"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 19:27:12 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jack" wrote in message
news
On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 20:54:02 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote
Rod Speed wrote

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804


The report doesn't say whose fault it was.

But it does list a hell of a lot of other similar failures
and a well designed self driving car should drive the
car so it doesn't cause human drivers to run into the
back of the car its driving because of how it drives.

And of course human drivers never **** up like this....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

While that's legally correct, it makes a lot more sense
to have the self driving car drive so that human drivers
don't see any unusual driving by the self driving car
and so don't run into the back of it when it merges.

It's not legally correct actually. Plenty folk do insurance ripoffs by
deliberately braking very hard in front of someone.

The reason that works is because the car behind
is normally found to be the guilty party.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Not sure that would be legal now that terrorism is so rife.

A laser would be less detectable, you could make a hole in the radiator.

Sure, but where's the fun in that ? Much more
fun to turn the following car into an inferno.

Corse that could be a problem if it keeps going
and ends up going bang against your car.

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

Yep.

?

That was fidonet. That was one of the BBSs.