PROGRAMMED TO INCREASE RATHER THAN DECREASE THE SPEED

Hello:

The last sentence in the first submission in this site is the most important.   Namely that some other reason was the cause of the accident.   My previous guesses were wrong.   The idea that failing to pay attention is still possible, --- but obviously in a  different manner.

The latest news is that the train gradually increased its speed from about 80 miles per hour to 110.   This seems to indicate the following problem.  In programming the computer to determine the speed of the train, the driver intended the speed to be reduced from 80 to 50 which is the recommended speed limit for negotiating that severe turn.

It appears as if the computer was programmed to increase the speed rather than decrease it.   Then while the driver was otherwise occupied, he failed to realize his error and when he finally did, he applied the brakes as hard as he could but it was obviously to late to avoid the accident. 

AMTRAK & ACCIDENTS

Hello:

The horrible train accident near Philadelphia cannot be undone but perhaps it can be made less likely to happen in the future.  

The fact that the train was traveling at twice the posted speed indicates to me that the driver was not paying attention.   Obviously I am guessing but the technology that allows a driver to use cruise control might be at fault here.   Not necessarily the mechanical aspect of the system but of the driver himself.  

In order to avoid boredom that creeps into any repetative job, the driver might have been using an Iphone or some other behavior that caused him to fail to notice that the automatic system should be shut off so that the train could be slowed down sufficiently to enter the curved section of the track without causing an horrendous derailment.

New orders making it illegal for a conductor to have any electronic devices in the driver's area that would prevent him or her from paying attention should be immediately put in place.

As far as the train owner is concerned, the amount of compensation will not be different whether the cause of the accident is determined to be mechanical or driver error.   

But at the same time, it is better for the future economic success of the system if the mechanical apparatus was working properly but the driver was at fault.

Under those circumstances the company can put in new rules to hopefully overcome the mistake that the driver made and as a result, have less people deciding not to use the train system ever again.

On the other hand, as far as the driver is concerned, it is important, in a positive sense, to his future if the accident is found to be caused by a mechanical failure.   If indeed it is the driver's fault because of a lack of attention, he or she will never be allowed to drive a train, --- ever again.

There is a real chance that the driver will not tell the truth if it will only make life worse for him or her.  We would then be left to our own devices to try to determine why the accident happened.  

As stated earlier the above ideas are all guess work on my part.  Maybe they can be considered to be educated guesses and then again maybe not.  But the loss of life and the physical and mental trauma that the passengers went through demand some kind of change.

Even without definitive proof, making sure that the drivers pay attention by eliminating distractions such as Iphones etc. should be incorporated immediately.  If such rules were already in place then, --- either the driver ignored them or some other problem caused the accident.