Discussion
I just saw a very interesting statistic on the Cumbria Safety Camera Forum.
It stated that a professional driver counted the number of cameras he passed in one week and it came to a total of just over 200. This means that in the course of a year he/she will have passed 10,000.
Now, if that driver was in excess of the limit on about one occassion per annum whilst passing all of those cameras he/she would stand to lose their licence, job, income, career, etc, with all that entails.
So a professional driver must have a work error rate of less than 0.001% in order to keep his job. How fair is that?
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot? No, I don't think so.
This is, therefore, a fundamental breach of a persons right to work in requiring such a level of accuracy in the carrying out of their job.
Can anyone think of a job in which an accuracy of better than 0.001% is required in order to keep that job?
It stated that a professional driver counted the number of cameras he passed in one week and it came to a total of just over 200. This means that in the course of a year he/she will have passed 10,000.
Now, if that driver was in excess of the limit on about one occassion per annum whilst passing all of those cameras he/she would stand to lose their licence, job, income, career, etc, with all that entails.
So a professional driver must have a work error rate of less than 0.001% in order to keep his job. How fair is that?
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot? No, I don't think so.
This is, therefore, a fundamental breach of a persons right to work in requiring such a level of accuracy in the carrying out of their job.
Can anyone think of a job in which an accuracy of better than 0.001% is required in order to keep that job?
Do not have much margin for error in my profession - but would agree - have better odds than that!
This just shows the daftness of stringent and extreme enforcement. I remember a lady from Carlisle phoning into Vine's R2 prog (the one where he interviewed Captain Gatso last fall!), saying that she travels ca 30k miles per annum on business, and passes 24 scams on return journeys in LanCASH£re alone, not counting mobiles and unmarked cars, and of course scams in the other areas. She passed comment that it would be very easy for her to lose her licence, livelihood very quickly if concentration slipped for just a second. She also reminded Ms Dunwoody (his other guest at the time) that for sake of £240 and removing a much hated motorist off the road - the government stood to lose a lot more - loss of her huge income tax contribution, huge fuel taxes, VAT on car maintainance, and of course - paying her dole money! And the great achievement? Well - not seen any reduction in road deaths - as scams not placed at blackspots anyway!
Other gems on the Cumbria site (husband occasionally posts comments on there!):
from Steve (a Prat!) on subject of talivans:
"If we can see you - you can see us!"
(Yup! Hidden out of sight on bridge at Shap, using our driveway to hide from motorists,(and whinging when we sent them a bill!), using the NT car parks, using any little farm track......) They did have just yellow and orange striped at back - - they are now being repainted completely yellow and blue. There is example on the Cumbrian forum. One poster (not my husband) suggested that instead of "Cumbrian Safety Partnership" as logo - they should try "Little Thief"
( But I would change "Thief" to "Thieving ***" ) Steve's other gems include:
In reply to poster who had set his cruise control to 80mph, got zapped and wanted to know whether or not he would receive ticket. He got reassuring reply from normal bloke that he was possibly recorded at 77mph (which would be in keeping with my b2's speedo compared to all the modern cars it is used in!
) per Steve? "All speedos in cars are accurate!"
(Perhaps in super-calibrated cop car - but not in ordinary bloke's car - would in all probability be 3mph difference as per GPS - and the old crocks? 
)) Steve's other gems:
"I personally think that all mobile speed detection should be done covertly as it would increase the deterrent effect and stop folk claiming thaat these are a danger which is not the case anyway! And it would destroy the dodgy speed camera warning device industry"
In other words - make more money for his team of prats.
It would create more danger as people would screech to a halt every time they see any van of any description. And as for the warning devices - they give accurate speedo check, b2 reminds you of the speed limit, and because it is on the dash - you can keep eye on road and speedo at same time! Added bonus - it bleeps at the scamera! >> Edited by WildCat on Monday 24th May 13:14
It's an entertaining piece of mis-logic, but it's easily shown to be inaccurate and erroneous. Your hypothetical professional driver doesn't need to work with an error margin of 0.001% at all.
The number of cameras passed in the working day/week/month/year is irrelevant (no matter how frustrating). What is relevant is the speed at which each camera is passed, since this is what triggers the camera.
Therefore the issue is that the driver has to drive within the stated speed limit for the specific area and the declared error margin allowed by cameras and Police patrols is 10% + 2mph.
That means the actual driver error margin in a 30mph area is just over 16% and in a 60mph NSL area of about 13%. Rather more manageable, I think.
Your spurious (but entertaining) 0.001% statistic is only valid if the driver is continuously exceeding the local speed limits at all times by more than 13%, AND fails to spot the cameras in time to slow down sufficiently.
Hugh
>> Edited by hugerr on Monday 24th May 14:53
The number of cameras passed in the working day/week/month/year is irrelevant (no matter how frustrating). What is relevant is the speed at which each camera is passed, since this is what triggers the camera.
Therefore the issue is that the driver has to drive within the stated speed limit for the specific area and the declared error margin allowed by cameras and Police patrols is 10% + 2mph.
That means the actual driver error margin in a 30mph area is just over 16% and in a 60mph NSL area of about 13%. Rather more manageable, I think.
Your spurious (but entertaining) 0.001% statistic is only valid if the driver is continuously exceeding the local speed limits at all times by more than 13%, AND fails to spot the cameras in time to slow down sufficiently.
Hugh
>> Edited by hugerr on Monday 24th May 14:53
Not really a good argument. If I broke the law at work what would be the % rate for error (getting caught) the speed limit is just that a limit, not a challenge to see if you can hold the exact speed. NOTE: I don't tend to follow speed limits except for 30's or where it look likely I get caught.
I agree a lot of speed limits are stupid and gatsos etc. are a pain in the arse - although you'd have to be a complete nob to get caught by one. They're bright yellow and have loads of signs telling you they're there. Laser and the likes is a different matter.
The original argument in this thread would be like saying my work hours are 8.30 - 5.00 but I think that's stupid so I arrive at 8.45 and leave at 5.15. But there is a xx% chance of losing my job, how un-fair.
I agree a lot of speed limits are stupid and gatsos etc. are a pain in the arse - although you'd have to be a complete nob to get caught by one. They're bright yellow and have loads of signs telling you they're there. Laser and the likes is a different matter.
The original argument in this thread would be like saying my work hours are 8.30 - 5.00 but I think that's stupid so I arrive at 8.45 and leave at 5.15. But there is a xx% chance of losing my job, how un-fair.
Our local paper is complaining about the lack of taxi drivers, as they've all been done by mobile units mostly out late or early am when the roads are often clear. They just hand their notices in as they won't take the risk.
For me driving around for my business, I'd drive 50-60k per annum every year, I'm now putting a stop to it, it's not worth the risk of losing my licence.
Compare these two risks......
1) Losing my licence within a year: When I'm passing 8 mobile units in one day & over 50 fixed gatsos, specs to come too, 3-4 days of the week every week.
2) Having or causing an accident: 15 years of accident free motoring clocking up 50K+ per annum mileages so 750,000+ or 5 times the average. I guess if this continues It'd be safe to say I'm at low risk of having accident.
So which is most likely to happen if I continue my mileage?
I'm now moving my business suppliers to ones based abroad. I can't be ass'd to risk my licence travelling to & from UK suppliers any more.
For me driving around for my business, I'd drive 50-60k per annum every year, I'm now putting a stop to it, it's not worth the risk of losing my licence.
Compare these two risks......
1) Losing my licence within a year: When I'm passing 8 mobile units in one day & over 50 fixed gatsos, specs to come too, 3-4 days of the week every week.
2) Having or causing an accident: 15 years of accident free motoring clocking up 50K+ per annum mileages so 750,000+ or 5 times the average. I guess if this continues It'd be safe to say I'm at low risk of having accident.
So which is most likely to happen if I continue my mileage?
I'm now moving my business suppliers to ones based abroad. I can't be ass'd to risk my licence travelling to & from UK suppliers any more.
cptsideways said:
Our local paper is complaining about the lack of taxi drivers, as they've all been done by mobile units mostly out late or early am when the roads are often clear. They just hand their notices in as they won't take the risk.
So, destroy the taxi industry - resulting in likelihood of more instances of driving whilst under influence.
hugerr said:
Your spurious (but entertaining) 0.001% statistic is only valid if the driver is continuously exceeding the local speed limits at all times by more than 13%,
So thats 60% of all motorists then. In my opinion the other 40% should mostly be retaking their test. The statistic is not spurious at all, it obviously does not fit with your mind set though.
nonegreen said:
Your spurious (but entertaining) 0.001% statistic is only valid if the driver is continuously exceeding the local speed limits at all times by more than 13%,
So thats 60% of all motorists then. In my opinion the other 40% should mostly be retaking their test. The statistic is not spurious at all, it obviously does not fit with your mind set though.
You missed his... "AND fails to spot the cameras in time to slow down sufficiently."
60% of motorists may well speed at times but if they fail to spot cameras or plod with lasers then it's they that need the test re-take.
The stats used are meaningless - no one HAS to travel at the speed limit - let alone travel at the limit + 0.001% or whatever the argument was. Try driving slower
echo said:
hugerr said:
Your spurious (but entertaining) 0.001% statistic is only valid if the driver is continuously exceeding the local speed limits at all times by more than 13%,
So thats 60% of all motorists then. In my opinion the other 40% should mostly be retaking their test. The statistic is not spurious at all, it obviously does not fit with your mind set though.
You missed his... "AND fails to spot the cameras in time to slow down sufficiently."
60% of motorists may well speed at times but if they fail to spot cameras or plod with lasers then it's they that need the test re-take.
The stats used are meaningless - no one HAS to travel at the speed limit - let alone travel at the limit + 0.001% or whatever the argument was. Try driving slower
This was not really my topic, I just gleaned it from 'Magnum Force' on the 'Cumbria Silly Camera Partnership Forum' (CSCP).
However, I think the point that was being made is that if you pass 9999 cameras in the year at or below the limit, but make an error of concentration or observation (perhaps whilst watching the road ahead) just once whilst passing a camera, in 3 years you stand to get banned, lose your job, home, career, etc.
To make that error in a one in ten thousand case is not a high error rate at all compared with errors made in other jobs and ignored, and, personally, I thought it a good piece of logic as to the unfairness of the 'silly cameras' which you might have liked to share and comment on.
Cooperman said:Question: Would you fly with an airline pilot who had an error rate of 1 crash per 10,000 landings? Actually, you are unlikely to ... as he will probably be six feet under (still in his aircraft ... along with his passengers!) - Streaky
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot?
streaky said:
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot?
Question: Would you fly with an airline pilot who had an error rate of 1 crash per 10,000 landings? Actually, you are unlikely to ... as he will probably be six feet under (still in his aircraft ... along with his passengers!) - Streaky
You might have a pilot that comes in too fast 1 in 10000 times and makes a bumpy landing!
streaky said:
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot?
Question: Would you fly with an airline pilot who had an error rate of 1 crash per 10,000 landings? Actually, you are unlikely to ... as he will probably be six feet under (still in his aircraft ... along with his passengers!) - Streaky
Streaky,
The whole point was that the 1 in 10,000 error rate was not that a driver crashed one time in ten thousand, it was that he made a slight error in his speed in one of the camera passes in 10,000. That's entirely different.
I was a pilot and I can tell you that the error rate is at least 1 in 10,000, although the error can be something like slightly high on final approach, mis-reading one of the instruments, etc. Like a case of speeding past the camera, it is highly unlikely to lead to a crash, but, in the case of the pilot it is also unlikely to lead to him losing his job, home, career, etc. Or you are one of those who believes that you will crash as soon as you exceed a posted speed limit.
WildCat said:
Other gems on the Cumbria site...
...quote of the year on the CSCP site has to be one their PR "guru" made. Someone posted that they had clearly made the roads more dangerous as the annual death rate had risen by nearly 10% since they started using cameras. His response?
"How on earth do you reckon you are more likely to be killed in Cumbria because the number of fatals is 8.909% up on last year? I'd just love you to explain the logic behind that train of thought"
Answers on a postcard please...
Cooperman said:
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot?
Doctor?...recent experience 1 in 3
Lawyer?...oho, give me a break....and they still charge for it......
Police officer?...from recent expereience, 1 in 1......
Accountant?....I'd like to say 'not guilty'....but I'd be fibbing....
Engineer?....dunno
Airline pilot?....hope not
Your main point, however, is valid, sir...........
While we're talking about "error rate", what's the "error rate" for legal speed measurement apparatus? Nobody had better suggest that it's zero - that's not feasible.
Given that there must be an error rate of greater than zero, is this not valid legal grounds for a defence of "reasonable doubt"?
What if we challenge a manufacturer to quote the error rate for their equipment? What could we do with that information? And if they said it was zero, then they are open to ridicule instead.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Given that there must be an error rate of greater than zero, is this not valid legal grounds for a defence of "reasonable doubt"?
What if we challenge a manufacturer to quote the error rate for their equipment? What could we do with that information? And if they said it was zero, then they are open to ridicule instead.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
woodytvr said:Try that on an aircraft carrier. Of course, as in all things, it depends on the severity of the error, the (criticality of the) point in the process where the error is made, the availability of opportunity to recover from the error, and the lack of the "Titanic coincidence" (two or more errors of small probability occuring at the same time). An error in misreading (or mis-setting) an altimeter can lead to "CFIT" (pilots and air accident investigators will know this acronym) - Streaky
Cooperman said:
Do doctors have an error rate in making diagnoses to a level of less than one in 10,000? Does a lawyer, or a police officer, or an accountant, or an engineer, or an airline pilot?
Question: Would you fly with an airline pilot who had an error rate of 1 crash per 10,000 landings? Actually, you are unlikely to ... as he will probably be six feet under (still in his aircraft ... along with his passengers!) - Streaky
You might have a pilot that comes in too fast 1 in 10000 times and makes a bumpy landing!
echo said:
The stats used are meaningless - no one HAS to travel at the speed limit - let alone travel at the limit + 0.001% or whatever the argument was. Try driving slower
Are you suggesting that driving below the silly speed limit is an option? Do you own a car? If so I suggest you sell it you are a danger to other road users. The roads are the arteries of our economy, driving below the speed limit is bad for our economy, if I had my way you would be deported for it.
Re the airline pilots
Error rates are probably quite high, however an aircraft has capabilities well beyond its normal operational envelope alongwith its landing gear & the mulitiple redundency systems in place all allow for a high level of pilot error.
As for the speed limits, it does not mean you are likely to crash just because you are hovering above a speed limit.
Likewise just because you stay below a speed limit does not mean you are paying attention to avoid an accident.
As for landing on aircraft carrier, no doubt its very risky but I doubt the risk of a crash is a comparable risk to losing your driving licence on a daily basis.
Am I correct that commercial airline pilots can have their pilots licence retracted if they lose their driving licence?
Error rates are probably quite high, however an aircraft has capabilities well beyond its normal operational envelope alongwith its landing gear & the mulitiple redundency systems in place all allow for a high level of pilot error.
As for the speed limits, it does not mean you are likely to crash just because you are hovering above a speed limit.
Likewise just because you stay below a speed limit does not mean you are paying attention to avoid an accident.
As for landing on aircraft carrier, no doubt its very risky but I doubt the risk of a crash is a comparable risk to losing your driving licence on a daily basis.
Am I correct that commercial airline pilots can have their pilots licence retracted if they lose their driving licence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff