| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
- The faulty speed camera incident in Southampton involving the Gasto speed camera on Maybray King Way is an example of a software failure incident that has happened again within the same organization or with its products and services [118500].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
- The article mentions that there are at least six other cameras across the UK that have been shown to have wrongly triggered by drivers obeying the law, indicating that similar incidents have occurred at multiple organizations or with their products and services [118500]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
The software failure incident related to the development phases can be attributed to both design and operation factors:
(a) Design: The incident was caused by contributing factors introduced during the system development and installation processes. The faulty speed camera in Southampton was reported to have issues with 'camera calibration' and 'depth of perception,' indicating design flaws in the technology used for speed measurement [118500].
(b) Operation: The incident was also influenced by contributing factors related to the operation or misuse of the system. Hampshire Police admitted that the camera was not faulty but blamed the 'nature of the technology' for the false readings, suggesting human error could be a factor in the incorrect speed recordings [118500]. Additionally, incorrect prosecutions were pursued due to the nature of the technology used in the speed cameras, leading to drivers being wrongly penalized [118500]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
The software failure incident related to the faulty speed cameras in the UK can be categorized as both within_system and outside_system failures based on the information provided in the articles.
(a) within_system: The articles mention that the police have admitted that the speed camera in Maybray Way wrongly clocked drivers doing up to 50mph when they were actually doing well below the 30mph limit. The police blamed the 'nature of the technology' for the false readings, suggesting human error as a contributing factor to the incorrect readings [118500].
(b) outside_system: Motoring experts have suggested that the faulty speed cameras in the UK, including the Gatsometer T24 model, could have had issues due to 'camera calibration issues' from the way the devices are installed. This indicates that factors originating from outside the system, such as improper installation or setup, could have contributed to the software failure incidents with the speed cameras [118500]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
The software failure incident in the article is related to speed cameras incorrectly recording drivers' speeds, leading to false readings and triggering fines for drivers. The article mentions that the faulty speed camera in Southampton wrongly clocked drivers doing up to 50mph when they were actually doing well below the 30mph limit. Police attributed the false readings to the "nature of the technology" and suggested that human error was not to blame, indicating that the issue was likely due to non-human actions [118500].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
The article also highlights instances where drivers were caught by faulty speed cameras due to human actions. For example, delivery driver Harley Golder challenged a speed camera in Southampton that claimed he was traveling at 48mph when his dashcam footage showed he was actually driving at 24mph. Additionally, other motorists shared experiences of being caught by cameras flashing incorrectly, with some drivers receiving fines or court summons for speeds they were not actually driving. These incidents point to human actions such as incorrect setup, calibration, or maintenance of the speed cameras contributing to the software failure incidents [118500]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The faulty speed camera incident in Southampton was initially attributed to a hardware issue related to the camera's 'depth of perception' and the 'failsafe' markings on the road not working correctly, suggesting a hardware malfunction [118500].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The police later claimed that the incorrect readings from the speed camera were due to the 'nature of the technology' and suggested human error as the cause, indicating a software-related issue [118500]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
The software failure incident related to the faulty speed cameras in the UK can be categorized as non-malicious. The failures were attributed to issues such as camera calibration problems, depth of perception issues, failsafe markings not working correctly, and the nature of the technology used in the cameras [118500]. The police acknowledged that the cameras were not faulty but rather blamed the technology and human error for the false readings [118500]. The incidents were described as errors in the system that led to incorrect speed readings and subsequent fines being issued to drivers, with no indication of malicious intent behind the failures. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the faulty speed cameras in the UK seems to be primarily due to poor_decisions. The incident was caused by faulty speed cameras incorrectly recording drivers' speeds, leading to fines and penalty notices being issued incorrectly. The police initially blamed the 'nature of the technology' for the false readings, suggesting human error is to blame. Despite admitting the cameras were faulty, the police continued to issue fines based on the incorrect readings, causing frustration among motorists who were wrongly penalized [118500].
(b) Additionally, the incident also involved accidental_decisions as drivers were caught by faulty speed cameras due to mistakes or unintended decisions made by the cameras themselves. The cameras were reported to be flashing at everything passing by, even when drivers were within the speed limit. This unintentional activation of the cameras led to numerous drivers being wrongly caught and fined for speeding. The incident highlighted the inaccuracies and malfunctions of the speed cameras, causing inconvenience and financial implications for the affected motorists [118500]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to development_incompetence:
- The faulty speed camera incident in Southampton was initially attributed to police failing to set up the camera properly, causing it to incorrectly record people speeding [118500].
- Industry experts mentioned that 'camera calibration issues' from the way the devices are installed could be the most likely explanation for the false readings recorded by the camera in Southampton [118500].
- Police admitted that the camera in Maybray Way wrongly clocked drivers doing up to 50mph when they were actually doing well below the 30mph limit, but they blamed the 'nature of the technology' for the false readings, suggesting human error is to blame [118500].
- The faulty Southampton speed camera's 'depth of perception' was believed to be broken, and the 'failsafe' markings on the road used to measure a driver's speed were 'clearly not working as they should' [118500].
(b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally:
- Hampshire Police admitted that the speed camera in Maybray King Way, Southampton, had been recording 'incorrect readings' for vehicles with a 'high flat rear,' leading to drivers being wrongly penalized [118500].
- The police spokesman mentioned that the individual camera is not faulty, and incorrect prosecutions had been pursued 'due to the nature of the technology' this type of speed camera uses, indicating that the errors were accidental rather than intentional [118500]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the faulty speed cameras in the UK can be categorized as a temporary failure. The articles describe how the speed cameras, particularly the Gatsometer T24 model, Gatso, and SpeedCurb cameras, were incorrectly recording speeds and triggering flashes even when drivers were within the speed limit. The incidents were attributed to issues such as camera calibration, depth of perception, and failsafe markings not working correctly [118500].
Additionally, the articles mention that Hampshire Police admitted the speed camera in Maybray King Way, Southampton, was recording incorrect readings for vehicles with a 'high flat rear,' leading to hundreds of drivers potentially facing unnecessary punishment. The police acknowledged that the camera was not faulty but rather the nature of the technology used in the cameras could lead to misreads [118500]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the articles can be categorized as a crash. The faulty speed camera in Southampton was incorrectly recording drivers' speeds, leading to numerous incorrect fines and penalty notices being issued. The camera was described as activating in error, recording incorrect readings for vehicles, and causing hundreds of drivers to face punishment unnecessarily [118500].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be categorized as an omission. The faulty speed camera omitted to perform its intended function of accurately recording drivers' speeds. It failed to capture the correct speed of vehicles passing by, resulting in erroneous readings and fines being issued to drivers who were not actually speeding [118500].
(c) timing: The software failure incident does not align with the timing category as there is no indication that the system performed its intended functions correctly but at the wrong time.
(d) value: The software failure incident can be categorized under the value option. The faulty speed camera was performing its intended function of capturing images and recording speeds, but it was doing so incorrectly, leading to drivers being wrongly accused of speeding and facing fines and penalty notices [118500].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not align with the byzantine category as there is no mention of inconsistent responses or interactions from the faulty speed camera.
(f) other: The software failure incident can be further described as a misinterpretation of data. The speed camera misinterpreted the data it collected, leading to incorrect readings and erroneous fines being issued to drivers. This misinterpretation of data resulted in drivers being penalized for offenses they did not commit [118500]. |