More New Cameras.

24-05-09 09:43

Originally Posted by wagolynn

A new nationwide camera system is now in use on main roads, we were never asked.

In the light of Image recognition, under laboratory conditions usually returning about 98% accuracy, should anyone misidentified be automatically paid say 10 X the national average annual salary in compensation? This would ensure that this technology would only be deployed when it worked correctly. I see no reason not to apply this to existing systems as well.

After my own recent experience with a hit-and-run driver, I have to say that I am in favour of the camera recognition system if it will make life more difficult for those who are not legally on the public highway.

However, I also believe that such measures should be backed up by a discipline (e.g. substantial compensation) to restrain the operating authority from blatant cavalier attitudes.
My reasons for this are because of the recently reported "DVLA office thought a presented MoT certificate was false because it had a slightly lighter shade of green to normal".
The police were called, the man was arrested, and held in a cell for a several hours. His DNA was taken, and he will be on the CIB list for a few years. He was innocent, and the MoT was genuine.
Obviously, some clowns in the DVLA have never heard of variations in the printing process. If they could have found the MoT genuine after putting him through a wrongful arrest ordeal, they could just as easily checked that it was genuine before taking such extreme action.

There is no doubt that it was laziness and taking the easy option which put the man in this unacceptable situation, and such behaviour must be punished severely.
Using these advances in technology must be supported by real prevention of such "errors", and backed up by woe betide anyone who treats the system in a sloppy manner.

Regards, Snowball.

24-05-09 11:15

Agree with Snowball on this one. I returned my Driving License six times and DVLA were still incapable of spelling my name correctly. When I had to produce it in Aug last year to a PC, DVLA not only denied having issued me a License, they also denied ever sending a License to my address! This could have caused me a lot of grief if it were not for the fact that the PC had my License in his hand. It was eventually verified when the PC asked them to check the name and address to which the Tax Disc reminder had been sent.

Guest

wagolynn

24-05-09 18:11

Originally Posted by Snowball

After my own recent experience with a hit-and-run driver, I have to say that I am in favour of the camera recognition system if it will make life more difficult for those who are not legally on the public highway.

Surely this would only prove it had happened nothing more?

Re-wrong green MOT. I thought the certificate no longer had any legal standing, all the data is transferred direct onto the DVLC computer isn’t it?

This is why I tend to shy away from the hang-em reaction, all the evidence should be checked first.

24-05-09 18:26

I was due to send my license back to the DVLA to get the 3 points I got back in 2001 removed, but I have never sent it. Due to the amount of stories such as these, as I don not trust them, and never will:(
Cheers, Smudger.

25-05-09 11:38

Smudger, I still have my 'Green' License issued in 1980. This was when I returned my 'red book' as I was advised it would not be considered valid after a certain date. I can't remember the date mentioned, but it was why I sent it to them. The red book was issued from Mold, Flints in the 60s, and I was there to advise them of how to spell my name correctly when it was typed onto a piece of paper and glued in. When I offered to attend at DVLA Swansea to advise them of how to spell my name correctly, they declined. This was around the third attempt.

ficklejade

25-05-09 14:41

You lot have got me worried - my MOT (Oct 08) has a background colour that is darker at the top than the bottom! :eek:

Like Snowball, don't mind image recognition if it takes the illegal drivers off the road but in this country the innocent are usually the ones who get treated badly and are presumed guilty without checking evidence first.

25-05-09 14:56

Slightly off-topic, but I read something a little while ago which positively stated that PCSOs in some areas are being told only to approach what appear to be respectable people. This was after one had approached a bunch of youths who assaulted the PCSO in question. This leads me to wonder what the instruction would have been to the person who called the Police, if the 'customer' had been a bunch Hell's Angels types.

25-05-09 15:09

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how effective and efficient a system is, it is only as good as the people who operate it.

For example, you can have the finest security locks fitted to your doors, but they won't keep your home safe if you are too lazy to turn the key. And that is where systems fall down; it only needs one lazy person to bring chaos to the whole works.

Guest

wagolynn

25-05-09 15:50

Originally Posted by ficklejade

You lot have got me worried - my MOT (Oct 08) has a background colour that is darker at the top than the bottom! :eek:

Like Snowball, don't mind image recognition if it takes the illegal drivers off the road but in this country the innocent are usually the ones who get treated badly and are presumed guilty without checking evidence first.

But do you mind if you are one of the two per hundred where it is wrong?

25-05-09 17:21

Originally Posted by wagolynn

But do you mind if you are one of the two per hundred where it is wrong?

I tend to be one of those people who have cruel streak where bureaucracy gets it wrong. Being retired, I am not always pushed for time so, when I know I'm right, I would take the philosophical view and work on the entertainment value.
It's amazing how you can wind up quite important people in official capacities. I spent several years working alongside a colleague who was a pastmaster in the art.

So, no , I don't really mind if I were the one in two hundred.

25-05-09 18:26

What has to be borne in mind is how information is given and received. For instance, when I had handed my License to the PC for checking back in Aug last year, the response from DVLA was not one of: 'We can't find a record of that name'. It was one of: 'That person has not got a License'. Similarly, when asked to check my home address, the response was not one of: 'We can find no record of a License being issued to that address'. It was: 'No License has been issued to any person living at that address'. In both instances, there was no leeway given for a mistake on their part, it was an accusation that I did not have a License. That is what I found more annoying and frustrating. They refused to accept that the PC was holding my License in his hand. When he asked them to check where the Tax Disc reminder had been sent, there was no hint of any apology for the fact I had been at the side of the road for an hour.
So, how would I feel if I was was on the two hundred or so? Absolutely livid that I could not get my hands around the throat of the incompetent at DVLA whose uselessness was branding me an illegal driver.

25-05-09 18:48

Yea! the DVLA like insurance companies will never admit that they made a mistake, and that they are always right:eek:
Even when you can prove that they are wrong, they will never apologise or admit their mistake:(
Its about time we made these bureaucrats responsible for their mistakes!
Cheers, Smudger.

Guest

wagolynn

25-05-09 19:36

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Yea! the DVLA like insurance companies will never admit that they made a mistake, and that they are always right:eek:
Even when you can prove that they are wrong, they will never apologise or admit their mistake:(
Its about time we made these bureaucrats responsible for their mistakes!
Cheers, Smudger.

As a manager I had many arguments with other managers about admitting mistakes. The consensus was that you (representing officialdom) must never admit that a mistake has been made. Ever the pragmatist, my opinion and actions were to own up at once.

1 â€“ I would hope that my staff would/should spot the mistake anyway.

2 â€“ To pretend a mistake had not been made would cost a lot of time and effort.

3 â€“ In my part of the organisation things going wrong and mistakes were treated as learning opportunities, so each error was analysed and corrective steps were taken. Who made the mistake was not too important it was how and why that mattered?

In the time of the Amstrad PC I spent some time training people to use computers in small offices owned by friends etc. I was always struck by, as people became more competent their use of common sense diminished.
I also noticed in large organisations the weaker the management the more they wanted everyone to work to a very rigid set of rules; anyone showing initiative would be branded a trouble maker.

Perhaps in the above there is a clue to why the DVLA has problems.:)

26-05-09 07:39

I worked in an engineering production environment. My main role was the development of new products; getting them into production, and also included trouble-shooting for existing products. We were a small department, and pressure of work was constant, so it was inevitable that I made the odd mistake occasionally.

From my early days I learned two important factors in human nature.
(1) When something has gone wrong, tell your superiors immediately; it is much more difficult to come down on an honest person than it is to reprimand someone who is trying to hide their error(s).

(2) I always advised the shop-floor supervision of a problem, admitting my error, and was never afraid to roll up my sleeves and pitch in to sort things out.
The result was good co-operation and no recriminations; just a joint effort to get everything back on track.
Trust and humility can work wonders in resolving matters smoothly and quickly. The bureaucratic stance of "I'm above reproach" is all too prevalent in the public sector, which is why organisations like the DVLA fail to acknowledge and resolve the matter, pretend innocence, and end up getting it in the neck from Joe Public.
Don't expect them to mend their ways soon; they are too entrenched in "passing the buck" antics.

Guest

wagolynn

26-05-09 12:38

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Re-wrong green MOT. I thought the certificate no longer had any legal standing, all the data is transferred direct onto the DVLC computer isn’t it?

.

About the new MOT certificate

The new MOT certificate is your receipt for the MOT test. It shows the information that’s held on the MOT database. The certificate is no longer proof of an MOT and shouldn’t be relied on as such. Only the computer record can prove a vehicle has a valid MOT. Under the new system any recommended advisory work would normally be shown on a new Advisory Notice and will be given to you at the time of the test.

Note: The police may still need to see your MOT certificate so please keep it in a safe place.

I found this on gov site, Looks like another example of confused thinking. Why do police need to see a meaningless certificate?

26-05-09 14:03

Now you've got me really perplexed, wagolynn.
As I understand it, any vehicle over 3 years old must be issued with a valid MoT certificate which, in fact, does not certify that a valid MoT certificate is actually in being.
The proof of validity is, when necessary, obtained by the police accessing the DVLA database. However, it is essential that the non-certifying MoT is kept in a safe place in case the police want to see it, although it isn't a valid document and the police will still have to access the DVLA database in order to confirm that the vehicle keeper possesses a current MoT certificate that does not by itself have any validity.

Phew, don't tell me that I've got this correct!

Guest

wagolynn

26-05-09 17:22

Originally Posted by Snowball

Phew, don't tell me that I've got this correct!

Well I think its something like that but it really is nonsense.:confused:

26-05-09 19:36

On the subject of mistakes, when I worked offshore as a foreman welder, if we made a really bad mistake, we got sacked, and word soon got round in the oil construction business. In fact it was the same for the welders as well, if their work quality dropped.
Yet it seems that if you are a civil servant, the more mistakes you make, the more promotions you get:confused:
Cheers, Smudger.

Guest

wagolynn

27-05-09 16:48

Originally Posted by smudger879n

On the subject of mistakes, when I worked offshore as a foreman welder, if we made a really bad mistake, we got sacked, and word soon got round in the oil construction business. In fact it was the same for the welders as well, if their work quality dropped.
Yet it seems that if you are a civil servant, the more mistakes you make, the more promotions you get:confused:
Cheers, Smudger.

Your talking blue collar workers.........White collar workers never make mistakes.:p

28-05-09 08:15

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Your talking blue collar workers.........White collar workers never make mistakes.:p

When I started out as an apprentice in the engineering industry, blue collar workers held views which suggested that white collar workers were mistakes from the day they were born.
Time to get down behind the parapet, methinks.

29-05-09 10:02

Having been both, in both commercial interests and local government, I can only say that there is too much blame put on 'computer errors'. Pre-computers, errors were made, someone was held accountable, and a solution was found. Now, it seems that shoulders are shrugged, and deniability has taken precedence over accountability.

Guest

wagolynn

29-05-09 12:42

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Having been both, in both commercial interests and local government, I can only say that there is too much blame put on 'computer errors'. Pre-computers, errors were made, someone was held accountable, and a solution was found. Now, it seems that shoulders are shrugged, and deniability has taken precedence over accountability.

The sad thing about that state of affairs is; if there is a fault in the computer or human system it never gets investigated therefore it can never be resolved.

I cannot understand how any organisation can live with this. It is unsatisfactory for their customer/users and frustrating for any of their staff who are trying to have pride in their work.

29-05-09 15:10

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Having been both, in both commercial interests and local government, I can only say that there is too much blame put on 'computer errors'. Pre-computers, errors were made, someone was held accountable, and a solution was found. Now, it seems that shoulders are shrugged, and deniability has taken precedence over accountability.

Before computers, errors were not too frequent in number, and tracing them could be back-tracked to the person, thus the location, of the error fairly quickly.

But computers do three things that cause problems in rectification.

(1) They work fast to continue in their function after the error and, if it a system error, they compound the error by multiplying it across the system
(2) Before the error can be rectified, it mostly requires human intervention to identify its location and cause. During this time, the computer may still be merrily adding more mayhem.
(3) In the old days of accounting and/or processing data, there would be departments separately dealing with a limited set of facts. Now, computers are often set up to amalgamate different areas of information into a single set of facts.

As an example of how confusion could reign supreme, consider a hypothetical situation.

Someone has accidentally dumped a copy of War and Peace, with all its pages loose, into a bin. They are then told to sort it out and reassemble the pages into their proper order.
But in another department, someone else has done exactly the same thing with "The Life and Works of Shakespear". And they, too have been told to sort it out.
But they happen to have got together on the same desk to do this. And each person is picking up pages by number only, and reassembling them, without reading the pages to establish which volume (thus area) they belong to.
What I am saying regarding computers is, finding an error is useless on its own, if you then start "returning it" to the wrong file. This is what I think is happening in organisations such as the DVLA. I believe that the masses of data are overwhelming them, and then some staff are relying on owners of the data to help get it back to where it belongs, whilst other staff members are refusing to accept information as genuine.

Phew! I think I need a lie down.

29-05-09 15:28

Snowball, in your War and Peace/Shakespeare analogy, I would see that because of the possibility of paging errors, it wouldn't be too difficult to read the last sentence of a preceding page, and the first sentence on a succeeding page to ensure such a mix-up didn't happen. The trouble with using computers is when access rights and privileges are set in too cavalier a fashion. Some users only need to be able to read the information, yet all too often I receive the comment from Call Centre Staff that they have 'updated' information, only to receive written confirmation that shows the information has not been updated correctly. That is one of the problems I see. Call Centre staff are not trained to do the equivalent of matching info in the way mentioned above, instead they are given complete access to too much information which can be erroneously updated.

29-05-09 20:19

Yea! that's just like when I phoned in our meter readings to our power supplier, and Emailed as well, then a bloke came and read our meter, only to have an Estimated power bill sent out to us:rolleyes:
Cheers, Smudger.

30-05-09 11:59

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Yea! that's just like when I phoned in our meter readings to our power supplier, and Emailed as well, then a bloke came and read our meter, only to have an Estimated power bill sent out to us:rolleyes:
Cheers, Smudger.

That sounds familiar Smudger.
I have just changed over to a new energy supplier. Everything has gone through correctly, and the relevant acknowledgements (which I have filed) received to confirm that the changeover has been satisfactorily completed.

Then, a week or so ago, my previous energy supplier advised me of a change in the way they intend to collect my direct debit. I now await with interest to see if they do something stupid.
It may just be some wayward communication that crossed in the post, but then again...............?

Guest

wagolynn

30-05-09 13:59

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Yea! that's just like when I phoned in our meter readings to our power supplier, and Emailed as well, then a bloke came and read our meter, only to have an Estimated power bill sent out to us:rolleyes:
Cheers, Smudger.

Estimated bills: When the energy market was privatised, it was ruled that a customerâ€™s billing date cannot be moved without the customers consent. The utilities do not like the idea of; A â€“ having to ask and B â€“ having mixed billing dates in a given area. Their way around this is to read the meters when they wish but present the bill on the billing date, if the meter is read early then it is estimated to the billing date. I hope that makes sense.
If the meter readings supplied to the billing computer, does not fit the normal pattern for that property, the computer ignores the reading and issues an estimated bill (must keep the money coming in!). Unfortunately the computer does not understand that it may well be looking at previous estimates rather than actual readings. Originally, when the computer found such a situation it printed out details for a human to decide if further action was required, re-read, suspect fiddling, etc. In the pursuit of profits that function has disappeared.