The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Dragon on 27 May 2010 13:09 Doug wrote: > 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. By the same reasoning a cyclist can not have an accident, as he has made a decision to use the bike. -- Tony Dragon
From: DavidR on 27 May 2010 15:25 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote >> > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by > dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc? Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc. That would be a good old fashioned mechanical problem.
From: Doug on 28 May 2010 01:34 On 27 May, 18:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > 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. > > > By the same reasoning a cyclist can not have an accident, as he has made > a decision to use the bike. > I agree. A cyclist who kills is no better than a motorist who kills except that cyclists do it much less often and therefore are much less of a threat to others. So lets finally dispense with the euphemistic word 'accident' shall we? -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Doug on 28 May 2010 01:39 On 27 May, 20:25, "DavidR" <cured...(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote > > > > > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by > > dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc? > > Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, > vibration, etc. > > That would be a good old fashioned mechanical problem. > Self evidently, the hardware that supports the software is susceptible to environmental extremes and as I have pointed out even Toyota have admitted that their software can suffer from glitches. When you also add the possibility of mechanical faults and human error then clearly cars are death machines waiting to strike. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on 28 May 2010 02:09
"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:4d29c880-6376-421b-96f2-9f105c561eec(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > Self evidently, the hardware that supports the software is susceptible > to environmental extremes and as I have pointed out even Toyota have > admitted that their software can suffer from glitches. When you also > add the possibility of mechanical faults and human error then clearly > cars are death machines waiting to strike. > If that were the case then deaths arising from motoring incidents would be on the increase, given the rise in the number of cars on the road, and yet such deaths have fallen over the decades. What's your explanation for that Doug? |