Menu

About Us

About Us

About Us

image26

About Us

Insight

About Us

About Us

image27

Insight

Our Partners

Our Partners

Our Partners

image28

Our Partners

Events

Our Partners

Our Partners

image29

Events

Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact Us

image30

Contact Us

Links

Contact Us

Contact Us

image31

Links

Products

image32

Products

About Us

We are a Security Systems Consultancy, Design, Sales and Installation Company based in London to help you decide and buy the right system for your home, office, building.


We are good at

- CCTV Systems

- Access Control Systems

- Burglar Alarm Systems

- Fire Alarm Systems

- Intercom Systems

- Smart Home Systems

- Electric Wiring, Test & Inspection 

- PAT Testing

- Gate Automation, Repair & Maintenance

- 3rd Party Security Systems Repair & Maintenance


Just call us! Secure your security!

PRODUCTS

BUSYPOD - OFFICE PHONE BOOTH

FIREANGEL SW1-R OPTICAL SMOKE ALARM-MAINS POWER

CTEC BF431A/CX/W ADDRESSABLE BASE SOUNDER

image33

 You need privacy and silence in your daily life to make phone calls in crowded or in noisy environments such as offices, bars, cafes, restaurants, stations etc. Of course, you deserve freedom, confidential and comfort. BUSYPOD provides you all of these in a compact place. There are many choices of colors and materials for BUSYPOD design. 

CTEC BF431A/CX/W ADDRESSABLE BASE SOUNDER

FIREANGEL SW1-R OPTICAL SMOKE ALARM-MAINS POWER

CTEC BF431A/CX/W ADDRESSABLE BASE SOUNDER

image34

 Third-party certified to EN54-3 (Sounders) and 17 (Isolators) by the LPCB.

Impressive 96dB(A) sound output @ 1m.

Supplied with a BF431QCP quick connect plate and detector spur wires.

Onboard short-circuit loop isolator.

7 selectable volume levels and up to 15 selectable tone pairs.

IP21C rated.

FIREANGEL SW1-R OPTICAL SMOKE ALARM-MAINS POWER

FIREANGEL SW1-R OPTICAL SMOKE ALARM-MAINS POWER

FIREANGEL SW1-R OPTICAL SMOKE ALARM-MAINS POWER

image35

 Enhanced optical smoke-sensing technology reduces nuisance alarms 

Mains powered with 9V battery back-up 

Hardwire interconnect up-to 12 x SW1 Smoke , HW1 Heat & CW1 CO alarms. 

USED PRODUCTS

FULLEON SQUASHNI BASE SOUNDER - SQ/03/W

APOLLO SERIES 65 OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR 55000-317

APOLLO SERIES 65 OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR 55000-317

image36

 USED - 31 pcs left - £9,99 (inc VAT) 

APOLLO SERIES 65 OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR 55000-317

APOLLO SERIES 65 OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR 55000-317

APOLLO SERIES 65 OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR 55000-317

image37

  USED - 52 pcs left - £9,99 (inc VAT)  

APOLLO SERIES 65 STANDARD BASE 45681-200APO

APOLLO SERIES 65 OPTICAL SMOKE DETECTOR 55000-317

APOLLO SERIES 65 STANDARD BASE 45681-200APO

image38

 USED - 52 pcs left - £1,50 (inc VAT)  

Insights

image39

THE NECESSITY OF EVOLUTION OF LAWS AND RULES IN THE AGE OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

bilginatwork.co.uk answers...
 

image40

State of counter-drone regulation for public safety and physical security

 sourcesecurity.com answers... 

image41

Worried about AI taking over the world? You may be making some rather unscientific assumptions

robohub.org answers...

Our Partners

Our Partners

image42
image43
image44
image45
image46
image47

Subscribe

Contact Us

Send Us A Message!

Or better, call us directly!

bilgin@bilginatwork.co.uk

London, UK

+44 7876 180168

THE NECESSITY OF EVOLUTION OF LAWS AND RULES IN THE AGE OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

  

According to Turkish Language Association, a driver is the “one” who drives the car. This “one” means a person. I mean, we are talking about a living creature who can see, hear, hold in an eye-hand-leg coordination. 

Our eyes make us see the world. Thanks to our eyes, we see what is happening around us while we walk, run, talk and of course while we drive. Although we can see the moving objects in the scope of 125 degrees angle (one eye), and in total 140 degrees (two eyes), we can see max. 45 degrees with a blink of eye. This angle decreases to 25-30 degrees when we are older and 10-20 degrees in the dark. Bleary-eyes, a tired body, careless driving, etc. cause accidents in the traffic. 

Traffic accidents cause loss of life and property. According to Turkish Statistical Institute, 1.202.716 traffic accidents happened in 2017 in Turkey. “Approximately 1.35 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes in the world” [5]. “The law assumes that we each know basic facts that are widely understood in the community. For example: kids might run into the street, drinking can impair you as a driver, snow and ice can be slippery, and train tracks can be dangerous. If you’re driving on the road, even if you don’t have a driver’s license, the law imputes everything a licensed driver should know to you.”[1] %2.6 of the persons in prison are there because of those accidents. And it means that penalties don’t have an effect on traffic accidents.

The driver is charged if he/she is responsible. But what if the car is “driverless”? I think the least responsible one would be the owner of the car. A person “travelling” in his autonomous car will not be different from a person travelling in a bus. So, Who will be responsible? Designers, programmers, standards, hackers? Here, it is possible to see which way the crime scene investigations will evolve. Such accidents will not be able to be solved by means of classical traffic police methods. We will need to have cyber-traffic police in our life. And we need to have new laws.

“One of the basic questions is: How reliable is the cell network? What if there is no mobile network available? What if sensor(s) fail? Should there be redundancy for everything? Is there a threshold that determines when the car is reliable, e.g., when two out of four sensors fail?”[2]

Also we will need black boxes to understand how the accident happened, which data, equipment or decision failed. “In aircrafts “black boxes” are used to determine what happened after a crash. Should this be also a part of a self-driving car?”[2]

The subject takes us to 5 ethical questions on risk, safety and trust we still need to answer [3]:

1. Which risks are worth taking?

2. Is the car making a choice or are we?

3. Is there a moral code we can all agree on?

4. Or should we choose our own car's moral code?

5. Can we ever learn to trust our self-driving cars?

In fact, “the arrival of the self-driving car presents a challenging new dilemma: Whom should the vehicle save – and whom should it harm – when an accident is unavoidable?” [4]

[1]  https://futurism.com/images/laws-and-ethics-for-autonomous-cars 

[2]  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.04103.pdf 

[3]  https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-21/self-driving-autonomous-cars-five-ethical-questions/9567986 

[4] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/technology/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-self-drivingcars/article37803470/

[5] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries