The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 28 May 2010 06:47 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:dGxLn.105530$dm6.61491(a)newsfe23.ams2... > > "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. 'Accidental' fatality. Doug thinks all car drivers deliberately get in their cars in order to murder someone, or to drive through houses. Nothing will change his mind. We are all licenced murders in Doug's eyes, we just haven't committed a crime yet as far as the law is concerned. He doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty in this country: He would rather let out all the protestors, tresspassers, criminal damagers (?) and the likes out of prison so they can commit more crimes against society, to free up space for the qualified, legally certified, experienced, law abiding citizens who own cars.
From: GT on 28 May 2010 06:51 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:1a3257bc-2bf0-4983-9306-19d36920719d(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:8f6cd527-7da5-4632-b455- > > <SNIP USUAL RANTING> > > > As I said, the word 'accidents' is a euphemism used to minimise the > > accountability of those in sole charge of dangerous machines in public > > places who kill or injure someone else with those machines. If you > > check, several major sources now tend to avoid the use of the word > > 'accident' in connection with road crashes. > > But they are not dangerous machine are they. We've been over the figures > time & time again. > The fact that they actually kill people does seriously suggest that they are dangerous, despite you trying to conceal the fact with your statistics. Doug - people are killed by many many objects in this world - guns, knives, other people, boxing, cigarettes, tall buildings, small buildings, bricks, trains, diseases, electricity, gas, aeroplanes, etc, etc, etc. Why do you choose to persue this '1-man against the world attitude' and focus on just the motor vehicle, which is the most highly safety tested, licenced and controlled object in the entire list?
From: Brimstone on 28 May 2010 06:58 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4bffa046$0$10327$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:1a3257bc-2bf0-4983-9306-19d36920719d(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:8f6cd527-7da5-4632-b455- >> >> <SNIP USUAL RANTING> >> >> > As I said, the word 'accidents' is a euphemism used to minimise the >> > accountability of those in sole charge of dangerous machines in public >> > places who kill or injure someone else with those machines. If you >> > check, several major sources now tend to avoid the use of the word >> > 'accident' in connection with road crashes. >> >> But they are not dangerous machine are they. We've been over the figures >> time & time again. >> > The fact that they actually kill people does seriously suggest that > they are dangerous, despite you trying to conceal the fact with your > statistics. > > Doug - people are killed by many many objects in this world - guns, > knives, other people, boxing, cigarettes, tall buildings, small buildings, > bricks, trains, diseases, electricity, gas, aeroplanes, etc, etc, etc. Why > do you choose to persue this '1-man against the world attitude' and focus > on just the motor vehicle, which is the most highly safety tested, > licenced and controlled object in the entire list? <drives a hand into the air with all the fervour of a child who wants to show off> Sir, I know, sir. Please sir, I know sir, pleeease. <goes quiet and waits>
From: GT on 28 May 2010 06:58 "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. 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. I can name hundreds of people who have cars and they use them in their daily life to get to/from work, shops etc. Not one of them are addicted to their cars, but have embraced the new technology and made their lives easier. Doug, name 5 people who are 'addicted' to cars. Come on, there are 6 million people in the UK. You might want to check the dictionary for the meaning of 'addiction' as I know you tend to invent your own meanings for words. Grow up Doug and start joining society - perhaps you could contribute something useful!
From: GT on 28 May 2010 08:02
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:DImdnZB9CsddPGLWnZ2dnUVZ8rudnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bffa046$0$10327$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> news:1a3257bc-2bf0-4983-9306-19d36920719d(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>> news:8f6cd527-7da5-4632-b455- >>> >>> <SNIP USUAL RANTING> >>> >>> > As I said, the word 'accidents' is a euphemism used to minimise the >>> > accountability of those in sole charge of dangerous machines in public >>> > places who kill or injure someone else with those machines. If you >>> > check, several major sources now tend to avoid the use of the word >>> > 'accident' in connection with road crashes. >>> >>> But they are not dangerous machine are they. We've been over the figures >>> time & time again. >>> >> The fact that they actually kill people does seriously suggest that >> they are dangerous, despite you trying to conceal the fact with your >> statistics. >> >> Doug - people are killed by many many objects in this world - guns, >> knives, other people, boxing, cigarettes, tall buildings, small >> buildings, bricks, trains, diseases, electricity, gas, aeroplanes, etc, >> etc, etc. Why do you choose to persue this '1-man against the world >> attitude' and focus on just the motor vehicle, which is the most highly >> safety tested, licenced and controlled object in the entire list? > <drives a hand into the air with all the fervour of a child who wants to > show off> > > Sir, I know, sir. Please sir, I know sir, pleeease. > > <goes quiet and waits> Are you going to say "jealousy - because he can't afford one"? |