotels or people behind a counter at a shop, it’s unnecessary human contact (which is horrendous), and it reduces functionality (reducing capacity of fixed infrastructre)
A better solution would be to employ people in more productive enterprises.
This is temporary until people are used to, and confident about, a bus with no driver, and until law allows no emergency driver on-board.
A fantastic Mitchell and Webb comedy sketch on this topic:
How will Dee Dee get to Yoker now?
[0] https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/smart/autonomous-vehicle...
it ripped up a perfectly good railway line (against the wish of Cambridge city council) and replaced it with guided buses
the journey that took 40 minutes in the 1900s now takes 90 minutes
With a regular bus the driver will get out and give me crap.
In Zürich if the trams were autonomous they would be stuck at the stations during rush hours. People run in front of them all the time and the driver needs to be very aware of what is going on. If these same people know the tram is autonomous and has to stop they will be even more careless.
I can see autonomous trains working where there is clear separation between the track and people/cars.
Human drivers have learnt how to cope with this but I suspect cyclists will know the bus will always give way to them and take advantage of that...
Buss: kiss, smooch; plural “busses”.