Why Video-Based Safety? 

Why Video-Based Safety? 

Why Video-Based Safety?  This year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported a 2.4% decrease in fatal motor vehicle crashes, extending an overall downward trend in road fatalities in 2018, even with more recorded miles driven. On the other hand, when the data are broken out, it’s clear that the trend is not universal across all transportation modes.  Road fatalities involving large trucks, defined by the NHTSA as vehicles with gross vehicle weight over ten thousand pounds and including buses, increased. We can point to at least three reasons that could contribute to the divergence:  Vehicles themselves – Compared to cars, the absolute number of bus accidents is extremely low; however, buses do not always have the same level of protection (e.g. seat belts) that passenger cars do. Buses are more prone to rollover risk. If a serious accident does occur, injuries tend to be more severe.  Drivers – For transportation providers and public transit agencies, the driver is still the first and perhaps only line of defense. Despite stringent training programs, research still points to human error as a primary cause of accidents in public transit. Common reasons for motor vehicle safety issues include distracted driving, alcohol-impaired driving, speeding, improper vehicle operations and road rages. Increasingly, cabin distractions, including direct threats on drivers are also a factor. Once buses leave the terminal, operators do not have tools to understand conditions affecting safety.  Technology differences – The NHTSA points out that vehicle improvements, like electronic stability control, have contributed to overall declines in road fatalities in cars. More recently, “automated technologies” such as automatic lane departure, collision avoidance alerts, adaptive cruise control and automatic braking have become widely available on cars. These technologies are designed to counteract distracted driving and errors in judgement and may account for continuing declines in fatal accidents in automobiles.  Preliminary...
Positive train control could have prevented train accidents

Positive train control could have prevented train accidents

One year after the Puyuma Express train derailment October 21st marks the one-year anniversary of the tragic Puyuma Express train derailment in Taiwan’s’ Yilan county. 18 people were killed, and 215 were injured. The direct cause of the accident was found to be speeding in a curve while the train protection system (ATP) was wrongfully disabled. This fatal accident was a stark reminder that a vast improvement in Taiwan’s train safety is critically important. Last Thursday, Taiwan’s legislator Chen Man-li proposed to the Ministry of Transportation and Communication and Taiwan Railways Administration that a train control system with remote monitoring and controlling capabilities, such as Positive Train Control (PTC), should be added to existing and new trains to prevent future accidents. Most train accidents are caused by human error In the U.S., there were almost 2,000 train-related accidents in 2018, higher than the previous two years, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. In 2017, there were 1,855 significant railway accidents in the EU, according to the European Union Agency for Railways. Looking back at past train accidents, the great majority of them have been resulted from human factor causes. Positive Train Control could have prevented these accidents LILEE Systems was founded when the industry, government and people resolved to create a system that would prevent train accidents due to human error. After the 2008 Metrolink crash in the Chatsworth district of Los Angeles, a federal mandate required railways that carry passengers and certain hazardous materials to implement Positive Train Control (PTC). As of July 2019, 91% of Class I PTC route-miles are operational in the U.S. LILEE Systems has...
There’s no need to rush to 5G, yet

There’s no need to rush to 5G, yet

Why should I wait? While there’s no doubt that 5G networks will usher in dramatic changes, a widespread transition will not happen overnight. Here’s why. The “G” stands for “generation” and encompasses all equipment and standards that enable cellular networks to handle radio signals and data exchange. On the consumer side, cellular users will purchase 5G-enabled phones, which are already available. To make those devices work, cellular providers will need to upgrade infrastructure to achieve 5G speeds and bandwidth capacities. Infrastructure upgrades will take time Cellular providers are starting to test 5G in very limited markets. AT&T and Verizon are approaching 5G with a technology known as the millimeter wave. This high-frequency technology can transmit data at high speeds, however, the near-term drawback is that signals don’t travel as far as those transmitted with current 4G signals infrastructure. Initial rollouts for millimeter technology will occur in densely populated areas where existing cell towers are able to provide adequate coverage for test purposes. To extend coverage out to these areas, these carriers will need to build extra towers and add tens of millions of antennas to deliver 5G capabilities into rural areas. Outside of these limited test areas, “5G” capabilities are presently being delivered primarily through software upgrades and are not “true” 5G. What does it mean for me, now? The good news is that 5G is not the only game in town. As 5G infrastructure is built, progress on 4G technology and systems continues to be made. IoT, smart industry and connected transportation providers will ultimately benefit from 5G but at present, may be better off researching improved LTE...