There's no arguing with a computer
Discussion
A current thread of {i]FiF's relates the problem where the DVLA computer record contradicts the physical evidence, to the disbenefit of the RK. Other threads have referred to the centralisation of control rooms and the increasing use of computers to direct incident responses and lack of local knowledge and delays that are frequently caused thereby.
A very recent case is that of the tragic bus crash on the M25 slip road. This was categorised by LAS's computer system as Category B, despite the caller(s) clearly stating it was a crowded double-decker bus that had overturned with multiple injuries caused.
The response time to Cat B incidents is "within 14 minutes"; and indeed, the first paramedic was on the scene within that time. However, the more appropriate Category A has a response time of eight minutes. And we all know about the "Golden Hour" ... that's 60 minutes, not 54.
It was only when the first responders called in that the control room staff were ABLE (yes: able) to upgrade the incident to Cat A. A spokesperson for LAS said that they were initially unable to override the computer. If they could do it later, why not immediately?
Slightly OT, but one of the most common cockpit voice recordings prior to a modern-day air accident is: "Why is it doing that?" - referring to one of the aircraft's computer systems.
Recently one of the UK's train companies had installed a GPS-based system to operate train doors automatically when stopped in a station. It was taken out of service following numerous instances where the doors failed to open. Amazingly, the driver had no way of overriding the system and opening the doors. During very hot spells, passengers have resorted to smashing the carriage windows of stalled trains becuase there was no way of opening the doors ... because the computer had locked them!
Until we have 100% perfect computer programs (to all intents and purposes, impossible) and 100% accurate and up-to-date databases (with normal data mortality rates, highly impractical), it is imperitive that we retain the ability of an appropriately knowledgeable human to make a judgement call.
Streaky
A very recent case is that of the tragic bus crash on the M25 slip road. This was categorised by LAS's computer system as Category B, despite the caller(s) clearly stating it was a crowded double-decker bus that had overturned with multiple injuries caused.
The response time to Cat B incidents is "within 14 minutes"; and indeed, the first paramedic was on the scene within that time. However, the more appropriate Category A has a response time of eight minutes. And we all know about the "Golden Hour" ... that's 60 minutes, not 54.
It was only when the first responders called in that the control room staff were ABLE (yes: able) to upgrade the incident to Cat A. A spokesperson for LAS said that they were initially unable to override the computer. If they could do it later, why not immediately?
Slightly OT, but one of the most common cockpit voice recordings prior to a modern-day air accident is: "Why is it doing that?" - referring to one of the aircraft's computer systems.
Recently one of the UK's train companies had installed a GPS-based system to operate train doors automatically when stopped in a station. It was taken out of service following numerous instances where the doors failed to open. Amazingly, the driver had no way of overriding the system and opening the doors. During very hot spells, passengers have resorted to smashing the carriage windows of stalled trains becuase there was no way of opening the doors ... because the computer had locked them!
Until we have 100% perfect computer programs (to all intents and purposes, impossible) and 100% accurate and up-to-date databases (with normal data mortality rates, highly impractical), it is imperitive that we retain the ability of an appropriately knowledgeable human to make a judgement call.
Streaky
streaky said:
Until we have 100% perfect computer programs (to all intents and purposes, impossible) and 100% accurate and up-to-date databases (with normal data mortality rates, highly impractical), it is imperitive that we retain the ability of an appropriately knowledgeable human to make a judgement call.
I agree, but over on the DVLA thread, we did have a human making a judgement call.
So Streaky what you appear to be saying, if I understand correctly, is LAS are alleging that a call in from MoP can only be Cat B and that can only be upgraded to Cat A once sit rep from emergency response personnel, otherwise computer says no.
As you point out if that can be done later why not overridden earlier? How does the computer know that a further sitrep made without some action from control room. Does not compute in FiF little grey cells either.
Bad judgement call? Wrong button pressed? Arse covering mode in evidence?
It does help when speaking with such control rooms to remember and speak in language they understand though. Certain key phrases presented in a calm authoritative voice certainly get the right buttons pushed. Something to be remembered when all is going to hell in a handbasket around. Military training even from dim and distant works wonders in such circs imho.
edited to add
Might another one be "Oh F-"
As you point out if that can be done later why not overridden earlier? How does the computer know that a further sitrep made without some action from control room. Does not compute in FiF little grey cells either.
Bad judgement call? Wrong button pressed? Arse covering mode in evidence?
It does help when speaking with such control rooms to remember and speak in language they understand though. Certain key phrases presented in a calm authoritative voice certainly get the right buttons pushed. Something to be remembered when all is going to hell in a handbasket around. Military training even from dim and distant works wonders in such circs imho.
edited to add
Streaky said:
Slightly OT, but one of the most common cockpit voice recordings prior to a modern-day air accident is: "Why is it doing that?" - referring to one of the aircraft's computer systems.
Might another one be "Oh F-"
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 6th January 08:41
Off topic but re arguing with a computer.
Bought something from an electrical shop yesterday. Got it home, faulty, grr.
Take it back this am. "None in stock says "Hi I'm Becky" do you want your money back?"
"I'll just check on the shelf as you had another yesterday afternoon."
"I haven't got time to wait for you to look we - haven't - got - any - more " says an obviously under stress young Becks.
"OK!" so we go through the rigmarole of name, address, inside leg measurement, sexual preferences and all the other crap that needs to go into 'puter to allow me to return faulty goods and get cash refund.
Done & dusted, then I wandered off to the shelves, just to check because as you know I'm a cantankerous old pharte:- "Not got one? what's this then dearest?"
Bought something from an electrical shop yesterday. Got it home, faulty, grr.
Take it back this am. "None in stock says "Hi I'm Becky" do you want your money back?"
"I'll just check on the shelf as you had another yesterday afternoon."
"I haven't got time to wait for you to look we - haven't - got - any - more " says an obviously under stress young Becks.
"OK!" so we go through the rigmarole of name, address, inside leg measurement, sexual preferences and all the other crap that needs to go into 'puter to allow me to return faulty goods and get cash refund.
Done & dusted, then I wandered off to the shelves, just to check because as you know I'm a cantankerous old pharte:- "Not got one? what's this then dearest?"
I just love on-line stock control systems - and the people that use them and set them up in the first place.
It always amuses me when you take two similar but different same priced items to a till, knowing they have different stock codes for real time order management, and the till person scans one and enters a quantity for it. The revenue will be right but they will notw have two stock quantities wrong (more than likely). Of course I am assuming they were right in the first place.
I'm sure it is the most common explanation for out of stock notices on things that should be constantly on shelf for that trader.
You can't blame the computer for that.
I could tell a story about controlling serial number trackable service support stock through a repair and re-issue cycle and how to ensure it will always go wrong. But it involved some French people and I would not wish to be thought of as xenophobic ...
Also to get the full nuance of the story makes it a bit long!
It always amuses me when you take two similar but different same priced items to a till, knowing they have different stock codes for real time order management, and the till person scans one and enters a quantity for it. The revenue will be right but they will notw have two stock quantities wrong (more than likely). Of course I am assuming they were right in the first place.
I'm sure it is the most common explanation for out of stock notices on things that should be constantly on shelf for that trader.
You can't blame the computer for that.
I could tell a story about controlling serial number trackable service support stock through a repair and re-issue cycle and how to ensure it will always go wrong. But it involved some French people and I would not wish to be thought of as xenophobic ...
Also to get the full nuance of the story makes it a bit long!
So Streaky, are you suggesting that they've fiddled their performance target so that only upon arrival at the scene can it be called cat A, at which point they've probalby met the Cat B target?
I did wonder when I heard the local emergency services spouting how they'd got the first of 30 ambulances there in under 15 minutes why they weren't telling us how some were there in under 8.
Not saying they did a bad job, but it's one of those measures that is clearly being worked around...
I did wonder when I heard the local emergency services spouting how they'd got the first of 30 ambulances there in under 15 minutes why they weren't telling us how some were there in under 8.
Not saying they did a bad job, but it's one of those measures that is clearly being worked around...
turbobloke said:
Today's world makes it impossible to get people with common sense judgement, in jobs where it's needed, in a framework that allows them to use it.
I agree. There has been many a time I have done things that are against company rules/systems etc, but in the best interests of the customer and the company. Time & time again I have been told "You cant do that!" to which my reply has always been "I just did, customer is dead happy, nice result, and we've come out of it better off too. Now, how do we square it with all the systems?". You then have to put up with even more inflexibility & garbage from folks because they arent interested in putting anything right, they just want recriminations for you having done the right thing.
I cant abide a jobsworth even when they are in the right, so i'll be damned if I have any time for one that is in the wrong, knowing full well they are in the wrong, but hiding behind 'computer says no'.
These threads are one of the major reasons NOT to have an ID card system, regardless of the infringement of liberties arguments - when (not if) the database system has bad data, either negligently or by deliberate identity fraud, there will be no way to assert that you really are you - 'Computer says no, so you don't exist'.
Balmoral Green said:
There has been many a time I have done things that are against company rules/systems etc, but in the best interests of the customer and the company. Time & time again I have been told "You cant do that!" to which my reply has always been "I just did, customer is dead happy, nice result, and we've come out of it better off too. Now, how do we square it with all the systems?". You then have to put up with even more inflexibility & garbage from folks because they arent interested in putting anything right, they just want recriminations for you having done the right thing.
No doubt systems and policy designed by some kind of business consultant, who has no direct experience of what they are designing for. Unfortunately, there are nowhere near enough good managers who are willing and able to make decisions without having to the army of idea merchants.
tigger1 said:
So Streaky, are you suggesting that they've fiddled their performance target so that only upon arrival at the scene can it be called cat A, at which point they've probalby met the Cat B target?
No. Rather, I am pointing out the apparent anomalous situation that a Cat A can only be declared by a first responder and the computer so updated. Alternatively, they are covering up a cock-up in the control room - Streaky Peter Ward said:
Thanks, Peter. I don't often select a non-existent or unfitting word; albeit, "morbidity" would have been more encompassing than "mortality" when referring to data 
- StreakyForums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff