A rathery scary vision of the future from "Trains" magazine

[Chris M]

A broader vision is that most people won't "have" a driverless car: whenever someone wants to go somewhere they will call up a driverless cab to take them there.  No driver = cheaper.  Theoretically.  Overall, fewer vehicles would be on the roads - either on the move or parked - because utilisation would be much higher ie fewer vehicles would be left sitting around empty going nowhere waiting for their owners to need them again.  There would be more space on the streets because fewer vehicles would need to be parked up, and less land would need to be given over to off-street parking. Etc etc etc utopia beckons.

 

I've read in the past about people who had 'done the math' and worked out that even using old-tech private hire cars or taxis with actual drivers whenever they wanted to go somewhere was cheaper than owning a car.  Obviously it depends on an individual's particular circumstances and needs, but driverless technology may offer the possibility of moving the break-even point substantially in favour of hire vs ownership.

Could be inconvenient. I keep my coat, hat, gloves, house alarm remote, picnic blanket, phone charge lead, small camera etc in my car at the moment. I wouldn't want to have move everything or plan exactly what I was going to do every time I jump in the car. And I want the car to be there ready when I walk outside the house. If I had to wait ten minutes for a car to turn up just to pick grandkids up from school, pop to B&Q, pop to local model shop, take a trip to the SVR or whatever I would get very crotchety indeed. 

[Allegheny1600]

I am talking about things that I see looking around me now and finding the current world rather disagreeable and concerning. It manifests itself in all sorts of ways that people just accept - buying your train ticket online rather than from a ticket office for example, another person out of the loop (not that all ticket offices have closed yet), another little bit of human interaction replaced with machine interaction. Insignificant in its own right but lots of similar small examples add up, and this is now, not the future. That's not vague fearmongering slippery slope, it's seeing a change I find unpleasant happening right now, and it's doesn't look like stopping. 

I have to agree and sympathise with you on this kind of thing.

As the OP, I wasn't going to say anymore due to the nature of some of the early responses but, never mind. I did say this was all "rather scary" after all!

I detest "self-service" checkouts and will avoid them if possible, partly to help ensure that retail outlets must keep some humans employed, partly to get some human interaction and partly to "stick two fingers up" to evolving technology.

I once had to go through self-service automated check-in at Schipol airport and it was a nightmare, I swore never again.

Yet, I am intrigued by the march of technology that is enabling such things as driverless trains to happen. After all, how many folk actually stop and talk to the driver of a train? Only a dedicated few.

I rather agree with Dave1905's view, with his points system - like it or not, such change is practically impossible to stop and appears to be embraced by the young with their more agile minds. Older folk with less agile minds will soon enough disappear - sorry.

People have tried to stop the march of progress in the past and look what happened to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

John.

[Chris M]

Self service checkouts work fine a lot of the time but I don’t think they work with the weekly supermarket shop, especially when you buy a couple of bottles of wine. I reckon Aldi’s low tech concentration on making the staffed checkout fast is a better approach than self service checkouts. Especially as Asda & co are finding they are selling far more carrots than they actually have in store. Would you believe people are entering carrots for weighed purchases because they are the cheapest item per kilo?

 

On the other side of the coin the library self service kiosks have helped to keep libraries open so I can only see them as a good thing. Having been involved in one such project I calculated that at one small library the staff costs worked out at about £5 for every book loan. Self service has saved this library and kept some, admittedly reduced, employment.

[Reorte]

One irony about it all is that I find the technology itself absolutely fascinating and impressive, and going back I was certainly one of the geekiest children in school.

[APOLLO]

I saw it (technology) all come into the gas industry when I started in 1969.

 

I remember the first office computer being installed around 1980, just having moved into our brand new office (Operations Control Centre no less !!), Used to input wages, I'll never forget the boss saying "one day soon you will all have one of these on your desk". That day came early 80's, and the office is now long gone, demolished & now part of the Royal Mail railway complex at Warrington.

 

I was involved virtually all my career in implementing new pipe laying technology & techniques. I've been involved with some fantastic machines / materials / pipe laying methods, along I must admit to one or two duds also. Funny thing was we never reduced labour at that time, work was piling in, Warrington new town was being built, lots of new housing and industrial estates, new pipes to outlying villages, miles of new feeder and reinforcement mains along with miles of old cast iron pipes requiring replacement.

 

We were never short of work in the 80's & 90's.

 

Wonderful days, wonderful people to work with, but glad I'm retired.

 

Brit15

[dave1905]

A broader vision is that most people won't "have" a driverless car: whenever someone wants to go somewhere they will call up a driverless cab to take them there.  

 

Actually I would welcome a driverless car.  I have a son with a disability that prevents him from driving.  However he can hold a part time job.  That means my wife or I have to drive him to or from work 5 days a week.  Any time he wants to go shopping we have to take him.  Not complaining about that, just setting the stage.  If we had a driverless car, he could "drive himself" to work or "drive himself" to the store.  What a HUGE increase in his independence.  How many more people with disabilities or older people who are foot mobile, that are trapped by their inability to drive, that could be freed to lead more normal lives?

[Regularity]

I told my son (age 12.86) that by the time he was my age, no one would drive a car except for racing or on private roads, as on public roads everything would be sel-driving.

His only comment was to ask why he should have to wait that long.

[mdvle]

. Right now, every Robot put into use in industry replaces one low skilled job, and creates three new jobs (System integrator, System installer, System Maintainer). Are you under the impression the skilled people employed in such roles don't talk to each other?

 

 

Um, I think you need to either rephrase what you are saying, or rethink your assumptions.

 

There is no way any company is replacing 1 low wage worker with 1 expensive machine and 3 semi-expensive people to deal with the machine, that would be commercial suicide from the increased costs.

 

Now, replacing 100 low wage workers with 10 to 20 machines and maybe 2 semi-expensive people to deal with the machine sounds better from a cutting costs justifying the expense view, but that clearly would demonstrate replacing 100 workers with 2, leaving 98 people in trouble.

Edited June 28, 2018 by mdvle

[APOLLO]

Found this on a US Railroad site

 

http://www.azfamily.com/story/38527214/federal-government-agency-interested-in-autonomous-train-potential

 

Brit15

[scouser]

OK, ClikC this really is way off the reality.

What really happens is that a robot or robots are installed, low skill jobs go.

Engineering staff are trained to program and maintain the robots, plus they are linked to the manufacturer in case of any serious problems.

This does the job well, in the real world. I have neither worked for or installed automation for any firm that behaved in the way you are talking about.

What you are saying may apply to something that is government run, possible.

Any company that is in business to make money would just laugh at that idea!

As a real example - A ten station packing robot installed.

50 low skill jobs gone (for ever).

Company engineering staff trained on robot.

Extra people employed -ZERO.

Payback time for cost of machine 12 months.

Edited July 1, 2018 by scouser

[Allegheny1600]

Still think this is in the distant future? 

https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/rio-tinto-operates-first-driverless-freight-train.html?channel=527

 

Okay, this is an isolated single commodity line but it does show that such things are happening.

[PaulRhB]

Still think this is in the distant future?

https://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/rio-tinto-operates-first-driverless-freight-train.html?channel=527

 

Okay, this is an isolated single commodity line but it does show that such things are happening.

Like Docklands it's fairly easy on a sealed system and note there is effectively a remote driver. It's a totally different risk though with AHB's and lots of footpaths. As ever it's possible but the investment is huge when you talk about a whole network. The remote control is also becoming more of a risk as hacking gets more sophisticated. A freight train incident with ore is a far lower risk than passengers, chemicals and any other hazardous goods

[royaloak]

If the train suffers a pipe burst who seals it up so the train can continue?

[dave1905]

The railroad would have several multi-craft people stationed at various intervals along the railroad, probably in hirail vehicles.    They could take care of minor repairs and in a pinch operate a train by radio control or by physically being on the engine.  Railroads have "rapid response" trucks in heavily trafficked areas now.

Edited July 14, 2018 by dave1905

[mdvle]

If the train suffers a pipe burst who seals it up so the train can continue?

 

Part of the answer is the question of just how frequently does this happen?

 

Followed by if it happens enough is there anything that can be done to reduce the frequency as the economics of running the train change.

[jjb1970]

History tends to indicate that if a technology offers compelling advantages or reasons to be adopted then industry and society adapt themselves to the technology rather than that technology having to be a straight drop in replacement for something else. Many of the arguments about greater automation are common to most industries and if automation genuinely is the best solution then solutions are found.

 

When I read posts about autonomous systems and societal impact I always get the feeling it is rather like the old adage of watching two bald men argue over a comb, there are fundamental questions about the future shape of society and the role of people in a future economy which seldom seem to be really considered as on one side people look at this strictly in terms of industrial productivity and efficiency and on the other side people just look at the impact on today's jobs. If we continue on this path society will either evolve or become even more dysfunctional.

[Regularity]

Both are options, although not necessarily in any order: maybe evolution will be the resolution and necessary precursor of dysfunction?