On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 20:47:27 +0100, bert wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
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


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.