The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 26 May 2010 03:15 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:9fa42325-1b25-4843-95a1-31dce83c4f7b(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On 25 May, 08:17, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> news:0fac0491-913a-439e-90e3-4726e85d066c(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> > A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe? >> > I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer >> > working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime. >> >> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one on >> your desk Doug? >> > Its not the same. > I'm glad we sorted that one out. > The one on my desk is not a threat to my life and > the lives of others as is a car computer. Another stupid comment Doug? >> > Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can >> > cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at >> > risk. >> >> Only when interfered with by an external computer. >> > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by > dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc? Because the designers and engineers go to great lengths the ensure that the device is insulated from those factors. >> > Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way >> > remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to >> > anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of >> > the motorists who post here. >> >> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you would >> realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting >> excited. >> >> The only result from this research for the future is that car designers >> need >> to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those with >> evil >> intent. >> > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable > in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even > when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible. > The evidence says that they have.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 26 May 2010 05:07 On 25 May 2010 09:11:49 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >- Emergency Brake Assist. Is the driver pressing the pedal very hard, >very suddenly? If so, then just slam full assistance to the brakes, and >let the ABS sort locking out. ABS not functioning? Then neither's EBA. >Brakes work as if no EBA was fitted. I am pretty sure I had this fail in a hire car. I got in and drove a few yards to pick up luggage etc and was surprised how quickly it stopped. Then drove 50 yards to exit, put foot gently on brakes again and it just stopped dead in a full emergency stop and the next hire car behind drove right into the back of me. They changed the car without a word and no charges came through so I assume they knew it was defective, great! -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: GT on 26 May 2010 05:17 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:573aeb9e-8eb6-45b2-964e-7b8d6b12d31a(a)o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> news:8add536f-2520-4b07-8034-97f341e2f969(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 21 May, 09:59, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100 >> >> >> Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very >> >> >>> vulnerable >> >> >>> to attack, say experts. >> >> >> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug? >> >> >> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick >> >> in >> >> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug! >> >> > Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely >> > to inure anyone but himself. >> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. >> Unlike >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees. >> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore > people. No, they are accidents. To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider deliberately crashed. You are heading down the road of slander and will be prosecuted if you start quoting particular cases and accusing drivers or riders of deliberately crashing a vehicle. Most car *accidents* don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
From: GT on 26 May 2010 05:19 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:96afab65-250d-4ee2-923e-09d47d36270a(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... On 21 May, 09:54, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > On 21/05/2010 07:35, webreader wrote:> On May 21, 7:17 am, > Doug<jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put > >> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to > >> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles? > > But you wanted them to be more environmentally friendly, Doug. > > BTW, where are the mandatory safety tests for bicycles? I've seen > shitloads out with knackered brakes, bald tyres and no lights at night. > It was so bad, a Police Force carried out a sting operation. > Doug forgot to indent: "If a bicycle is defective it is ore than likely that the cyclist will be killed or injured" Precisely why bikes should be subject to the same rigourous annual safety tests as cars. The riders of these killing machines should also be made to pass a legal test, proving their knowledge of the highway code, before they are allowed on our highways.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 26 May 2010 05:25
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:17:13 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes >> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore >> people. > >No, they are accidents. To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider >deliberately crashed. I'm afraid anti car people often have a problem with English. They wish to change the meaning of "accident" from "unintentional event" because they wrongly think "accident" implies lack of blame. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |