The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Doug on 28 May 2010 02:54 On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(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? > Simple. Increasing number of safety measures imposed on road users. I am hoping that at some point those measures will become so restrictive and frustrating that many motorists will voluntarily start to kick their car addiction and adapt their lifestyles accordingly. -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
From: Brimstone on 28 May 2010 03:03 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:bdaa9db9-8980-436e-a9d6-108782f9605c(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(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? >> > Simple. Increasing number of safety measures imposed on road users. Many of which are controlled by computers aren't they Doug?
From: Adrian on 28 May 2010 03:04 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> All software has glitches, it's how they're handled that's at issue .. >> and in cars the computer or system fails safe. > Apparently not, according to Toyota who say their software glitches > cause braking problems. Would you like to quantify those "problems"? No? Would you like me to? It was nothing more than a minor calibration issue in the change-over point between regenerative braking (ie light braking) and the hydraulic braking, and how the ABS interacted with that. Yes, it could result in a very short-term actuation of the ABS, leading to the brakes being temporarily released. The instinctive reaction to that would, of course, be to press the pedal harder. Which would then move the braking away from that change-over point, at which point the brakes worked absolutely fine. Oh, look. No real problem. Car easily controllable. Grand total of reported injuries? Three in the US. Where, with the accelerator recall, several people were proved to have faked injuries or incorrectly tried to move the blame from driver error. > Do you have an authoritative source that claims > that car computers are 100% fail-safe under all conditions? Do you have an authoritative source that claims that breathing is 100% fail-safe under all conditions? No? Better stop doing it, then.
From: bod on 28 May 2010 03:09 Adrian wrote: > Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>> All software has glitches, it's how they're handled that's at issue .. >>> and in cars the computer or system fails safe. > >> Apparently not, according to Toyota who say their software glitches >> cause braking problems. > > Would you like to quantify those "problems"? No? Would you like me to? > > It was nothing more than a minor calibration issue in the change-over > point between regenerative braking (ie light braking) and the hydraulic > braking, and how the ABS interacted with that. Yes, it could result in a > very short-term actuation of the ABS, leading to the brakes being > temporarily released. The instinctive reaction to that would, of course, > be to press the pedal harder. Which would then move the braking away from > that change-over point, at which point the brakes worked absolutely fine. > Oh, look. No real problem. Car easily controllable. > > Grand total of reported injuries? Three in the US. Where, with the > accelerator recall, several people were proved to have faked injuries or > incorrectly tried to move the blame from driver error. > >> Do you have an authoritative source that claims >> that car computers are 100% fail-safe under all conditions? > > Do you have an authoritative source that claims that breathing is 100% > fail-safe under all conditions? No? Better stop doing it, then. > > Yip, death is about the only thing that has the '100%'guarantee tag on it, in this life. Taxes coming in at a close second at about 99%. Bod
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 28 May 2010 03:37
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:31:21 +0100, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >"Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict >definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road >safety circles. they should just promote understanding of English instead. Such distortions are also used by US gun nuts over the meaning of "dangerous". Strange bed fellows. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |