Norm48327 Zardos, Jeff and Zug. The need for inward facing cameras is based only on the wishes/fantisies of those wishing to place blame on someone. In the minds of some there has to be a fall guy. Would one have helped in the Amtrak 188 incident? Doubtful in my mind. Just another tool for those who need someone other than themselves to blame. I feel for those who have to work under such conditions.
Zardos, Jeff and Zug.
The need for inward facing cameras is based only on the wishes/fantisies of those wishing to place blame on someone. In the minds of some there has to be a fall guy. Would one have helped in the Amtrak 188 incident? Doubtful in my mind. Just another tool for those who need someone other than themselves to blame. I feel for those who have to work under such conditions.
What you have just said is that your employer has no right to supervise your work or to know what you are doing when operating his very expensive and potentially deadly train. You also seem to believe that it is a violation of your rights if authorities investigate and assign blame when an accident occurs.
An inward facing camera or data recorder cannot be used to discipline you unless you are doing something wrong.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
zugmann jeffhergert Some trips (and my last one was one of them) I think I spend more time checking the screen to see what the EMS wants then I do looking out the window. At least you have a conductor. Oh wait, he's too busy writing in his signal log. It blows my mind how all this is considered okey-dokey for the lokie by all those in charge. I sometimes wonder why they even bother putting windshields on engines anymore. Thank gevo my yard/local power normally doesn't have that crap in it. Yet. I know it'll come soon enough. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
jeffhergert Some trips (and my last one was one of them) I think I spend more time checking the screen to see what the EMS wants then I do looking out the window.
At least you have a conductor. Oh wait, he's too busy writing in his signal log. It blows my mind how all this is considered okey-dokey for the lokie by all those in charge.
I sometimes wonder why they even bother putting windshields on engines anymore. Thank gevo my yard/local power normally doesn't have that crap in it. Yet. I know it'll come soon enough. I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
A few years ago around 10 or 11pm we were approaching the hot box detector located (at that time) a couple hundred feet west of a crossing on the Meskawaki indian Reservation near Tama, IA. We were westbound on main #2. About half way between the crossing and detector was a guy laying across main #1. He wasn't easily visible until we were almost to him. I couldn't believe what I had just seen and asked my conductor if he had seen the same thing. He hadn't. He was filling out his conductor's log in preparation for the detector. I tried toning in 9-1-1 on the radio but it wouldn't tone up due to terrain. I knew there was another train close behind and warned them. By then we had cleared the dead spot and were able to give the dispatcher details. The guy was gone by the time the following train went through there.
Jeff
Norm
jeffhergert The biggest thing (at least in my corner of the world) they are looking for is the use of electronic devices outside of the limited allowable usage by rule. (The rules placed by individual railroads reflects the FRA emergency order, but can be stricter than what the FRA mandates.) That's not to say they won't take note of other rule violations observed in reviewing recordings. While trying to rid the cab of distractions, they themselves are placing them in the cab. I'm talking about their Energy Management Systems. All require at least a little bit of "keeping an eye" on them, but some almost require a constant check of the screen. Some trips (and my last one was one of them) I think I spend more time checking the screen to see what the EMS wants then I do looking out the window. Jeff
The biggest thing (at least in my corner of the world) they are looking for is the use of electronic devices outside of the limited allowable usage by rule. (The rules placed by individual railroads reflects the FRA emergency order, but can be stricter than what the FRA mandates.) That's not to say they won't take note of other rule violations observed in reviewing recordings.
While trying to rid the cab of distractions, they themselves are placing them in the cab. I'm talking about their Energy Management Systems. All require at least a little bit of "keeping an eye" on them, but some almost require a constant check of the screen. Some trips (and my last one was one of them) I think I spend more time checking the screen to see what the EMS wants then I do looking out the window.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
jeffhergertSome trips (and my last one was one of them) I think I spend more time checking the screen to see what the EMS wants then I do looking out the window.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Phoebe Vet Just a thought: A camera and control data recorder that only preserves the last hour. It could be programed to preserve the data in the event of a collision or emergency brake application, but otherwise would be overwritten in an hour and therefor not available for anyone to review.
Just a thought:
A camera and control data recorder that only preserves the last hour. It could be programed to preserve the data in the event of a collision or emergency brake application, but otherwise would be overwritten in an hour and therefor not available for anyone to review.
------------------------------------------------------------
I sure am glad I've retired. When I think back to the "good old days" fun we usually had on the locomotive, and how certain 'work habits' from then would cause a modern Trainmaster to have a breakdown. Strangely enough, we didn't go around breaking or crashing into things. How did we ever manage to do our job without multiple layers of supervision?!
Casino's do this...watchers watching watchers watching other watchers who watch ..everything and everybody is watched through many layers..ultimately in some unknown of room that no one knows about, manned by some trusted crony paranoid smart dude, and his trusted lackeys, connected at the hip to The Big Boss.
UlrichMaybe the solution is to have cameras on the camera watchers.. who have cameras on other camera watchers.. who have cameras on the train crew. Great if you're in the camera business I guess.
How will the Supreme Exhalted Camera Watcher be determined?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Maybe the solution is to have cameras on the camera watchers.. who have cameras on other camera watchers.. who have cameras on the train crew. Great if you're in the camera business I guess.
RME ... That would be nice, except there are people, in companies and insurance and government agencies, who are likely paid to scan through it, using fast-forward as necessary, looking as hard as they can for something they can call a violation. To be hung on the individual, or on the company, or ideally (for some government agencies) everyone involved. ...
...
That would be nice, except there are people, in companies and insurance and government agencies, who are likely paid to scan through it, using fast-forward as necessary, looking as hard as they can for something they can call a violation. To be hung on the individual, or on the company, or ideally (for some government agencies) everyone involved.
I can't see it. Such people would be earning more than minimum wage, and you'd need dozens of them on a shift most days a week to scan the recordings. I could see error rates in the 40-60% range due to the nature of that type of work. Ever hear of highway hypnosis? Now imagine yourself sitting at a screen for eight hours, with a couple of breaks, trying to watch for that one infraction passing ephemerally through the raster, but 99.9999% of the time only seeing slight jerky movements of an engineer seated at his station. Mostly eye movement.
Instead, this is the widening wedge toward eliminating the human entirely where possible, and the sooner the better.
challenger3980 Unfortunately ironic, timing of this for me, I just got the word this morning that my carrier is installing inward looking cameras in our tractors. Needless to say our small crew at the plant I work out of was not impressed, neither were the crew at the other plant in the next state when they recently got the word. And Yep, we were given the same Bridge sales pitch, that it would only be reviewed by a "Third Party" and information would only be shared with the company if there was "DEEMED A NEED" . I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too. Unfortunately, quitting would be the only way to do anything about it, and I fear that it is just a matter of time before the goverment takes the fall as the "Bad Guy" and makes them mandatory for everyone, then I quit, what once was a Good Job and am stuck with the damned things anyway. "I seriously question the threat of driverless trucks during the next 15 years or so left in my career, but I doubt that it will even take 5 years for the cameras to be mandated." Doug
Unfortunately ironic, timing of this for me, I just got the word this morning that my carrier is installing inward looking cameras in our tractors. Needless to say our small crew at the plant I work out of was not impressed, neither were the crew at the other plant in the next state when they recently got the word.
And Yep, we were given the same Bridge sales pitch, that it would only be reviewed by a "Third Party" and information would only be shared with the company if there was "DEEMED A NEED" . I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too. Unfortunately, quitting would be the only way to do anything about it, and I fear that it is just a matter of time before the goverment takes the fall as the "Bad Guy" and makes them mandatory for everyone, then I quit, what once was a Good Job and am stuck with the damned things anyway.
"I seriously question the threat of driverless trucks during the next 15 years or so left in my career, but I doubt that it will even take 5 years for the cameras to be mandated."
Doug
[Previously posted!] "...Having driven OTR for over 20 years ( about 99 %) as a single driver... A Log Book was our 'ruler'. Then DOTs (and Insurance Carriers) found out about being able to use the engine cycle computers to record 'events' [LOGS OF STOPS,STARTS,ENGINE RPMS and The ability to time events,etc.] as part of their'cases' evidence. So in the event of a bad accident, or any 'event' that might wind up with a court action of any kind; They ( Enforcement types) sieze the drivers's log book(s)(?), and pull the engine computer as evidence to be examined.
As to the inward facing cameras... Seems to be ( as Balt ACD has noted on other Threads here) A Solution in search of a Problem ! Anyone that thinks that they are only for "accident investigations" is absolutely kidding themselves... As the camera footage gets archived, 'the curious' will get it out and just look at it..."Just being curious"...ROFL....
At some point that footage will become part of an employees review process, and punitive responses of some disgruntled supervisor type..."
Accident (Event) investigation ? it is just the trunk of that elephant, sticking its nose under the tent. Like Body Camers an cops... Cameras are a 'salesman's delight', and are just an apeasement to make some lawyer's life a little easier while building a case.
SD70M-2DudeRegardless of the type of test, this is still an example of 2 people losing a month's pay for a misunderstanding with no malicious intent.
Wholeheartedly agree. It's easy to abuse something like that.
SD70M-2DudeAnd conveniently those who are unpopular with management (union reps, health & safety reps, outspoken people who stand up for themselves) will be the most monitored.
Another fellow, working for a municipality, found himself in a similar situation. They let him go. While I don't know the facts in that case, it could be interpreted that in the first case, they valued the employee and worked with him to resolve the issue; and in the second, they merely now had a reason to let him go...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I seriously question the threat of driverless trucks during the next 15 years or so left in my career, but I doubt that it will even take 5 years for the cameras to be mandated.
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
tree68 BaltACD I know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data. AFAIK, checking the "tape" is a perfectly legal efficiency test - just like using a radar gun, only potentially days afterward.
BaltACD I know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data.
AFAIK, checking the "tape" is a perfectly legal efficiency test - just like using a radar gun, only potentially days afterward.
Regardless of the type of test, this is still an example of 2 people losing a month's pay for a misunderstanding with no malicious intent.
To put it in perspective for non-railroaders, this is equivalent to a motorist being fined several thousand dollars for doing the old speed limit of 70 MPH on a stretch of highway where the speed limit was recently lowered to 50. Seem fair?
Expect more of this with the cameras. And conveniently those who are unpopular with management (union reps, health & safety reps, outspoken people who stand up for themselves) will be the most monitored.
In Canada my Union (TCRC) had already agreed not to fight the installation of inward facing cameras as long as there would be no Company access to the footage, only the TSB would be allowed to access it, and they would only be allowed to access it after an accident. The TSB was fine with these restrictions, but it seems the Company lobbyists have gotten to the politicians once again.
I am unsure of the Union's plans for future action on this front, but in conversation with our national legislative director several years ago (when the issue was first being raised) he indicated that we would fight Company access in the courts until we were down to our last red cent. I sincerely hope that happens.
And while I usually try to stay away from politics on this forum at least I can sleep at night knowing that I did not vote for a party that supports this ridiculousness.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACDI know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data.
Paul_D_North_Jr RME Paul_D_North_Jr The technology is also being used successfully by others in the U.S., with studies showing a 40-percent reduction in collisions per million miles travelled." Anone know the actual references or papers involved here? I'd be highly interested to see the causal mechanism producing a 40% reduction in collisions through the use of inward-facing cameras. . . . I should have made it clear that I was just quoting from the linked article for everyone's convenient reference, not endorsing or supporting that statement. I share RME's skepticism about the purported studies - the correlation may be just post hoc ergo promter hoc * The only causation I can envision is that because the crews then know they're being recorded, they take extra pains to do everything by the book and make it look good, which they might not do if they knew the likelihood of being seen or caught was vanishingly small. That's speculative at best, and I don't know how it could be rigorously measured and quantified without being subject to the Observer Effect** and/ or observer bias (to a pre-determined result). *See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc , especially the part about the rooster. ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) - PDN. P.S. - As to the disdain for 'studies', listen to Paula Poundstone 'dis' them on almost any espisode of NPR's news quiz show, "Wait, Wait - Don't Tell Me".
RME Paul_D_North_Jr The technology is also being used successfully by others in the U.S., with studies showing a 40-percent reduction in collisions per million miles travelled." Anone know the actual references or papers involved here? I'd be highly interested to see the causal mechanism producing a 40% reduction in collisions through the use of inward-facing cameras. . . .
Paul_D_North_Jr
Anone know the actual references or papers involved here? I'd be highly interested to see the causal mechanism producing a 40% reduction in collisions through the use of inward-facing cameras. . . .
I should have made it clear that I was just quoting from the linked article for everyone's convenient reference, not endorsing or supporting that statement.
I share RME's skepticism about the purported studies - the correlation may be just post hoc ergo promter hoc * The only causation I can envision is that because the crews then know they're being recorded, they take extra pains to do everything by the book and make it look good, which they might not do if they knew the likelihood of being seen or caught was vanishingly small. That's speculative at best, and I don't know how it could be rigorously measured and quantified without being subject to the Observer Effect** and/ or observer bias (to a pre-determined result).
*See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc , especially the part about the rooster.
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
- PDN.
P.S. - As to the disdain for 'studies', listen to Paula Poundstone 'dis' them on almost any espisode of NPR's news quiz show, "Wait, Wait - Don't Tell Me".
Over time one's awareness of the 'eye in the sky' diminishes and actions will return to their former 'normal'. A short term study will show 'improvemet'; a longer term study won't.
P.S. - As to the disdain for 'studies', listen to Paula Poundstone 'dis' them on almost any espisode of NPR's news quiz show, "Wait, Wait - Don't Tell Me". Link to "A compilation of Paula Poundstones' issues regarding studies mentioned on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.", about 6:02 long:
https://soundcloud.com/tspoonproductions/paula-poundstone-research-rantings
jeffhergertI don't know about how the Canadians will set up their cameras. In the US, It's my understanding that all carriers installing inward facing cameras are only using them for recording images. No one is currently using them in "real time" viewing although most systems are capable of such operation. They also are not recording in-cab conversation although I believe they are capable of that. Yet. It's my understanding that engines now being equipped with cameras are also being fitted with cell phone detectors. When the detector senses phone usage of any kind, it marks the recording (for locating the precise time period for review) and sends a notification to a manager. The recordings are reviewed not only because of accidents or incidents (such as possible phone use) but also randomly. Reviews due to an accident/incident aren't limited to that particular action. They can and do review the entire tape. Jeff
It's my understanding that engines now being equipped with cameras are also being fitted with cell phone detectors. When the detector senses phone usage of any kind, it marks the recording (for locating the precise time period for review) and sends a notification to a manager. The recordings are reviewed not only because of accidents or incidents (such as possible phone use) but also randomly. Reviews due to an accident/incident aren't limited to that particular action. They can and do review the entire tape.
I know of a crew that got 30 days on the street for a speed violation detected on a 'random download' of a locomotive operating data. Crew was operating on a former Main track in yard limits. As a Main track its speed was 25 MPH and had been for decades, by having it designated in Yard Limits its maximum speed became Restricted Speed (not to exceed 15 MPH etc.). Download indicated the crew was operating at 24 MPH. Note both members of the crew had in excees of 30 years service in this territory.
In the case of downloads and cameras, Miranda Rights have no application - you don't have to say anything to be convicted in the 'Railroad Justice System'.
petitnj The largest fraction of train accidents/deaths are due to tresspassers about which the engineer can do nothing. This is attempting to solve a very small fraction of the accidents with technology that will tell them nothing more than -- yes the crew fell asleep. Won't affect the accident rate significantly.
The largest fraction of train accidents/deaths are due to tresspassers about which the engineer can do nothing. This is attempting to solve a very small fraction of the accidents with technology that will tell them nothing more than -- yes the crew fell asleep. Won't affect the accident rate significantly.
Having driven OTR for over 20 years ( about 99 %) as a single driver... A Log Book was our 'ruler'. Then DOTs (and Insurance Carriers) found out about being able to use the engine cycle computers to record 'events' [LOGS OF STOPS,STARTS,ENGINE RPMS and The ability to time events,etc.] as part of their'cases' evidence. So in the event of a bad accident, or any 'event' that might wind up with a court action of any kind; They ( Enforcement types) sieze the drivers's log book(s)(?), and pull the engine computer as evidence to be examined.
At some point that footage will become part of an employees review process, and punitive responses of some disgruntled supervisor type...
But at the end of the day, so long as you're doing your job you're going to be ok. If you're not using your cell phone the cell phone detector isn't going to cause you any problems. Likewise with the camera.. if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing then there's really nothing more than the annoyance of having a camera on you at all times. Personally I wouldn't want a camera on me... but if it had to be I'd simply go about my business as best as possible and try to forget about it.
I don't know about how the Canadians will set up their cameras. In the US, It's my understanding that all carriers installing inward facing cameras are only using them for recording images. No one is currently using them in "real time" viewing although most systems are capable of such operation. They also are not recording in-cab conversation although I believe they are capable of that. Yet.
There are carriers in the OTR industry that have them and a lot more that refuse to mount them. Those that do have them have some of the highest turnover rates. Why the drivers do not like the feeling of big brother watching them all the time. Millis Transfer out of Black River Falls WI is one of the fleets that does have a inward facing camera. The drivers that have left there to come to work for my carrier have reported that they have received satalite messages that are from their saftey manager saying at such and such time you where seen with only one hand on the wheel while you where doing such and such with your other hand. One driver that we hired recently was a 10 year accident free driver of their's fired by them for drinking a bottle of water going down the road. He was deemed a high risk driver by their saftey manager.
So the BULL that no one will look at the camera footage except for in an accident. Yeah right trainmasters and others in mangement will use it as a tool to punish anyone they want to get rid of regardless of what the contract states. This driver I am talking about he brought the agreement Millis makes all their drivers sign about the cameras it states can only be looked at as the result of an accident. Then why was he fired for drinking a bottle of water going down the road no accident at all.
azrail What about a fake mustache?
What about a fake mustache?
Nope, I wouldn't make that mandatory either..
I'm not really sold on these inward facing cameras either.. but I think they're going to be implemented anyway. May as well make the most of it.. as stated earlier, they may also serve to exonerate you from any wrong doing. The downside of course is the privacy issue.. if you yawn or fidget before an accident, are you immediately implicated as having been unfit for duty? On the one hand your employer has the right to supervise you. And on the other, that right of supervision carried too far can undermine safety and productivity through increased anxiety in the workplace. Personally I wouldn't go with the cameras.. if it were up to me. At least not yet. There is something to be said for trusting the people you hire to do their jobs properly with minimal supervision.
UlrichNobody is actually going to watch this intensely boring footage unless something goes wrong and there's an accident.
Likewise after an accident you'd better understand that the 'review' will not be limited to the records around the accident, particularly if a lawsuit will be involved. It goes without saying that having the inward-facing cameras 'loop' like older event recorders, with no more than about a half-hour 'window', would be an advantage ... but modern cameras are given immense cheap storage, and are probably 'streamed' to boot -- the latter representing another archive of useful fishing to be undertaken.
I would also note that obstruction with a coat is likely covered in the definition of 'tampering', just as putting a sock over an airline lav smoke detector is -- and the penalties for that may well be worse than if you actually did something wrong while they could 'see' you.
I don't think obstructing the camera will be permitted.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.