The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: thomas.covenant on 28 May 2010 09:45 On May 28, 11:58 am, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(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! What, have you just lost your mind?
From: Tony Dragon on 28 May 2010 11:43 GT wrote: > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:KcKdneVNQdNXW2LWnZ2dnUVZ7vqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> news:4bffb7b8$0$10284$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:IaqdnVvcy_7IKmLWnZ2dnUVZ7v-dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>>> news:4bffb0d2$0$10283$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>> "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"? >>>> Oh no, that would be a very cheap jibe. It's much more personal to Doug >>>> than that. >>> In that case, please go ahead... >> Doug has been in collisions with cars. The first (as reported by him) was >> as a child he ran into a stream of traffic to "rescue" an already deceased >> bird. The second was more recently when a car was turning right across >> Doug's path. Doug saw it coming but rather than give way and keep himself >> safe, he continued on his "right of way" and was struck by the car which >> resulted in Doug going to hospital. >> >> When reporting these incidents on uk.transport Doug was castigated for his >> stupidity in failing to stop or take a different path (by his own >> admission he had time). His only response was to complain about "people >> blaming the victim". He completely fails to understand that we all have a >> responsibility for our own safety and that even if someone else fouls up >> we should take avoiding action. > > I don't think he's going to like that post!! Hee hee! I do. > > Doug also posts that every road user should be able to stop before he hits anybody/thing (unless it's a road cone dropped from a motorway bridge). But by his own admission when the driver turned right across his path (motorist fault) he could not stop in time. Can anybody help me with a word to describe such a person? -- Tony Dragon
From: Adrian on 28 May 2010 11:45 Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Doug also posts that every road user should be able to stop before he > hits anybody/thing (unless it's a road cone dropped from a motorway > bridge). But by his own admission when the driver turned right across > his path (motorist fault) he could not stop in time. > > Can anybody help me with a word to describe such a person? Ummm... Hedgehog? Hippopotamus? Hypotenuse? Hypertension?
From: Brimstone on 28 May 2010 11:55 <thomas.covenant(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message news:bb8b2fe1-bb99-4b83-8c90-bf32c3791bdf(a)v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > On May 28, 1:30 pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in message >> >> news:4bffb0d2$0$10283$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> > "Brimstone" <brimst...(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" <jag...(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"? >> >> Oh no, that would be a very cheap jibe. It's much more personal to Doug >> than >> that. > > Do you mean that he is a stupid, blinkered, hypercritical tosser, who > has no knowledge of the real world, a person who maintains that he is > an anarchist (but wants more laws), a supporter of people who dig up > bodies & firebomb buildings. > A person who believes everything that Indymedia publish. > A person who believes that there are two sorts of ozone. > A person who maintains that you are a better sort of dead if killed by > a bicycle. > A person who does not understand the meaning of a decimal point in > maths. > An illegal driver of an illegal vehicle that is not taxed or insured. > A person who believes that you will die in this country in the winter > if we can't import food. > A person who states he is filming illegal traffic incidents while > parked in an illegal place. > A person with a special video camera that always turns off just before > an incident. That as well.
From: FrengaX on 28 May 2010 12:29
On May 28, 2:36 pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in message > > news:4bffb7b8$0$10284$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:IaqdnVvcy_7IKmLWnZ2dnUVZ7v-dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > >> "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in message > >>news:4bffb0d2$0$10283$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >>> "Brimstone" <brimst...(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" <jag...(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"? > >> Oh no, that would be a very cheap jibe. It's much more personal to Doug > >> than that. > > In that case, please go ahead... > > Doug has been in collisions with cars. The first (as reported by him) was as > a child he ran into a stream of traffic to "rescue" an already deceased > bird. The second was more recently when a car was turning right across > Doug's path. Doug saw it coming but rather than give way and keep himself > safe, he continued on his "right of way" and was struck by the car which > resulted in Doug going to hospital. > > When reporting these incidents on uk.transport Doug was castigated for his > stupidity in failing to stop or take a different path (by his own admission > he had time). His only response was to complain about "people blaming the > victim". He completely fails to understand that we all have a responsibility > for our own safety and that even if someone else fouls up we should take > avoiding action.- Hide quoted text - As I've always thought, and have indeed stated somewhere (probably on this ng), those who get involved in a rather higher than average number of accidents tend to be those who don't drive/ride defensively, but will assert thier right of way even if it means getting run over. A rather daft way of proceeding, IMO. I'm sure we can all recount numerous occasions where some numpty has pulled out in front of us, or was overtaking and coming straight for us in our lane, and rather than declaring "right of way", we decided to take avoiding action. And even as a cyclist just the other day, even though I was clearly signalling right, I decided to let the car behind me pass as he was clearly going to do, rather than pull out across his path (I did shout at him as he went by :-). But at least I'm alive to tell the tale. |