http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804

On 8/31/2018 11:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804


Do what? How many cars are rear ended every day? This is not big news.

Ed Pawlowski wrote
Rod Speed wrote

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804

Do what? How many cars are rear ended every day? This is not big news.

It was a followup to the discussion that the PHucker and dave the drunk
and I had about self driving cars. I couldn't find the thread easily.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804

bloody wummin' drivers

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 13:30:05 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...rear-ended-dur
ing-road-testing/10190804

You just can't get enough of the unwashed Scottish ******'s cock, eh, senile
troll-feeding cocksucker? BG

--
TYPICAL retarded "conversation" between sociopath Rot and sociopath
Birdbrain from August 26th:

Birdbrain: I have one head but 5 fingers.

Rot: Obvious lie. You hairy legged cross dressers are so inbred that you all
have two heads.

Birdbrain: You're the one that likes hairy legs remember?

Rot: The problem isnt the hairy legs, it's the gross inbreeding that
produces two headed unemployables like you.

Birdbrain: So why did you mention hairy legs?

Rot: Because that's what those who arent actually stupid enough to shave
their legs have.

Birdbrain: You only have hairy legs if both of the following are true:
1) You're quite far back on the evolutionary scale.
2) You haven't learned what a razor is for.

Rot: Only a terminal ****wit or a woman shaves their legs.

Birdbrain: There is literally zero point in having hair all over your body.

Rot: There is even less point in wasting your
time changing what you are born with.
MID:

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 14:35:56 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


Do what? How many cars are rear ended every day? This is not big news.

It was a followup to the discussion that the PHucker and dave the drunk
and I had about self driving cars. I couldn't find the thread easily.

Goes to show what a pathetic lonely senile idiot you REALLY are, Rot! tsk

--
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 Sat, 01 Sep 2018 04:30:05 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-0...sting/10190804

The report doesn't say whose fault it was.

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.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 05:54:02 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

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.

Why do you two idiots even care about self-driving cars? YOU, Rot, will be
dead by the time they are available ...and Birdbrain will be
institutionalized again!

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

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....

"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.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 07:08:45 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


And of course human drivers never **** up like this....

Irrelevant to how self driving cars should be done.

So, for how long are you two clueless pillocks STILL going to go on like
that? tsk

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:08:45 +0100, 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.

The point is a self driving car is FAR less likely to **** up than a human. The average human has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to talk to someone that dim?

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:08:45 +0100, 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.

The point is a self driving car is FAR less likely to **** up than a
human.

Yes, but it should also drive to minimise human drivers
being caught out by how it drives, if only so that those
in the self drive car don't have to fart around exchanging
details with the driver of the other car that runs into it.

The average human has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to talk to
someone that dim?

I do in fact do that repeatedly. One mate of mine
is that. Yes, he does ask some rather stupid
questions at times but that's really no big deal.

On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:42:13 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:08:45 +0100, 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.

The point is a self driving car is FAR less likely to **** up than a
human.

Yes, but it should also drive to minimise human drivers
being caught out by how it drives, if only so that those
in the self drive car don't have to fart around exchanging
details with the driver of the other car that runs into it.

Irrelevant. If it's better than a human driver, it should be on the road, now.

And what do you mean "how it drives"? The most unpredictable piece of **** on the road is currently.... a human.

The average human has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to talk to
someone that dim?

I do in fact do that repeatedly. One mate of mine
is that. Yes, he does ask some rather stupid
questions at times but that's really no big deal.

Try following him while he's driving.

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:42:13 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:08:45 +0100, 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.

The point is a self driving car is FAR less likely to **** up than a
human.

Yes, but it should also drive to minimise human drivers
being caught out by how it drives, if only so that those
in the self drive car don't have to fart around exchanging
details with the driver of the other car that runs into it.

Irrelevant.

Nope, that's how self driving cars should be done.

If it's better than a human driver, it should be on the road, now.

The legislators don't agree, anywhere.

And what do you mean "how it drives"?

How it does stuff like that merging that caused
a human driver to run into the back of it.

The most unpredictable piece of **** on the road is currently.... a human.

Clearly how it merged wasn't predictable either.

The average human has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to talk to
someone that dim?

I do in fact do that repeatedly. One mate of mine
is that. Yes, he does ask some rather stupid
questions at times but that's really no big deal.

Try following him while he's driving.

I've actually been in the car when he was driving.

He Doent have a lot of accidents.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 08:42:13 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

I do in fact do that repeatedly. One mate of mine
is that. Yes, he does ask some rather stupid
questions at times but that's really no big deal.

You don't have any "mate", you lonely senile oaf! ALL you have is your
insipid trolling on these groups and your idiotic "conversations" with the
unwashed Scottish ******!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 11:39:12 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more of the usual troll ****

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

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

On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 02:39:12 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:42:13 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:08:45 +0100, 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.

The point is a self driving car is FAR less likely to **** up than a
human.

Yes, but it should also drive to minimise human drivers
being caught out by how it drives, if only so that those
in the self drive car don't have to fart around exchanging
details with the driver of the other car that runs into it.

Irrelevant.

Nope, that's how self driving cars should be done.

Agreed, and they will be eventually.

If it's better than a human driver, it should be on the road, now.

The legislators don't agree, anywhere.

Because they're idiots. The best car at this moment is driverless, it has less accidents than a human.

And what do you mean "how it drives"?

How it does stuff like that merging that caused
a human driver to run into the back of it.

It clearly made a mistake, not "did it differently".

The most unpredictable piece of **** on the road is currently.... a human.

Clearly how it merged wasn't predictable either.

Have you seen humans try to drive?

The average human has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to talk to
someone that dim?

I do in fact do that repeatedly. One mate of mine
is that. Yes, he does ask some rather stupid
questions at times but that's really no big deal.

Try following him while he's driving.

I've actually been in the car when he was driving.

He Doent have a lot of accidents.

People can be stupid in different ways. Einstein was good at science, but he believed in god.

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?


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

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?

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 02:39:12 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:42:13 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 22:08:45 +0100, 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.

The point is a self driving car is FAR less likely to **** up than a
human.

Yes, but it should also drive to minimise human drivers
being caught out by how it drives, if only so that those
in the self drive car don't have to fart around exchanging
details with the driver of the other car that runs into it.

Irrelevant.

Nope, that's how self driving cars should be done.

Agreed, and they will be eventually.

If it's better than a human driver, it should be on the road, now.

The legislators don't agree, anywhere.

Because they're idiots. The best car at this moment is driverless, it has
less accidents than a human.

You don't know that, because there arent any
at the moment, they all have to have a human
in the car that can take control when the
car does something that doesn't make sense.

And what do you mean "how it drives"?

How it does stuff like that merging that caused
a human driver to run into the back of it.

It clearly made a mistake, not "did it differently".

You don't know that yet, all we know is that the
human driver ran into the back of the self driving
car and we don't know whether that happened
because the human dozed off, was texting on
their phone or whether the self driving car merged
differently to how most human drivers so and that
is what caused the human driver to drive into it.

And we do know that hundreds of collisions
have been reported with self driving cars.

The most unpredictable piece of **** on the road is currently.... a
human.

Clearly how it merged wasn't predictable either.

Have you seen humans try to drive?

Corse I have every time I drive myself.

The average human has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to talk to
someone that dim?

I do in fact do that repeatedly. One mate of mine
is that. Yes, he does ask some rather stupid
questions at times but that's really no big deal.

Try following him while he's driving.

I've actually been in the car when he was driving.

He Doent have a lot of accidents.

People can be stupid in different ways.

Sure, but he didn't drive stupidly. Bit fast, but not stupidly.

Einstein was good at science, but he believed in god.

Yes, that is stupid. And that mate of mine is one
of the more rabid god botherers, and a muslim.

"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.

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.

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

Yep.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 04:04:42 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more of the stinking troll ****

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

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

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 04:27:12 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:



Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

Yep.

So your assholeness is quite known in many parts of Usenet, eh, Rot? BG

--
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 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.

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.

A laser would be less detectable, you could make a hole in the radiator.

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

Yep.

?

"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
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.

The reason that works is because the car behind
is normally found to be the guilty party.

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.

A laser would be less detectable, you could make a hole in the radiator.

Sure, but where's the fun in that ? Much more
fun to turn the following car into an inferno.

Corse that could be a problem if it keeps going
and ends up going bang against your car.

Are you the Speeder from Dr. Debug days?

Yep.

?

That was fidonet. That was one of the BBSs.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 10:22:27 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

A laser would be less detectable, you could make a hole in the radiator.

Sure, but where's the fun in that ?

The fun in that for the Scottish ****** is that he gets you senile Ozzietard
to suck him off time and again! LOL

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

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.

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.

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.....

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.

"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.

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

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 05:30:40 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:


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.

Neither does society want to spend £1000s to treat incurable mentally
deranged idiots like you in expensive institutions!

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blabbered again:


Just how amny of these atomomous cars are there a few dozen comparded
to....

"Just how amny of these atomomous cars are there a few dozen comparded
to...."

snicker

"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 and work out what the glitches are with the current system.

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:24:57 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

No, they get 20 times less ****ups.

That number is straight from your arse.

It is! Like all his baits! But you swallow his **** anyway!


--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:42:06 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two sick idiot's never-ending sick ****


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:

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp about senile cretin Rot Speed:
"Thick pillock!"
MID:

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

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.