http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0

On 01/07/2016 17:19, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0


The car drove *under* a truck trailer which it confused with the sky.
Presumably, the driver lost his head.

On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0


Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 01/07/2016 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0



Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.


So, this EU-thingy regulates all the trucks that drive around our part
of the world? It makes them all adhere to the same safety standards, so
that car drivers are safe, even from trucks that come from abroad?
That's a dreadful idea, and we should take no part in it.

In any case, side bars are a fad inflicted upon us by faceless
bureaucrats (never for one moment imagine they have a face) as a whim.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:19:57 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autopilot-death-......[...]

The real dealbreaker for me preventing me buying a new car is the extent
to which they've become computerised. Some of these cars, even luxury
Mercedes models have been hacked into remotely and taken over by the
hacker. I find that a bit scary, even if the risk of it happening is low,
the consequences could be very nasty.
I wonder if it would be feasible to take a brand new car and rip out all
the control systems that enable it to be remotely taken over, and ensure
100% that it can never happen. I guess the biggest hurdle would be
devising a bespoke vehicle management unit from scratch. This would be
relatively simple for a 20 year old vehicle, perhaps, but what about one
just off a production line?

On 01/07/2016 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0



Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

The reports I have read all make it sound as if the Tesla uses optical
wavelengths. It surprised me - not that they use optical at all, but
that they don't also use some sort of more-or-less microwave radar and,
possibly infra-red as well.

The atuality may well differ from the reports read so far.

--
Rod

On 01/07/16 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0



Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

NO radar. visual only


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 17:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:19:57 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autopilot-death-......[...]

The real dealbreaker for me preventing me buying a new car is the extent
to which they've become computerised. Some of these cars, even luxury
Mercedes models have been hacked into remotely and taken over by the
hacker. I find that a bit scary, even if the risk of it happening is low,
the consequences could be very nasty.
I wonder if it would be feasible to take a brand new car and rip out all
the control systems that enable it to be remotely taken over, and ensure
100% that it can never happen. I guess the biggest hurdle would be
devising a bespoke vehicle management unit from scratch. This would be
relatively simple for a 20 year old vehicle, perhaps, but what about one
just off a production line?

The most annoying part for me is how a failure in one minor and
unnecessary piece of equipment can make the ECU log a fault and remove
lots of functionality. Or if you're really unlucky put the car into
limp home mode.

There are third-party ECUs available for some engines. Megasquirt is
one example.

On 01-Jul-16 6:49 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/07/16 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

NO radar. visual only


From the linked article:

'According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the car's radar system deliberately
ignores objects high up, so that overhead road signs do not cause the
car to brake.'

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:59:31 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Jul-16 6:49 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/07/16 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

NO radar. visual only


From the linked article:

'According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the car's radar system deliberately
ignores objects high up, so that overhead road signs do not cause the
car to brake.'


I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a
few windmills and solar panels (obviously his 'thing', re Gridwatch
etc).

Baby out with the bathwater much?

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.


NT

On 01/07/2016 18:48, polygonum wrote:
On 01/07/2016 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

The reports I have read all make it sound as if the Tesla uses optical
wavelengths. It surprised me - not that they use optical at all, but
that they don't also use some sort of more-or-less microwave radar and,
possibly infra-red as well.



From what I've read they do have radar and even in the absence of
under-run bars perhaps it should have detected the rear axle.

Perhaps the trailer did have a under-run bar covered with a aerodynamic
cowling that deflected/absorbed the radar beam in the same way as a
stealth fighter?


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 01/07/2016 18:46, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:19:57 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autopilot-death-......[...]

The real dealbreaker for me preventing me buying a new car is the extent
to which they've become computerised. Some of these cars, even luxury
Mercedes models have been hacked into remotely and taken over by the
hacker. I find that a bit scary, even if the risk of it happening is low,
the consequences could be very nasty.
I wonder if it would be feasible to take a brand new car and rip out all
the control systems that enable it to be remotely taken over, and ensure
100% that it can never happen. I guess the biggest hurdle would be
devising a bespoke vehicle management unit from scratch. This would be
relatively simple for a 20 year old vehicle, perhaps, but what about one
just off a production line?


I would think very difficult. On my 13 year old car even the door locks
and electric windows are driven by a communication system linked to the
central management computer.

At intermittent fault that occasionally make the car go into limp home
mode can be impossible to cure. If you take the car to the garage they
just say they can not determine the fault.

--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:20:12 +0100, alan_m wrote:

From what I've read they do have radar and even in the absence of
under-run bars perhaps it should have detected the rear axle.

From the side? Maybe it did which is why it tried to drive betwen
the fith wheel and rear axles of the trailer.

Perhaps the trailer did have a under-run bar covered with a aerodynamic
cowling that deflected/absorbed the radar beam in the same way as a
stealth fighter?

This is the US they generally don't have side under-run bars or spray
control either.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/07/2016 18:48, polygonum wrote:
On 01/07/2016 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

The reports I have read all make it sound as if the Tesla uses optical
wavelengths. It surprised me - not that they use optical at all, but
that they don't also use some sort of more-or-less microwave radar and,
possibly infra-red as well.

The atuality may well differ from the reports read so far.

Reports were that Tesla fit cameras, radar and ultrasonics, but that
they are all low and don't look upwards - hence looking right under the
trailer of an artic.

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 11:34:36 PM UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/07/2016 18:48, polygonum wrote:
On 01/07/2016 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

The reports I have read all make it sound as if the Tesla uses optical
wavelengths. It surprised me - not that they use optical at all, but
that they don't also use some sort of more-or-less microwave radar and,
possibly infra-red as well.

The atuality may well differ from the reports read so far.

Reports were that Tesla fit cameras, radar and ultrasonics, but that
they are all low and don't look upwards - hence looking right under the
trailer of an artic.

In a statement, Tesla said it appeared the Model S car was unable to recognise "the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky" that had driven across the car's path.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36680043

Remember `platooning` idea of the 80`s that cars would drive like trains along motorways aautomated gap sensing and all....

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby wrote:

Remember `platooning` idea of the 80`s that cars would drive like trains
along motorways aautomated gap sensing and all....

Ah what they are going trial with HGVs on the M6.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35737104

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/07/2016 18:14, GB wrote:
On 01/07/2016 17:19, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...ty-1568432?utm


The car drove *under* a truck trailer which it confused with the sky.
Presumably, the driver lost his head.

So if it confused something with the sky how does it manage at night?

Bill

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m

Steady on old boy :-)

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this mean
it would drive into anything?

As has been said, headlights can dazzle, they even dazzle me even though I
see no actual imagery in my eyes.
I was also interested to read that some new models of truck are starting to
use composite materials instead of metal to keep the weight of the trailers
down. If these cars really do rely on a radar, this surely would not be a
good idea, as it probably would not see that either.
I'm eagerly waiting for these vehicles to be usable by the blind, but at
the moment I think they are only allowed if a qualified driver is on board
to take over if they fail. In the case of this accident it sounds like there
would not have been time to take over.
There is bloke across the road with one of these Teslas in his driveway
sometimes. it apparently belongs to a relative, but the majority of the
auto features have to be off on public roads in the UK apparently as they
are not yet licence.
Seems that this bloke has more money than sense.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 01/07/2016 18:14, GB wrote:
On 01/07/2016 17:19, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...ty-1568432?utm


The car drove *under* a truck trailer which it confused with the sky.
Presumably, the driver lost his head.

So if it confused something with the sky how does it manage at night?

Bill

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:59:31 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Jul-16 6:49 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/07/16 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

NO radar. visual only


From the linked article:

'According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the car's radar system deliberately
ignores objects high up, so that overhead road signs do not cause the
car to brake.'


I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country

There is no possibility what so ever of the
country being destroyed by leaving the EU.

for just a
few windmills and solar panels (obviously his 'thing', re Gridwatch
etc).

Baby out with the bathwater much?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 01-Jul-16 9:20 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 01/07/2016 18:48, polygonum wrote:
On 01/07/2016 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0





Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

The reports I have read all make it sound as if the Tesla uses optical
wavelengths. It surprised me - not that they use optical at all, but
that they don't also use some sort of more-or-less microwave radar and,
possibly infra-red as well.



From what I've read they do have radar and even in the absence of
under-run bars perhaps it should have detected the rear axle.

From my experience of driving a car with radar, the long range radar is
very narrow beam. One of the close range radars might have picked it up,
but it would probably have been too late by then. From the description
of the accident, the car appears to have been travelling quite quickly.

Perhaps the trailer did have a under-run bar covered with a aerodynamic
cowling that deflected/absorbed the radar beam in the same way as a
stealth fighter?

IME, that would be very unlikely. It took a lot of careful design and a
special coating to give the stealth fighter a low radar signature. False
positives are more of a problem with car radar.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:59:31 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Jul-16 6:49 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/07/16 18:18, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 5:19 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0




Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

NO radar. visual only


From the linked article:

'According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the car's radar system deliberately
ignores objects high up, so that overhead road signs do not cause the
car to brake.'


I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a
few windmills and solar panels (obviously his 'thing', re Gridwatch

I'm not entirety sure how putting solar panes on house roofs destroys the
countryside

I'm with you on the economics though

tim

On 02-Jul-16 8:51 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this mean
it would drive into anything?

That is, of course, why automatic cars do not rely upon just one system
- none are perfect by themselves. On the Mercedes S Class, for example,
the primary long range detection system is radar, with the video system
providing backup at closer ranges for things, like pedestrians or
vehicles coming out of side roads, that don't show up on the radar. In
this case, it appears that both systems missed the trailer.


As has been said, headlights can dazzle, they even dazzle me even though I
see no actual imagery in my eyes.
I was also interested to read that some new models of truck are starting to
use composite materials instead of metal to keep the weight of the trailers
down. If these cars really do rely on a radar, this surely would not be a
good idea, as it probably would not see that either.

I would expect that to be for bodywork, rather than chassis components.
You need a bit of weight low down, to keep the centre of gravity of a
loaded vehicle low.

I'm eagerly waiting for these vehicles to be usable by the blind, but at
the moment I think they are only allowed if a qualified driver is on board
to take over if they fail. In the case of this accident it sounds like there
would not have been time to take over.
There is bloke across the road with one of these Teslas in his driveway
sometimes. it apparently belongs to a relative, but the majority of the
auto features have to be off on public roads in the UK apparently as they
are not yet licence.
Seems that this bloke has more money than sense.
Brian



--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 07:40:32 +0100 (GMT+01:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m

Steady on old boy :-)

;-)

Well ... what we do know is what happens when a member of the EU.

What we don't fully know is what will happen if we are not.

What those who seem to study such things for a living seem to be
suggesting though is were doing fine (thanks) and leaving is unlikely
to change most of the points people voted on for the better (as they
would see it).

It seems we *might* be able to reach other markets but they may not
want to reach out to us like they did when we were part of the EU.
Whatever the case it will take *loads* of work over quite a few years
using loads of people (and therefore cost, directly and indirectly)
to arrange such deals.

It seems we might be able to 'better' (?) control immigration to some
level but can't change the existing numbers and may need all of them
anyway (to full fill the roles we can't or won't, to pay their taxes
and fund our pensions).

We *will* have to unravel the EU law from the UK law (even thought the
vast majority were created / sanctioned by us in the first place) and
that will put an additional burden on our system.

Leaving will probably break up the UK so so much for us being a / the
'United Kingdom'.

The 'cost' of being in the EU is insignificant compared with the
general costs of running of the country.

Now I've not yet seen anything from the Brexiteers that can actually
counter any of the points those who seem to know what they are doing
have said and I have roughly relayed above (and what many of us who
were looking for facts all along guessed might be the case anyway).

So, out of the frying pan and into the fire?

'Most' people agreed (agree) they don't know what will happen post
Brexit and therefore all it can be is a leap into the dark. Anyone who
was vehement that it was the right or only thing (as opposed to the
coin *******) to do, should be held personally responsible and fined
for every pound we lose in the future.

I really really hope my worst fears don't come true but even if we
don't I don't think it's going to be 'good' for a long long time (if
ever).

Cheers, T i m

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
....
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
....

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 02-Jul-16 8:51 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this
mean
it would drive into anything?

That is, of course, why automatic cars do not rely upon just one system -
none are perfect by themselves. On the Mercedes S Class, for example, the
primary long range detection system is radar, with the video system
providing backup at closer ranges for things, like pedestrians or vehicles
coming out of side roads, that don't show up on the radar. In this case, it
appears that both systems missed the trailer.

The car then rectified the oversight.



As has been said, headlights can dazzle, they even dazzle me even though
I
see no actual imagery in my eyes.
I was also interested to read that some new models of truck are starting
to
use composite materials instead of metal to keep the weight of the
trailers
down. If these cars really do rely on a radar, this surely would not be a
good idea, as it probably would not see that either.

I would expect that to be for bodywork, rather than chassis components. You
need a bit of weight low down, to keep the centre of gravity of a loaded
vehicle low.

I'm eagerly waiting for these vehicles to be usable by the blind, but at
the moment I think they are only allowed if a qualified driver is on
board
to take over if they fail. In the case of this accident it sounds like
there
would not have been time to take over.
There is bloke across the road with one of these Teslas in his driveway
sometimes. it apparently belongs to a relative, but the majority of the
auto features have to be off on public roads in the UK apparently as they
are not yet licence.
Seems that this bloke has more money than sense.
Brian

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this
mean it would drive into anything?

As has been said, headlights can dazzle, they even dazzle me even though I
see no actual imagery in my eyes.
I was also interested to read that some new models of truck are starting
to use composite materials instead of metal to keep the weight of the
trailers down. If these cars really do rely on a radar, this surely would
not be a good idea, as it probably would not see that either.
I'm eagerly waiting for these vehicles to be usable by the blind, but at
the moment I think they are only allowed if a qualified driver is on board
to take over if they fail. In the case of this accident it sounds like
there would not have been time to take over.
There is bloke across the road with one of these Teslas in his driveway
sometimes. it apparently belongs to a relative, but the majority of the
auto features have to be off on public roads in the UK apparently as they
are not yet licence.
Seems that this bloke has more money than sense.


Pretty much a given for buyers of a Tesla

80,000 of their US Dollars for a car with a range of circa 200 miles between
charges.

Not exactly useful for driving out of state, is it?

tim

"T i m" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 07:40:32 +0100 (GMT+01:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m

Steady on old boy :-)

;-)

Well ... what we do know is what happens when a member of the EU.

What we don't fully know is what will happen if we are not.

What those who seem to study such things for a living seem to be
suggesting though is were doing fine (thanks) and leaving is unlikely
to change most of the points people voted on for the better (as they
would see it).

It seems we *might* be able to reach other markets but they may not
want to reach out to us like they did when we were part of the EU.
Whatever the case it will take *loads* of work over quite a few years
using loads of people (and therefore cost, directly and indirectly)
to arrange such deals.

It seems we might be able to 'better' (?) control immigration to some
level but can't change the existing numbers and may need all of them
anyway (to full fill the roles we can't or won't, to pay their taxes
and fund our pensions).

We *will* have to unravel the EU law from the UK law (even thought the
vast majority were created / sanctioned by us in the first place) and
that will put an additional burden on our system.

Leaving will probably break up the UK so so much for us being a / the
'United Kingdom'.

The 'cost' of being in the EU is insignificant compared with the
general costs of running of the country.

Now I've not yet seen anything from the Brexiteers that can actually
counter any of the points those who seem to know what they are doing
have said and I have roughly relayed above (and what many of us who
were looking for facts all along guessed might be the case anyway).

So, out of the frying pan and into the fire?

'Most' people agreed (agree) they don't know what will happen post
Brexit and therefore all it can be is a leap into the dark. Anyone who
was vehement that it was the right or only thing (as opposed to the
coin *******) to do, should be held personally responsible and fined
for every pound we lose in the future.

I really really hope my worst fears don't come true but even if we
don't I don't think it's going to be 'good' for a long long time (if
ever).

Cheers, T i m

This thread illustrates quite well the result of putting too much faith in a
system which is supposed to be better than the individual. Hopping into your
tesla, hitting go and sitting comfortably on your arse doing nothing to
control your destiny is like putting your trust in the EU.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
...
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
...

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers appeared
in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of years before the
EU Directive.

Refreshing.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:20:50 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:
snip

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a
few windmills and solar panels (obviously his 'thing', re Gridwatch

I'm not entirety sure how putting solar panes on house roofs destroys the
countryside

Sorry, no, what I meant is 'was it worth (potentially) destroying the
country (financially, socially, ethically) *just because* (in the case
of TNP specifically, as that is a crusade he is on) because of the EU
/ Green incentives'?

I'm with you on the economics though

You aren't with me as I know little of all this g but we seem to be
with most of those who seem to be better placed than most of the
Brexit fanatics in being very concerned that a minority of the
population voted on something they had little knowledge that could
potentially have such a negative outcome for all of us for a very long
time? ;-(

*Nothing* anyone has said so far has countered any of my concerns on
any of the subjects.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. If anyone cares to counter *with quantifiable fact* any of the
points raised on either of the videos linked on the OP I'm all ears.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:31:08 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
...
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
...

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.

Ok, but the spirit of the general point still stands. There are many
perfectly sensible safety improvements have been implemented *EU wide*
because all 28 states sanctioned them (for the benefit for the vast
majority).

So, even if it was first raised in France or Germany, we would have
had to accept it before it could have been implemented and would in
turn benefit from it in this country or traveling or working within
the EU.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:35:06 +0100, tim... wrote:

Pretty much a given for buyers of a Tesla

80,000 of their US Dollars for a car with a range of circa 200 miles
between charges.

Not exactly useful for driving out of state, is it?

Or even out of county. You'd need your head examined to own one.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:54:39 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

snip


I really really hope my worst fears don't come true but even if we
don't I don't think it's going to be 'good' for a long long time (if
ever).



This thread illustrates quite well the result of putting too much faith in a
system which is supposed to be better than the individual. Hopping into your
tesla, hitting go and sitting comfortably on your arse doing nothing to
control your destiny is like putting your trust in the EU.


Except the EU is *nothing* like that.

Anyone relying 100% on something whilst traveling at speed and
relying on some pretty new technology at that, is more like assuming
that *Leaving* the EU is also 'safe' when it's mostly unknown, like
driving blind.

And by 'unknown' I mean we know what the chances are any of what the
minority of the population voted for (Brexiteers) won't come true and
the chances on what a similar number of people voted for (and feared),
will.

If nothing else it's going to take 2+ years of uncertainty to just
leave the EU and then *at least* 10 years (the experts suggest and
based on the progress of other countries trying similar now and in the
past) to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst hoping we
can still sell stuff via the WTO rules (at worse deals).

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:


I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.


Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m



You lost, move on.

On 01/07/2016 21:26, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m


They can't and they won't.

Remember the point about attacking the talker and not the argument, that
has been what they have been doing in this newsgroup for months and it
will continue as they have nothing else.

They even have the balls to call the opposition project fear when that
is exactly what they do.

Its not over even if we leave, TNP and harry aren't content with us
leaving the EU they still have an agenda to deal with others they don't
like.

On 02-Jul-16 9:56 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
...
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
...

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.

Refreshing.

Not particularly unusual. Quite a few 'EU' laws are based upon prior UK
practice, from the Common Fisheries Policy, to the Medical Devices
Directive. Whatever the propaganda, the EU doesn't just sit down and
think up regulations for the sake of it. They normally take examples of
the best practice in a particular field in from member states, then
extend those practices to all the states.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:00:54 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 01/07/2016 21:26, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?


They can't and they won't.

Well the certainly don't seem to have said anything of value so far.
The thing is, if it were 'so obvious' leaving the EU was such a 'good
thing' then I'm guessing all the experts across all fields ... and
more than a minority of the population would be voting *for* it?

Remember the point about attacking the talker and not the argument, that
has been what they have been doing in this newsgroup for months and it
will continue as they have nothing else.

Ad hominem?

They even have the balls to call the opposition project fear when that
is exactly what they do.

The guy in the video conceded that there was some pretty
'unprofessional stuff done by both sides pre Referendum but that the
Brexit brigade stooped to some pretty low lows and the Leave published
some straight facts. The problem was the great unwashed weren't able
to differentiate between the two but the sensational 'we want
something better but we don't know what we are voting for will or
could ever deliver that' seemed to appeal and didn't appear bothered
by the risk (that they themselves will also 'enjoy').

Its not over even if we leave, TNP and harry aren't content with us
leaving the EU they still have an agenda to deal with others they don't
like.

That's the problem with fanatics, they don't know when to stop and
they can't see the facts for the red mist. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Caecilius wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 17:46:41 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:19:57 -0700, harry wrote:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autopilot-death-......[...]

The real dealbreaker for me preventing me buying a new car is the
extent to which they've become computerised. Some of these cars, even
luxury Mercedes models have been hacked into remotely and taken over
by the hacker. I find that a bit scary, even if the risk of it
happening is low, the consequences could be very nasty. I wonder if it
would be feasible to take a brand new car and rip out all the control
systems that enable it to be remotely taken over, and ensure 100% that
it can never happen. I guess the biggest hurdle would be devising a
bespoke vehicle management unit from scratch. This would be relatively
simple for a 20 year old vehicle, perhaps, but what about one just off
a production line?

The most annoying part for me is how a failure in one minor and
unnecessary piece of equipment can make the ECU log a fault and remove
lots of functionality. Or if you're really unlucky put the car into
limp home mode.

There are third-party ECUs available for some engines. Megasquirt is
one example.

MegaSquirt can't generally integrate with the other computers in a
production car - like gearbox and ABS etc.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.