"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:17:16 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 7 September 2018 23:00:05 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 10:44:19 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 7 September 2018 00:26:18 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:
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.

Nothing wronfg humans are humans they are all difernt even if only
slightl;y so have one faulty human driver isnlt such a dig deal like
yourself who can't see a deer in front of them and can't stop in time
isnt such a big deal but when you have 100,000s of them and none for
them cane yuo end up with serious problems it;s why you have to have
recalls for faulty products.
With humans you remove their driving license if they can't drive
properly and it;s not big deal except for teh person who has their
license removed do that to 100,000 cars in a day and you have
problems.

Computerised cars can easily be updated with better programs, you can't
do that with humans.

Yes you can it's called training.

Not as easy as updating the software in every computer.

if a computersied car misses somehting there;s mot ethna

mot ethna? Who's she?

just software that might need changing, but then nyou;'d have to
understand the technologies involved rather thsan just assume they work
by magic.

of course if you can't tell a real car from a fake wooden one ?,
Could you tell the differnce between a faked wooden car and the real
thing ?

People make mistakes too. Most often if they sneeze or the sun gets in
their eyes.

Bull****. Autonomous cars see several cars in front,

No they don;t they can;t, most cant;l tell a plastic bag from a child.

Prove that stupid comment.

already been done.

https://www.wired.com/story/self-dri...eption-humans/

But it is still dawn in autonomy-land, and at least for now, humanity
holds an advantage: For all their sensors and computers, robocars still
don't see or understand the world as well as we do with our eyeballs, ear
canals, and brain folds.
"Youre probably safer in a self-driving car than with a 16-year-old, or
a 90-year-old," says Schoettle. "But youre probably significantly safer
with an alert, experienced, middle-aged driver than in a self-driving
car."

Funny how I've read a report that says you're 20 times less likely to
crash in a self driving car than being driven by an average human.

Bet its just as mindless as that other steaming turd that claims that
cannabis cures cancer.

behind, etc. And all at once, which humans can't do as we can only
see in one direction.

total crap humans turn their heads too, depending on what they see as
a danger or important info.

But a computerised car can see all directions AT ONCE. There is no way
for a human to do that.

total crap responce from someone that doesn't understand either humans or
technology used in driverless cars.

The cameras point all directions at once, your eyes don't, simple fact.

This si why the uber car couldn;t break in time it had 6 seconds to
hit the brakes but didn't most himans have a thinking time far less
than 6 seconds even you could manged that I assume or am I being too
generous.

I think the average is 300ms, and when I did a test I was well under
that.

the 100ms is the fastest and was measure using sprinters like usain bolts
reaction time to the start gun.

I'm 150ms.

which incidently using sound which while sound travels faster than light
humans react faster to sound than light otherwoise they;d use lights to
statr 100 metre races, but human take longer to process a light signal
than a sound signal.

I don't believe you. More likely it means they don't have to be looking
at a particular spot, plus all the spectators know when they're told to
go.

Humans have a responce time of around 0.1s which is about the
fastest, which is how they decide if 100M sprint runners leave the
blocks before the pistol has fired by timing their response to the
sound.

Which is why some get done for false starts when they didn't, because
some are faster than they thought.

No they try predict when the gun will go off.

They changed the time after they discovered some were faster than they
thought possible.

And how the **** could you predict it, easy enough to make it totally
random.