Safe Speed Forums

I can't imagine it being worse than it is now.

_________________
I stole this .sig

From Prof Stradling's paper:
http://www.rospa.com/road/congress2002/ ... adling.pdf
So much for the testosterone theory. The ratio of male/female speeders closely resembles the ratio of male/female license holders already, without even adjusting for miles driven. The actual ratio of male/female miles is not available here but in another paper Prof Stradling tells us that 'UK males report a 50% higher average annual mileage' ( http://www.tri.napier.ac.uk/stradlingviolations.pdf ). This is starting to look bad for women!

regards
ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

It is worse than I thought!
(Taken from DfT website: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 14-02.hcsp )

How about this as an explanation of the fatality gap (same source):

Only kidding , lies and statistics. I just wanted to prove the point about insurance risk not being the same as crash risk per mile driven .
However, if women get more speeding tickets per mile and are involved in more crashes per mile than men, what does that tell us about speed as crash causation factor? Nothing I expect, DfT also point out that 'the purpose of making a trip varies between the sexes', in other words women tend to drive in different environments from men.

Good weekend all
ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

It indicates that there is a strong correlation between risk and distance, but does it also support your hypothesis that there is a correlation between penalty points and distance?

I would not be surprised if there was a correlation between penalty points and distance, after all you can't get a ticket if you catch the bus!

But the question is whether it is stronger than the correlation between penalty points and risk of accidents. Historically, actuaries have used the latter (and other figures) to set the cost of insurance. Now, according to your URL, they are setting the cost proportionally to distance travelled. But will the baseline cost per mile (ceteris paribus) still be largely influenced by penalty points? I’m sorry if it looks like I’m getting in a pickle here - these things are all interrelated anyway! It seems to me that, if there is a strong correlation between penalty points and distance, and if you are setting the cost proportionally to distance travelled, then penalty points for speeding might be discounted by actuaries when figuring risk. If this happens, can we expect to see a new question on our renewal forms - ‘Do you have any penalty points (not including ones for speeding)’? I just don’t see it happening.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No I don't think it does, directly. Indirectly, it confirms that if speeding penalty points were a rough indication of mileage then speeding points would be a useful indicator to insurers of increased insurance risk. Insurance companies may not understand the causal relationships here any more than we do but a correlation is enough to base insurance premiums on. But equally there may not be a [strong] correlation between 3-6 points and insurance risk anyway. What seems plausible is that drivers with 9-12 speeding points either a) drive an awfull lot of miles; b) are awfully unobservant; c) both; d) do OTT speeds e) live in North Wales a), b),c) and d) sound like increased insurance risks to me but from watching fellow motorists around me I see that the vast majority do not do OTT speeds. But it is all bunk, more information is needed.

ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Here are some more high-tech solutions coming up, on schedule, as I predicted a while back. It is time to face facts – ubiquitous network connection for cars is coming.

BTW: I can’t understand how the NATS Swanage site was a disaster – few if any planes have crashed, so it is a 100% success as far as I can see.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Basingwerk,

I've looked at a number of your posts and I have quickly deduced that you are indeed "pro-camera" and all the paraphinalia that goes with it.

Seeing as you are a regular contributor, I want you to consider and answer the following question; and then give us all your observations

Generally, I have seen you like to say "You say obey the law at all times". Of course, you are right to make such a statement, where the Law and its enforcement are not being abused

Question: Have you EVER realised you have taken a biro home from work but not taken it back when you have realised what you've done? If you answered "No" to this question, can you honestly say you have never done anything similar? Have you ever used a pen without the owner's permission to address an envelope in a hurry for example? If you have, then you have used that person's ink as though it were your own, therefore depriving the rightful owner of their property for all time.

Even the tiniest infraction of using someone else's things where you don't necessarily have their permission could make you a technical "tea-leaf"!

As the maximum penalty for theft in this country is a £10,000 fine AND / OR 10 years in prison, how would you feel about it if a "NIP" hit your doormat, followed by a conditional £500 fine and 6 weeks in prison - no further questions asked?

I mean, from your posts, you don't seem like a cleptomaniac (just like most posters on here who have transgressed the absolute demands of the speeding laws don't come across me like wannabe Michael Schumakers), but you never know, eh?

Please tell me if you think people who don't return inadvertently borrowed pens should be prosecuted in the way outlined above. And if you think that my example using the theft act is frivolous, please explain to me how you can justify the ludicrous over-zealous we sould say enforcement of one law, but the lacsadasical non-enforcement of the other?

Over to you oh fount of wisdom. We await your wise words with intreague

That’s right!

Yes indeedy!



I wouldn’t do it again, that’s for sure!



Nobody kills or paralyses themselves with a biro, however furiously they scribble! And nobody kills or paralyses other people’s families by forgetting to take a pen back to work.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No this doesn't demonstrate that NATS is a success, only that the disaster recovery back-up system works - for NATS this meant going back to manual control and scribbling on wooden blocks, with the controllers being forced to work additional hours to make up for the lack of efficiency, and many flights being postponed/cancelled so that the controllers were not overloaded.

So what you're saying, Basingwerk, is it's alright for you to break the Law as you choose, but it's not alright for anyone else?

Ah, I see.

Basingwerk obviously thinks that stealing is okay in moderation; indeed, he's addmitted he likes to steal other people's property with impunity because he feels "nobody dies". Who decided "nobody dies", Basingwerk? Your standards are different to the rest of us on this board. You think stealing is okay.

D'you know how much stationery my local NHS Trust loses per annum, Basingwerk? Any idea of how much money they have to spend again and again because light-fingered people like you help themselves to their pens and paper - without which, they can't make notes???

I don't have the stats to hand, but if the cost is such that it prevents just one patient from getting a timely scan on a lump which could be cancerous, and that said lump goes onto indeed become a cancer, then it can be shown that your flagrant disregard for the Law will have cost someone's life.

Time to stop being a hypocrite, eh, Basingwerk?

Game, set and match, I think!

What do you know. The disaster recovery back-up system is part of the system of checks and balances. So is manual control.

It has fallback systems that work - that means it worked, and the engineers who made it did good, not that it failed! When you set up ground systems or whatnot, operators sometimes have to work long shifts for 8 day runs while we sort out the inevitable glitches and teething troubles. These systems are the most complex made ever, you know?

Sometimes there are up to 1,000 unclosed bugs in a typical ground system, some priority A. I expect that air traffic control is the same. People get knackered, but the systems work safely, and that's all that matters really. It's fine, but it needs quite a bit of parallel running.

PS: perhaps IT control systems are fad?

_________________
I stole this .sig

No way - it’s not alright.



What are you talking about. Stealing is not right.



I have never stolen a pen from the NHS in my life. Stealing is not right.



My advice - either quit speeding, or quit whining like a baby about cameras!

_________________
I stole this .sig

So when NATS system is introduced, the users have big problems with the graphics because sometimes they can't see A/C identifiers properly, and keep losing radio contact with flights then that is a good working system is it? If the problems with reading the screen "nearly" cause a mid-air crash then that is fine because the on-board collision detection warned the pilots in time (no thanks to ATC): http://www.computing.co.uk/news/1158921. A minor glitch maybe? Or is it a systematic failure that says there were major problems during specification and design, that the testing was incomplete, and the sign-off for go live was rushed perhaps due to political pressure. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2589247.stm Perhaps the pressure might have been there because the system was 5 YEARS late and £180M OVER BUDGET.

If the system is upgraded, then locks all users solid for 5 hours, due to a problem with a single workstation, then that is a good working system is it? Or is it complete failure of the testing and upgrade processes? See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,717770,00.html

You are confusing the overall ATC system which has reliable back-ups involving manual control and handing over large areas to Scotland and the Netherlands, with that of a single component NATS which is still regularly failing after 2.5 years of operation. The fact that the operators can go back to the original (pre-WWII) manual mechanisms doesn't mean anything about the new system at all.

The final measure of success for any system is the customer experience; nobody outside of the system really cares what happens inside it as long as it does the job properly. If that is the case then this letter from KLM to the CAA must have got it all wrong when it complains about 72% of all delays in flights being due to ATC, and the majority of them being due to equipment failure (i.e. NATS): http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/5/ergdocs/natsappecc/klm.pdf

As you show with your reports from years ago! Find me something fresh, Rewolf!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Just in case you weren't aware, Basing werk, That's THEFT. And what's more you openly admit it.

It might only be PETTY theft, but it's still theft nonetheless. Just the same as a few MPH over the speed limit, as you correctly point out and like to keep reminding us is still speeding.

You like to pontificate and tell others how bad they are because they don't obey the law - yet you don't appear to want to live up to the same standards you set others. Strange, eh?

Nothing this year then: http://www.nats.co.uk/news/releases/2005/2005_02_16a.html


Lets just get this right. In BW view of systems development:

1) Projects should overrun by years, because they all do.

2) Projects should overspend by at least 30% because they always do.

3) Everything can be fixed in later bug-fixes.

Quick frankly that is absolute cr*p. That is what cowboy plumbers and builders do. Oh don't bother testing it, it will be tested when they use it. Don't bother prototyping the screens with real system users, the managers that never use the thing can sign it off against a paper specification and the users will like it.

I am a Solution Architect (previously Lead Systems Developer) working for one of the largest computer services companies in the world. We work with the largest companies and governments and we are heavily commited to a concept that is apparently absolute heresy to you: Right First Time. To this end we achieved SEI CMM Level 5 back in 2002 (we have employees seconded full-time to the SEI), but even without such procedures it is possible to develop systems that do not need "gradual improvement" to resolve faults.

A decent system should not need ANY ongoing support effort, only enhancement for new functionality. From personal experience I have had 3 faults reported for software developed by myself over the last 4 years, total, across 7 systems being used by 10,000 users at 4 different multinational customers. And none of those reports were due to faults in the delivered software, but were consequences of the BW style of working by others at the customer sites. Server names were changed or user ids wiped out without prior notification to potentially impacted system owners - they just assumed that "if anybody was affected by the change then they would complain about it", without thinking about the total cost to the business of their incompetance.

Get your head out of the sand: you obviously are totally unaware of what the word Quality means or that the concept even can be applied to system development. Yes that is what happened in the 70's, but 30 years later it is perfectly possible to deliver a fully tested, fault free system first time, and once you understand how to do it, the systems are delivered earlier and at less cost. Yes, systems delivered early, fault free and at less cost than the detailed plans said it would be. It happens, and what happened at Swanwick was incompetance pure and simple

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I don't know where you the have got impression that I think stealing is OK - it's not.



I don't want to get hit by a road slob. I couldn't give a hoot if people want to kill themselves - that's their own look out. All I ask is for the slobs who have difficulty obeying the law to use the bus, not their cars.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I’ve dealt with hundreds of routine system faults like this. They never end in any system, paper or electronic.



That’s the theory. Almost every large project runs into early implementation problems like this. Look at Wembley, or the Channel Tunnel, or the Dome, or the Greek Olympics, or the Space Shuttle, or the Freedom Space Station, or Sellafield, or <list of many other large projects omitted for brevity>.



Some small systems of limited scope and complexity might be fault free, but even then they need to be changed and updated, and bugs are introduced. We all know that big systems have many bugs, Rewolf, so get off your high horse.

In any case, you have completely corroborated my assertion that we WILL be able to build these road systems that the Government is talking about, and you have backed me up with every word you say! Well done, Rewolf, way to go!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Notwithstanding the flawed logic of attempting to 'regulate' in this way (Road Pricing), has it occured to you the kind of nefarious use this sort of system could and will be put to??

Who or what decides the various prices of these roads?? Supply and demand?? I do not think so, considering that the road system is a monopoly with no potential for competitive pricing of routes by rival businesses.

Think about it, the government could effectively dictate movement of population simply by offering 'special discounts' for certain routes on certain days, or discourage protests like those being advocated by 'Live 8' asking for people to descend on Edinburgh by ramping up the cost of the journey. I hope also you can see the potential for this to become a stealth tax - cashing in on popular events or tourist resorts...

There really is no need for this sort of system on the grounds presented by the Government as congestion is self regulating, as is the number of vehicles on the road dictated by a natural ceiling that we have already reached. This system merely allows for covert monitoring and control of the population, not to mention more targeted revenue raising...

Sorry BW, but this has to be resisted at all costs!! I hope even you can see that.

Yes, it has occurred to me. There will be many mistakes and errors along the way - unless we can get someone involved who makes perfect systems that always operate faultlessly from the word go. Perhaps Rewolf would like to comment?



As a rural village dweller miles from the nearest town, I would benefit from any system that charges for congestion. But, aside from being a conservative curmudgeon, I feel sympathy for those unfortunate enough to spend their drive time in congested urban roads. It's a complex trade-off, and I have no doubt that satellite and other communications technology will be involved somehow.

_________________
I stole this .sig