"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 19:42:06 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
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.

What matters is the collision rate per mile. Tho I spose the self driving
cars are more likely to be used in the more risky situations so they can
work out what the glitches are with the current system.

There is the possibility that they will cause a lot of collisions by
driving according to the letter of the law.

Maybe.

Slow drivers get rear ended a lot because they're TOO DAMN SLOW!

Never seen any evidence of that. Certainly slow drivers can cause more
accidents because other drivers overtake them and **** that up tho.

M'colleague rear ended someone because he assumed they'd pull out of a
junction, but apparently the driver in front felt the gap was too small
and didn't move.

He's a ****wit if he drives into the back of another car in that situation.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 19:24:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
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.

That number is straight from your arse.

No, it's from a study.

Don't believe it. Cite it.

There are no self driving cars which don't have
a human in them to react when it ****s up

But it's not actually needed, as the computer is better than a human would
be.

Still better to have a human override the computer when
it has ****ed up like that uber did when it killed someone.

and we don't even have any viable stats on the relative accident rate of
self driving cars with members
of the public as the overriding human either.

Don't need them,

The legislators feel otherwise. You get to like that or lump it.

we already know the computer is 20 times better than a human.

No we don't with the entirety of all driving
conditions over a very large number of miles
with no human there to take over when the
computer ****s up.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 19:24:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
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.

That number is straight from your arse.

No, it's from a study.

There are no self driving cars which don't have
a human in them to react when it ****s up

But it's not actually needed, as the computer is better than a human would
be.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0184952
shows the exact opposite.

and we
don't even have any viable stats on the relative
accident rate of self driving cars with members
of the public as the overriding human either.

Don't need them, we already know the computer is 20 times better than a
human.

Fraid not.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 19:24:57 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
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.

That number is straight from your arse.

No, it's from a study.

There are no self driving cars which don't have
a human in them to react when it ****s up

But it's not actually needed, as the computer is better than a human would
be.

and we
don't even have any viable stats on the relative
accident rate of self driving cars with members
of the public as the overriding human either.

Don't need them, we already know the computer is 20 times better than a
human.

Wrong
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ents/74946614/

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 06:26:22 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

M'colleague rear ended someone because he assumed they'd pull out of a
junction, but apparently the driver in front felt the gap was too small
and didn't move.

He's a ****wit if he drives into the back of another car in that situation.

The sociopath has NO "colleague", you ****witted senile Ozzietard! Get a
clue finally!

--
Latest RETARDED "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Rot: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Rot: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID:

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 06:30:27 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more absolutely idiotic drivel largely unread again

--
Latest RETARDED "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Rot: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Rot: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID:

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 06:42:02 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


accident rate of self driving cars with members
of the public as the overriding human either.

Don't need them, we already know the computer is 20 times better than a
human.

Fraid not.

Fraid you are BOTH sick driveling IDIOTS! BG

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 06:47:04 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH all the troll ****

....and much better air in here again.

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

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.

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 02:45:01 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:


What's needed is a rate of accidents a figure they will not give out.

What's needed is someone who sees to it that both of you take your
medication!

On 9/2/2018 9:54 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:19:05 +0100, Jack wrote:

On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news 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....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

You're as stupid as the insurance companies. Let's say you're
travelling in the slow lane of a 2 lane motorway at 70mph. There's
traffic in the fast lane, you cannot move over. I come alongside you on
the onramp at about 75mph, then dart in front of you, leaving a gap of
about 6 inches. I immediately jam on my brakes as I realise the lorry
in front is slowing down. You hit the back of me. Would you really
blame yourself and not me?

Let's say, ignoring the stupidity of your made up situation, and lets
say your reckless driving is clearly filmed on my dash board cam, then,
we might say there would be a possibility the cause of the rear end
accident would be yours, and you could pay the $100,000 in damage to my
car and it's on board missile guidence system.

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com

On 9/2/2018 7:27 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 19:27:12 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jack" wrote in message
news
On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news 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....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

While that's legally correct, it makes a lot more sense
to have the self driving car drive so that human drivers
don't see any unusual driving by the self driving car
and so don't run into the back of it when it merges.

It's not legally correct actually. Plenty folk do insurance ripoffs by
deliberately braking very hard in front of someone.

Let's say it is not actually legally correct. Then, plenty of folk
trying to rip off the insurance companies would be left standing, dicks
in hand with nothing going on.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Not sure that would be legal now that terrorism is so rife.

Well terrorism is not so legal, yet it is so rife.

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com

On 9/4/2018 8:52 AM, Jack wrote:
On 9/2/2018 9:54 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:19:05 +0100, Jack wrote:

On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news 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....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

You're as stupid as the insurance companies.* Let's say you're
travelling in the slow lane of a 2 lane motorway at 70mph. There's
traffic in the fast lane, you cannot move over.* I come alongside you on
the onramp at about 75mph, then dart in front of you, leaving a gap of
about 6 inches.* I immediately jam on my brakes as I realise the lorry
in front is slowing down.* You hit the back of me.* Would you really
blame yourself and not me?

Let's say, ignoring the stupidity of your made up situation, and lets say your reckless driving is clearly filmed on my dash board cam, then, we might say there would be a possibility the cause of the rear end accident would be yours, and you could pay
the $100,000 in damage to my car and it's on board missile guidence system.

The old "swoop and squat".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-zRyvKxJmc

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 13:52:20 +0100, Jack wrote:

On 9/2/2018 9:54 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:19:05 +0100, Jack wrote:

On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news 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....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

You're as stupid as the insurance companies. Let's say you're
travelling in the slow lane of a 2 lane motorway at 70mph. There's
traffic in the fast lane, you cannot move over. I come alongside you on
the onramp at about 75mph, then dart in front of you, leaving a gap of
about 6 inches. I immediately jam on my brakes as I realise the lorry
in front is slowing down. You hit the back of me. Would you really
blame yourself and not me?

Let's say, ignoring the stupidity of your made up situation,

what was stupid about it? I see morons doing this all the time.

and lets
say your reckless driving is clearly filmed on my dash board cam, then,
we might say there would be a possibility the cause of the rear end
accident would be yours, and you could pay the $100,000 in damage to my
car and it's on board missile guidence system.

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't), you think it's ok that you get blamed for my stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 14:16:38 +0100, Johnson wrote:

On 9/4/2018 8:52 AM, Jack wrote:
On 9/2/2018 9:54 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 14:19:05 +0100, Jack wrote:

On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news 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....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

You're as stupid as the insurance companies. Let's say you're
travelling in the slow lane of a 2 lane motorway at 70mph. There's
traffic in the fast lane, you cannot move over. I come alongside you on
the onramp at about 75mph, then dart in front of you, leaving a gap of
about 6 inches. I immediately jam on my brakes as I realise the lorry
in front is slowing down. You hit the back of me. Would you really
blame yourself and not me?

Let's say, ignoring the stupidity of your made up situation, and lets say your reckless driving is clearly filmed on my dash board cam, then, we might say there would be a possibility the cause of the rear end accident would be yours, and you could pay
the $100,000 in damage to my car and it's on board missile guidence system.

The old "swoop and squat".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-zRyvKxJmc

The only reason these work is because morns believe things like "rear end shunts are the fault of the person behind".

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 13:58:17 +0100, Jack wrote:

On 9/2/2018 7:27 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 19:27:12 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jack" wrote in message
news On 9/1/2018 5:08 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news 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....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

Unless the brake lights failed on the leading car, the following car is
responsible for NOT running into the leading car.

While that's legally correct, it makes a lot more sense
to have the self driving car drive so that human drivers
don't see any unusual driving by the self driving car
and so don't run into the back of it when it merges.

It's not legally correct actually. Plenty folk do insurance ripoffs by
deliberately braking very hard in front of someone.

Let's say it is not actually legally correct. Then, plenty of folk
trying to rip off the insurance companies would be left standing, dicks
in hand with nothing going on.

Yet they aren't, because the law is ****ed beyond recognition.

Perhaps a small, minute man missile could be released to vaporize the
following vehicle when the computer determines the collision is
inevitable..

Not sure that would be legal now that terrorism is so rife.

Well terrorism is not so legal, yet it is so rife.

The average police officer has about 2 O levels, is it surprising they don't go after the difficult crimes?

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.

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 ?
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 ?

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 08:52:20 -0400, Jack, another mentally deficient
troll-feeding moron, blabbered:

You're as stupid as the insurance companies. Let's say you're
travelling in the slow lane of a 2 lane motorway at 70mph. There's
traffic in the fast lane, you cannot move over. I come alongside you on
the onramp at about 75mph, then dart in front of you, leaving a gap of
about 6 inches. I immediately jam on my brakes as I realise the lorry
in front is slowing down. You hit the back of me. Would you really
blame yourself and not me?

Let's say, ignoring the stupidity of your made up situation, and lets
say your reckless driving is clearly filmed on my dash board cam, then,

....let's just say that, despite of all this, you are STILL a brain dead
troll-feeding senile moron!

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 08:58:17 -0400, Jack, another mentally deficient
troll-feeding moron, blabbered:

It's not legally correct actually. Plenty folk do insurance ripoffs by
deliberately braking very hard in front of someone.

Let's say it is not actually legally correct. Then, plenty of folk
trying to rip off the insurance companies would be left standing, dicks
in hand with nothing going on.

Let's just say that YOU are dumb enough to fall for the retarded troll's
idiotic baits! G

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 07:25:11 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious

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 ?

Why should he, you idiot? He can lead you around by your stupid nose even
without citing anything! BG

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you have
a dash cam.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you have
a dash cam.

Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.

Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?
(Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself guilty).

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.

Presenntly there are NO automated cars,

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

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:07:09 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you have
a dash cam.

Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.

Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?
(Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself guilty).

Depending on the jurisdiction, you might not need to testify against
yourself. But the police can subpeona your videoes. If the judge thinks you
are 'hiding / breaking' them, he can put you in jail indefinitely for
'contempt'. In this case, I would applaud, except those types of judges
often have short tempers for poor decorem, and I might end up in jail with
you.

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 17:53:12 +0000, Mike_Duffy, another mentally challenged,
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:



Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot?

Not only his dash cam shows it. Every single post of his shows what an idiot
he is. And so do yours for feeding the idiot!

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 18:17:25 +0000, Mike_Duffy, another mentally challenged,
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:

are 'hiding / breaking' them, he can put you in jail indefinitely for
'contempt'. In this case, I would applaud, except those types of judges
often have short tempers for poor decorem, and I might end up in jail with
you.

Nah, you just ended up becoming the successfully baited prey of a filthy
troll and attention whore on Usenet!

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you
have
a dash cam.

Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.

Easier said than done if it's a bad enough accident.

Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?

Nope. You are free to confess and to
prove you are guilty by your actions.

(Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself
guilty).

"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.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 05:42:13 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH all the troll ****

....and much better air in here again!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:17:25 +0100, Mike_Duffy wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:07:09 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you have
a dash cam.

Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.

Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?
(Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself guilty).

Depending on the jurisdiction, you might not need to testify against
yourself. But the police can subpeona your videoes. If the judge thinks you
are 'hiding / breaking' them, he can put you in jail indefinitely for
'contempt'. In this case, I would applaud, except those types of judges
often have short tempers for poor decorem, and I might end up in jail with
you.

If they're going to use our own dashcams against us, then we can simply stop using dashcams. They're not a legal requirement. The whole ****ing point of a dashcam is to get the OTHER driver into trouble.

Traffic cops are so ****ing stupid they wouldn't recognise a dashcam if they saw it right in front of them.


On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:41:01 +0100, BurfordTJustice wrote:

Horse ****...you prove someone lost a video...





"Mike_Duffy" wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:07:09 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
:
: On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy
wrote:
:
: On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
:
: And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
: you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
: stupidly harsh braking and swerving?
:
: Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer
can
: subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you
have
: a dash cam.
:
: Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.
:
: Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?
: (Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself
guilty).
:
: Depending on the jurisdiction, you might not need to testify against
: yourself. But the police can subpeona your videoes. If the judge thinks
you
: are 'hiding / breaking' them, he can put you in jail indefinitely for
: 'contempt'. In this case, I would applaud, except those types of judges
: often have short tempers for poor decorem, and I might end up in jail with
: you.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 20:42:13 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you
have
a dash cam.

Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.

Easier said than done if it's a bad enough accident.

I don't have accidents like that. Anyway if it was that bad the camera would break itself.

Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?

Nope. You are free to confess and to
prove you are guilty by your actions.

Not what I heard.

(Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself
guilty).

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 20:42:13 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 18:53:12 +0100, Mike_Duffy
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:04 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

And if you don't have a dashcam (which most don't),
you think it's ok that you get blamed for my
stupidly harsh braking and swerving?

Won't your own dash cam show you driving like an idiot? Either lawyer
can
subpeona your video for court procedings if a witness notices that you
have
a dash cam.

Any dashcam would get hidden/broken if I caused an accident.

Easier said than done if it's a bad enough accident.

I don't have accidents like that.

Easy to claim.

Anyway if it was that bad the camera would break itself.

Not in the sense that the footage isnt recoverable.

Anyway, isn't there a rule that you can't [word] yourself?

Nope. You are free to confess and to
prove you are guilty by your actions.

Not what I heard.

Then you need a new hearing aid. While the crimes
where the guilty have confessed to the crime don't
get anything like as much publicity as when the crim
claims he didn't do it and gets convicted anyway,
there are plenty that do confess to their crimes.

What you are thinking about is that you are under
no legal obligation to say anything to the cops,
but you are free to do that if you want to.

(Where [word] is whatever they say to mean that you prove yourself
guilty).

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 05:47:03 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

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.

"Far from clear"? Now, where did YOU all-knowng asshole get your data from?

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 06:18:23 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two stinking troll's usual stinking troll ****

....and much better air in here again!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

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.

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

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.

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 �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.

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.

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.


--
bert

On Thursday, 6 September 2018 00:28:04 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:


They're better than humans for two reasons. One, they always pay attention. Two, their cameras look in all directions simultaneously.

False statement it's not the camera that drives the car.

In the recent self drive car 'accident'

According to the NTSB report, the Uber vehicle struggled to identify Elaine Herzberg as she wheeled her bicycle across a four-lane road. Although it was dark, the cars radar and LIDAR detected her six seconds before the crash. But the perception system got confused: it classified her as an unknown object, then as a vehicle and finally as a bicycle, whose path it could not predict. Just 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system realised that emergency braking was needed. But the cars built-in emergency braking system had been disabled, to prevent conflict with the self-driving system; instead a human safety operator in the vehicle is expected to brake when needed. But the safety operator, who had been looking down at the self-driving systems display screen, failed to brake in time. Ms Herzberg was hit by the vehicle and subsequently died of her injuries..