Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Road carnage - Eye recognition system - etc - Fw: Email to the Prime Minister
Thursday, 11 February, 2010 12:34 AM
From; "Mr Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka" <inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au>
To; Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc; inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Tony Abbott MP
.
Tony,
I invite you to present your response as to the issue of reducing the road carnage as well as reducing
the theft of vehicles, etc.
.
See below the email forwarded to Kevin Rudd PM.
.
Do understand that it must be a voluntary system in general but the courts could provide special
orders for offenders, etc, to participate in the system.
.
Gerrit
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
.11-2-2010
Responses prepared to your message will generally be emailed to you. If you have supplied
a postal address, a response may be sent to you via Australia Post. In some cases, your
message may be forwarded to other Federal Ministers for their consideration.
This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this email as this address is
not monitored. If you have any problems with this service please contact the Web
Administrator through the site feedback service at http://www.pm.gov.au/Site_Feedback
Title: Mr
First Name: Gerrit hendrik
Last Name: Schorel-Hlavka
Email Address: inspector_rikati@yahoo.com.au
Street Address: 107 Graham Road
Suburb/City: Viewbank
State: Victoria
Postcode/Zip: 3084
Country: Australia
Subject: Road carnage - Eye recognition system - etc
Comment:
Kevin Rudd PM
.
Kevin
.
while the Commonwealth of Australia has no overall legislative powers to deal with road
issues, nevertheless as a sovereign of a territory within s.122 powers of the constitution it
can introduce legislation as like any State. My view is that the commonwealth of Australia
could start a scheme that car owners could have an eye recognition scanner system installed
that prevents any one to use the vehicle unless authorised to do so.
.
While you may hold this might be too advanced, less me briefly give an example of the
past. Way back in about 1978 I recommended to the Taxi directorate in Melbourne to fit in
all taxi’s a screen allowing drivers to see the street address rather then having to try to
communicate while driving with the operator what the address was as often errors were
made. I was called in and advised that such a system could never be successfully being
installed. Well, by now we all know that a few years later it became introduced and since
then every taxi and indeed police cars and others are fitted out with mini computers. I was
just ahead of time with my recommendations!
.
We have under aged drinking, motor vehicles being stolen, unauthorised driving by
children of their parents motor vehicles, etc, etc, and this can be stopped.
If for example a motor vehicle was fitted out with an eye scanner then unless the scanner
recognise the authorised driver the vehicles ignition system remains disconnected.
Meaning, that the vehicle cannot be used by anyone who is not authorised to drive the
vehicle.
.
More over, if the eye recognition system were also used to the kind of vehicle it is and have
P-Platers and others registered then the eye-recognition system could prevent a P-Plater to
drive a certain vehicle that is beyond the permit capacity.
.
In the past I recommended to the then premier Stave Bracks to have GPS kind of speed
limits received in motor vehicles so drivers would not have to try to look for the ever
changing speed limit signs but are automatically seeing the relevant speed limit displayed
on their dash board, and when exceeding the limit a red light goes on to warn the driver.
.
Systems like that may be expensive on an individual basis but not if this is done on a large
scale and hence government support in that regard so that most people who would like to
get involved can have it installed at little cost.
.
Insurance companies then could provide discounts on insurance policies because it means
less stolen vehicles, less accidents, etc.
.
The issue is not to make it compulsory but rather to show to motor vehicle owners that it
might be in the overall cheaper to have such an eye recognition system installed then not.
.
Car rental companies then could likewise have the system installed and allocate a particular
driver who hires the vehicle to it. Meaning that if the eye detection scan doesn’t recognise
the eyes permitted it will not allow the ignition to work.
.
As drivers do change at times and so a driver could start the engine and then allow another
person to take over, the eye-detection scanner should be working on a 5 second interval and
if after 30-second the scanner has not recognised the same eyes then it will disconnect the
ignition system, and the vehicle will be immobelised. As such, the driver has the onus to at
least look ahead, and by this the eye recognition system will be able to scan the eyes, and
obviously no driver could be driving about without at least once in 30 seconds looking
ahead.
.
Because alcohol or drugs, etc might influence drivers, it means that the eye recognition
system would not enable the motor vehicle to be started where the eyes are not able to be
scanned in normal condition.
.
What we therefore have is that rather then having people speeding and only afterwards
being fined, etc, this eye-recognition system would simply prevent a driver being
intoxicated or else unable to drive from driving the vehicle.
.
It means also that a driver who has been caught drinking over the limit can be ordered by
the court to have a eye recognition recording and a central command centre then have this
stored so that any vehicle on that system will immediately warn central command of this
person trying to drive a vehicle that is fitted with an eye detection system.
.
If we really want to be very serious about cutting road tolls but do not desire to infringe
unduly upon the civil rights of people then this kind of voluntary system may be far better
as the eye recognition system would more then likely drastically reduced road trauma’s,
etc.
.
Consider the recent death of 5 young people in a motor vehicle where the P-Plater was well
over the alcohol limit. If the eye detection system had been in place then I view such deaths
could have been avoided.
.
I understand that the overall cost to the community is about $1 million per person killed in
a road accident and if we were to translate in total figures just for the State of Victoria, as
an example, then this is at least about $300 million a year. Surely an eye-recognition
system would be a lot cheaper to address reduction of road tolls!
.
If the eye recognition system was to be used in combination of a drivers licence so that the
driver would have to insert his/her drivers licence into a special electronic slot so that the
eye recognition will correspond with the drivers licence details then it also means that
instead of having only elaborate hand written (often fraudulent) records the truck could log
the real time of driving, rest, etc, because the time the vehicle is not moving would then be
recorded.
.
Currently, I understand the state government suspend registered vehicles and often without
the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle due to unpaid fines. In my view the better system
is to target the driver and not the owner of a vehicle which may be unaware of a driver
.
Website;
http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Blog;
http://profiles.yahoo.com/inspector_rikati