On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:04:00 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 20:53:23 UTC+1, 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 Ł1000s 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.

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 ?
Presenntly there are NO automated cars, 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..

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

Because they are not THAT good.

So humans are still better at driving cars than humans, that is the point.

Are you drunk again? Rewrite that sentence.

And probably never will be because they
may never get through the "nearly good enough" stage.

They will once they use a simialr system to planes were everyone is tracked and the information is shared between vehicals.
At the moment so called driverless cars are little more than tailgaters do relying on only on the immediate surroundings (which they get wrong) or just the car in front, humans have the ability to do more cars presetly don't.

Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front, behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only see in one direction.