The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 May 2010 07:23 On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:59:34 +0100, Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >Over the weekend I am installing a lockable cover over the cars admin >port & I will be fitting a Faraday cage around the computer. >I have also reported to the police, that I have noticed a man in the >station car park with one of these >http://www.b2btrade.biz/images2/img4b3c1556ecde2.jpg yes, if you find your passengers plugging black boxes into your engine, politely ask them why. Especially if marked "suicide brake over-rider". -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 08:14 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:9uksv5ht2kvk5uvmmhk25tjspb71j2vtnj(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a >>mistake or unforeseen event. > > No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim > form "who in your opinion was to blame?". > > "Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*. > > You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a > pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say > driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being > observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are > penalised. Fair point and I agree. So 'accident' is the correct word to describe the vast majority of all road collisions.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 May 2010 08:31 On Thu, 27 May 2010 13:14:10 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >Fair point and I agree. So 'accident' is the correct word to describe the >vast majority of all road collisions. Yes, 99.9%. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Doug on 27 May 2010 12:53 On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Thu, 27 May > 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write: > > > > >On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > > >>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a > >>mistake or unforeseen event. > > >No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim > >form "who in your opinion was to blame?". > > >"Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*. > > >You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a > >pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say > >driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being > >observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are > >penalised. > > >Manslaughter is killing somebody > >Murder is premeditated manslaughter > > "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict > definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road > safety circles. > Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable, > and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to > them. > Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident. > Even deciding to get behind the wheel of a dangerous machine and drive it at speed in pubic places is also no accident and it is done in the full knowledge that thousands of people are killed or seriously inured every year by such machines. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: The Medway Handyman on 27 May 2010 13:08
"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:ec32bf47-a0a6-4c98-aef0- <SNIP> > Even deciding to get behind the wheel of a dangerous machine and drive > it at speed in pubic places is also no accident and it is done in the > full knowledge that thousands of people are killed or seriously inured > every year by such machines. That's 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles driven. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |