Cab Cams an "invastion of privacy"???

[wayman]

Its just like Wayman says these tourist RR and Scenic RRs love to have people our age.

That's a very good point, too. Many of the tourist and scenic railroads I've visited are run by a volunteer base whose average age is well north of 50. The most extreme example I can recall is the Ft. Smith Trolley Museum (in Arkansas), which was started about thirty years ago by a group of retirees in their 50s and 60s, with some additional volunteers who were a little younger. They're still operating, the equipment is beautiful, but they haven't had much success with recruiting new volunteers from the next generation ... and all the original guys are now in their 90s, 80s, and 70s. What they wouldn't give for some enthusiastic teenagers and twentysomethings! That's an extreme case, but I think you'll find that at most of these railroads your youth can give you some extra opportunities.

 

[Long Train Runnin']

Its just like Wayman says these tourist RR and Scenic RRs love to have people our age.

That's a very good point, too. Many of the tourist and scenic railroads I've visited are run by a volunteer base whose average age is well north of 50. The most extreme example I can recall is the Ft. Smith Trolley Museum (in Arkansas), which was started about thirty years ago by a group of retirees in their 50s and 60s, with some additional volunteers who were a little younger. They're still operating, the equipment is beautiful, but they haven't had much success with recruiting new volunteers from the next generation ... and all the original guys are now in their 90s, 80s, and 70s. What they wouldn't give for some enthusiastic teenagers and twentysomethings! That's an extreme case, but I think you'll find that at most of these railroads your youth can give you some extra opportunities.

Yeah there is a big age gap there is no one there in their 20s or 30s everyones either 50+ or a teenager. Granted there are only 3 of us younger guys. They are looking for the lost generation of railfans to keep things going. Although they've always have had things work well they've been running continuously since 1952.

 

[RTOlson]

I'm thinking about looking at this from another perspective —

A public bus might have one or two cameras aboard. One faces the driver and outward, the other faces toward the interior. That's for a bus that might carry 50 passengers.

A train can carry six to seven times that amount of passengers. Perhaps it should have seven times the cameras?

Of course, the train is different, considering that the engineer is isolated from the rest of the consist. But I think the example of having cameras in mass transit systems is very common in this day and age.

 

[transit54]

I'm thinking about looking at this from another perspective —
A public bus might have one or two cameras aboard. One faces the driver and outward, the other faces toward the interior. That's for a bus that might carry 50 passengers.

A train can carry six to seven times that amount of passengers. Perhaps it should have seven times the cameras?

Of course, the train is different, considering that the engineer is isolated from the rest of the consist. But I think the example of having cameras in mass transit systems is very common in this day and age.

I'll jump back in here because one of my day to day responsibilities is managing a fleet of camera systems for a public transit agency.

Most bus systems that I've seen have 3-4 cameras, with some more advanced systems having as many as 6-8. However, there are different considerations with a bus. On a train, you're basically concerned with what's in front of the train, and perhaps what the engineer is doing. Some systems (Trirail in Flordia comes to mind) have cameras within each car, but I think that's pretty rare.

On a bus, there's a much greater risk for collisions and other issues. We have a camera looking down each side of our bus, in front of the bus and in the interior of the bus. The side cameras help in the event of a merging accident, if a bus scraped into another vehicle/object, or in similar situations. In the event of a sudden stop (which is obviously much more sudden than a train) the interior cameras help document what happens and if there are any injuries.

We don't have driver facing cameras, but the driver is recorded on audio, which helps with complaints regarding "the driver said X to me." All in all, in a public bus situation I think things are a little less black and white than incidents on a train. So I think you'd actually need less cameras on a train unless you wanted to record the interior of the cars to address liability issues.

Just to give you can idea of what ours looks like, here's an image out of our viewing software:

 

[AlanB]

Boy you've got some really funny looking people up there in Vermont. :lol: :lol:

 

[Rob_C]

Barefoot on the bus?? Yikes!

 

[GG-1]

Boy you've got some really funny looking people up there in Vermont. :lol: :lol:

The classic "empty-headed"

 

[DET63]

I was thinking about when the History Channel did their train series (what was it called again?) on the Acela. Of course there was the engineer, the (idiot) host, and the camera man (and maybe a sound guy too). If that is not a distraction, I don't know what is.
I would not have wanted to be on that Acela train with him being distracted by stupid questions and comments. Perhaps the only time I would not have wanted to be on an Acela!

Same thing when they were on the LD train.

I remember back in the '70s there was this syndicated TV series called "Special Edition" with a female host (Barbara Feldon of "Get Smart" fame) who interviewed people with interesting lives or occupations. One was a woman who was getting most of her body tattooed. Another was a female train engineer. The engineer let Barbara operate the freight train. I don't know if such would be permitted today, or if it should have been allowed back then.

I remember seeing another program about trains, I think on PBS, that showed what it was like operating the Indian Pacific across the Nullarbor Plain in Australia, where there is a long straight stretch. The engineer or driver (or whatever he was called Down Under) had to push a button once every 30 seconds (or less) to prove he wasn't dead (or asleep, or in the john, or whatever). The interviewer asked him how many times he pushed the button during the crossing. I think the engineer was a bit annoyed, and told the interviewer how many frequently he had to push it, how fast the train was going, and how far the train had to go, and then something to the effect of "You do the math!"

 

[ThayerATM]

Apparently, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers don't want cameras in locomotive cabs. "Invades privacy." Article in the LA Times here.
Are there cab cams in Amtrak locos other than for accident recording?

This is the sort of stuff that give unions a really bad name, and quite rightly a sour taste in the public's opinion. Why should they object to cameras in the cab? Only if they're not doing their job. In fact, instead of just recording to a hard drive or tape on board, they should quite frankly be live to a central office in my humble opinion!

Getting back to the original question...

How far should my expectation of privacy go?

If I reserve a bedroom on an Amtrak train, I expect privacy, especially while in the shower/bathroom. I prefer privacy in the whole room.

In the hallways, vestibules, etc, I wouldn't mind if a camera was watching, recording, and giving live feed back to a central location. On our last trip no one was at the service bar at on the Pacific Parlor Car. I went down to the lower level to see if I could find anyone. Everything was shut closed, EXCEPT a door to the outside. That door was wide open, and the train was moving at quite a speed. I hustled right back upstairs. <_<

I think, on a PUBLIC train, there should be no expectation of privacy for anyone, except for those places where people do PRIVATE things, like a bedroom or bathroom.

Everything else should be open for PUBLIC scrutiny, including the engine cab.

 

[Amtrak839]

Getting back to the original question...How far should my expectation of privacy go?

If I reserve a bedroom on an Amtrak train, I expect privacy, especially while in the shower/bathroom. I prefer privacy in the whole room.

In the hallways, vestibules, etc, I wouldn't mind if a camera was watching, recording, and giving live feed back to a central location. On our last trip no one was at the service bar at on the Pacific Parlor Car. I went down to the lower level to see if I could find anyone. Everything was shut closed, EXCEPT a door to the outside. That door was wide open, and the train was moving at quite a speed. I hustled right back upstairs. <_<

I think, on a PUBLIC train, there should be no expectation of privacy for anyone, except for those places where people do PRIVATE things, like a bedroom or bathroom.

Everything else should be open for PUBLIC scrutiny, including the engine cab.

If I were an engineer (I'd be interested in talking to a few on this subject) I wouldn't be as comfortable operating a huge piece of machinery with a camera watching me the entire time. I think the training engineers go through is sufficient enough that cameras really aren't necessary. More importantly than that, there are better things Amtrak could spend its limited funds on.

On the subject of monitoring the passenger cars, that would be a complete waste of money. In most cars, there are already at least a few dozen eyes around to watch for anything suspicious/dangerous. The only place it might be even remotely useful would be preventing theft from sleeper car rooms, and I think that risk isn't high enough to necessitate cameras. I don't think most people expect security when they ride Amtrak. In fact, a lot of people (myself included) prefer Amtrak for the exact reason of avoiding paranoia and high security. It's nice knowing that I can still ride the train without big brother watching, and I want things to stay that way.

 

[volkris]

More importantly than that, there are better things Amtrak could spend its limited funds on.
On the subject of monitoring the passenger cars, that would be a complete waste of money.

That's really what it comes down to.

The employee, as a cog in the machine, should not be particularly opposed to a camera in his workspace. After all, the camera can do nothing but provide accurate information... it takes people, rules, bureaucracies, and contracts to actually act on the information.

The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.

But not because anyone's rights are being violated or because they're having a harder time breaking the rules with cameras around.

 

[Ryan]

The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.

Unarguably, you're wrong.

It's very unlikely that the engineer in Chatsworth was texting while operating for the very first time on that day. If inward facing cab cameras had been in place, he would have either been caught doing this and removed from the cab before he killed 25 people, or had the common sense to not break the rules. Either way, there would be 25 more people alive right now if those cameras were in place (and that's just in one incident). What's the value that you attach to 25 human lives?

 

[Dutchrailnut]

The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.

Unarguably, you're wrong.

It's very unlikely that the engineer in Chatsworth was texting while operating for the very first time on that day. If inward facing cab cameras had been in place, he would have either been caught doing this and removed from the cab before he killed 25 people, or had the common sense to not break the rules. Either way, there would be 25 more people alive right now if those cameras were in place (and that's just in one incident). What's the value that you attach to 25 human lives?

He would not be caught as the camera's are only used to collect evidence to a hard drive.

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

 

[blueman271]

Cab cams could be a good or bad idea, depending on the perspective one is looking at the idea from. However, anybody but trained or in training railroad employees riding in the locomotive is a bad idea. Non-qualified personel should never be allowed in the control rooms of any major piece of equipment while it is operating whether it be a train locomotive, an airplane cockpit, or otherwise. They create a distraction, even if they aren't at the controls, in an enviroment where the littlest distraction can lead to loss of life. And if you don't believe that civilians create distractions and cause operators to cut corners read about the USS Greenville and the accident she caused in 2001.

 

[Ryan]

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.

My friend from LAX says he was, in fact, caught a few times for similar violations and nothing was done about it.

 

[Mark]

Hmmm- this is a difficult one for me but if there are cab cameras in Amtrak trains then shouldn't they be required in freight cabs as well? How about Airliners? Cruise ships too? Definitely oil tankers. Buses? Anybody object to having one in there car? After all driving is a privilege. It would be nice to be able to recreate who was at fault after a car accident as well. Was the person on a cell phone? Were they reading the paper? Maybe drinking coffee when they ran down a nine year old? I'm quite certain that cars kill many, many more people annually than Amtrak. If we make the case for cab cameras in the name of "safety", watch out- the rest I listed above could be just around the corner.

 

[Ispolkom]

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.

That's what I don't understand about cab cameras. You can't have someone watching every engineer in real time. That would be prohibitively expensive. Are you going to randomly watch tapes? How often? Sure, I guess that cab cameras would make it easier to reconstruct an accident, but here you're talking about preventing one.

Here's an idea: you could have the *passengers* watch the engineer. Put up screens in each car. The passengers would certainly have good reason to watch their engineer for free! You could have the same thing in airline cockpits -- it would be even better then the channel that some airlines have to let you listen to air traffic control. Sure, it would change the nature of the job, making it more performance art, but so be it.

I still don't buy the slippery slope fallacy. If you are at work, I fail to see how you have any right to privacy while you're working. What you do in your off-hours is completely different, though I will grant that people often assume privacy there when none exists.

 

[DET63]

Here's an idea: you could have the *passengers* watch the engineer. Put up screens in each car. The passengers would certainly have good reason to watch their engineer for free!

Like this?

 

[rrdude]

The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.

Unarguably, you're wrong.

It's very unlikely that the engineer in Chatsworth was texting while operating for the very first time on that day. If inward facing cab cameras had been in place, he would have either been caught doing this and removed from the cab before he killed 25 people, or had the common sense to not break the rules. Either way, there would be 25 more people alive right now if those cameras were in place (and that's just in one incident). What's the value that you attach to 25 human lives?

While I am a STRONG PROPONENT of cameras in the cab, (inward facing) having one in place is usually only for recording, to be viewed "in case of an event".

What we be ideal, is to have the camera available live streaming on the web............

 

[leemell]

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.

My friend from LAX says he was, in fact, caught a few times for similar violations and nothing was done about it.

He was, in fact caught and disciplined more than once. On the run on the day of the crash, he had sent 22 text messages.

 

[leemell]

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.

That's what I don't understand about cab cameras. You can't have someone watching every engineer in real time. That would be prohibitively expensive. Are you going to randomly watch tapes? How often? Sure, I guess that cab cameras would make it easier to reconstruct an accident, but here you're talking about preventing one.

Here's an idea: you could have the *passengers* watch the engineer. Put up screens in each car. The passengers would certainly have good reason to watch their engineer for free! You could have the same thing in airline cockpits -- it would be even better then the channel that some airlines have to let you listen to air traffic control. Sure, it would change the nature of the job, making it more performance art, but so be it.

I still don't buy the slippery slope fallacy. If you are at work, I fail to see how you have any right to privacy while you're working. What you do in your off-hours is completely different, though I will grant that people often assume privacy there when none exists.

I can't speak for of them, but for airlines, almost all now have a 2 hour CVC loop and some are considering a CC Video camera. I believe American had or still has a live video feed from the cockpit and an audio channel for the Traffic Control channel. As a mission controller for a 3.5 B$ spacecraft, I was very comfortable with the live video feeds that watched the operations.

 

[Ryan]

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.

This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.

My friend from LAX says he was, in fact, caught a few times for similar violations and nothing was done about it.

He was, in fact caught and disciplined more than once. On the run on the day of the crash, he had sent 22 text messages.

That's freaking ridiculous (but this isn't the thread for that). Looks like that wasn't the best of examples. But, the point stands - at some point the camera is going to save someone's life. What value to you attach to that?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Boy does this thread bring back memories of John Locke's social contract theory--

 

[Rob_C]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

- Benjamin Franklin