"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:25:11 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 15:08:23 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 10:45:01 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 3 September 2018 16:52:41 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 16:06:21 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 3 September 2018 14:50:32 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:30:40 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 1 September 2018 21:59:36 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson
Knife wrote:
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....

Which is why people don't want to spend £1000s on a self driving
car that ****s up or kills them, they can have that for free
NOW.

No, they get 20 times less ****ups.

The California DMV said it has received it has received 95
autonomous vehicle collision reports as of August 31. Dozens of
companies have received permits to test self-driving vehicles on
California roads, but those permits require the presence of a human
safety driver.

Just how amny of these atomomous cars are there a few dozen
comparded to....

You say 95 collisions with autonomous vehicles, but you don't say how
many manually driven cars have had collisions.

Because it's such a small sample, we don't narrow down the number of
manual collisons of 100 or so cars and that is why there are so many
more collisins with manual cars because we count the cars in millions
NOT dozens.
What's needed is a rate of accidents a figure they will not give out.

I've seen it, and it's 20 times larger for human driver than automated
cars.

Then yuo should be able to cite it then shouldn't you ?

Can't be bothered finding it every bloody time I mention it. Google is
your friend.

Google cant find it.

Presenntly there are NO automated cars,

Yes there are, they are just required by law to have a driver there in
case of problems,

And its far from clear how many accidents were
avoided by the human stopping the self driving
car from ****ing up. Until we have full time
black boxes for self driving cars, we will never
know how well the cars do unaided.

but they will go by themselves - hence the accidents which weren't avoided
by the human driver who wasn' watching the road at the time.

anyway and the cars that are used as driverless aren't tested amonst real
road users they just go round and around on test tracks, no wonder they
don't have accidents.

Loads are tested on roads, that's why they're in the papers as having had
accidents.

But if they are so good why do they require a human at the wheel ?

Because of ****wit lawmakers.