In message <ucigd0$1ov0d$3@dont-email.me> at Mon, 28 Aug 2023 16:01:36,
Chris <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> writes
>Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:
>> On 28/08/2023 04:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <gl5neipq8jcg03js03p7cfhhlec5qg67t2@4ax.com> at Sun, 27 Aug
>>> 2023 19:32:44, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
[autonomous cars etc.]
>>>> I thinkthat the idea is the human must be on stand by and ready to
>>>> take over?
>>>
>>> I think it's been established that humans are particularly bad at that -
>>> i. e. letting a machine work most of the time but noticing it has gone
>>> wrong. Autopilots on planes, for example. If anything it's harder than
>>> doing the controlling manually anyway.
>>
>>
>
>I saw an article the other day about Robot taxis in SF, they’ve not been
>very safe!
>
>Mrs McT

Some people will say, rather than them being 100% safe, are they saf_er_
than human-operated vehicles?

There will probably be some threshold when they're (say) twice or thrice
as safe as humans, when they'll be hard to block.

Not that I'm advocating that, for two reasons:
1. I suspect the _type_ of accidents they have will be different.
2. Going that way - "they're safer than human-operated ones" - can only
lead to the introduction of areas where human-operated ones are nor
allowed. Which would be very hard to fight - in the same way privacy
intrusions are ("if you've nothing to hide, ...").
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In 1969, Britain had towns full of soot, blackened buildings, and half the
population had no TV or cars - or inside loos. - James Burke, RT 2019/7/6-12

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 17:16:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <h55peitijcdvvtr89d0970d8lsl143gln9@4ax.com> at Mon, 28 Aug
>2023 13:38:07, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>[]
>>>>speed limit where you are and to start the car you have to agree to
>>>>drive carefully and legally on the touch screen.
>>>>
>>>I wonder what the legal implications are of that last one. And whether
>>>it can be disabled. (In particular, does it report - or even just log -
>>>any case of you not doing so - especially the "carefully" one.)
>>
>>It is not actually carefuolly. Forget the wording but the screen won't
>>change to go to navigation or radio for a while but then changes.
>
>Not quite with you - do you mean if you _don't_ promise to be a good
>boy/girl, it still lets you use it after "a while"?

Yes. You can drive anyway but the display for radio/nav etc won't
come on for longer if you don't press yes you promise.

In message <ef7sei50g4e128pts8nbm63f3k549t3j42@4ax.com> at Tue, 29 Aug
2023 17:34:58, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 17:16:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <h55peitijcdvvtr89d0970d8lsl143gln9@4ax.com> at Mon, 28 Aug
>>2023 13:38:07, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>[]
>>>>>speed limit where you are and to start the car you have to agree to
>>>>>drive carefully and legally on the touch screen.
>>>>>
>>>>I wonder what the legal implications are of that last one. And whether
>>>>it can be disabled. (In particular, does it report - or even just log -
>>>>any case of you not doing so - especially the "carefully" one.)
>>>
>>>It is not actually carefuolly. Forget the wording but the screen won't
>>>change to go to navigation or radio for a while but then changes.
>>
>>Not quite with you - do you mean if you _don't_ promise to be a good
>>boy/girl, it still lets you use it after "a while"?
>
>Yes. You can drive anyway but the display for radio/nav etc won't
>come on for longer if you don't press yes you promise.

Is there a "no" button? (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... all your hard work in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get off jury
duty." CSI, 200x

On 29-Aug-23 11:35, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:20:51 AM UTC+1, Penny wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:31:24 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> scrawled in
>> the dust...
>>> I have heard it claimed that BMW have mastered the art of building very
>>> gadget known to mankind into each car - and then charging a monthly fee
>>> to use them.
>>> If you want the heated seats to work, that will be x a year thank you
>>> very much.
>>
>> You mean BMW drivers are just too mean to activate the indicators?
>
> :^)

Wot 'e said.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 29-Aug-23 17:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ucigd0$1ov0d$3@dont-email.me> at Mon, 28 Aug 2023 16:01:36,
> Chris <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> writes
>> Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2023 04:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> In message <gl5neipq8jcg03js03p7cfhhlec5qg67t2@4ax.com> at Sun, 27 Aug
>>>> 2023 19:32:44, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
> [autonomous cars etc.]
>>>>> I thinkthat the idea is the human must be on stand by and ready to
>>>>> take over?
>>>>
>>>> I think it's been established that humans are particularly bad at
>>>> that -
>>>> i. e. letting a machine work most of the time but noticing it has gone
>>>> wrong. Autopilots on planes, for example. If anything it's harder than
>>>> doing the controlling manually anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I saw an article the other day about Robot taxis in SF, they’ve not been
>> very safe!
>>
>> Mrs McT
>
> Some people will say, rather than them being 100% safe, are they saf_er_
> than human-operated vehicles?
>
> There will probably be some threshold when they're (say) twice or thrice
> as safe as humans, when they'll be hard to block.
>
> Not that I'm advocating that, for two reasons:
> 1. I suspect the _type_ of accidents they have will be different.
> 2. Going that way - "they're safer than human-operated ones" - can only
> lead to the introduction of areas where human-operated ones are nor
> allowed. Which would be very hard to fight - in the same way privacy
> intrusions are ("if you've nothing to hide, ...").

New rules for London's ULEZ?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 28/08/2023 11:01, Vicky wrote:
> What I love about the all electric car is that you can turn the
> heating on from the house. It also sends messages if the doors are not
> locked or you can check how much charge is still there, mileage
> possible etc. And when charging, which we do at home via the back
> gate, it tells you when it is finished. When I go out with the key in
> my pocket the door unlocks. Press a button on the handle to go in. It

If somebody is standing next to you with a key in their pocket sending
you off on your journey can you find yourself at your destination
without a key and no way to get in or start the car?

> is a bit pushy though. Like your nanny in the car.
> 'The car ahead is moving on now' in stationary traffic.
> 'Beep beep' when you change lanes. and the main screen tells you the
> speed limit where you are and to start the car you have to agree to
> drive carefully and legally on the touch screen.

Isn't that rather implied in the original issuing of the license?

--
Ric

On 30.8.23 10:05, Joe Kerr wrote:
> If somebody is standing next to you with a key in their pocket sending
> you off on your journey can you find yourself at your destination
> without a key and no way to get in or start the car?

I am pretty sure my car does not allow the engine to be started unless
it senses that the key is inside the car with the doors closed - so the
key cannot be with a third person.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 28/08/2023 11:01, Vicky wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:42:31 +0100, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/08/2023 04:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <gl5neipq8jcg03js03p7cfhhlec5qg67t2@4ax.com> at Sun, 27 Aug
>>> 2023 19:32:44, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 17:53:35 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
>>>> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I am not able to drive due to ‘keeping death off the roads’ but
>>>>> should
>>>>> autonomous self driving cars become available and legal in the UK, how
>>>>> would the future for the visually handicapped and others with other
>>>>> inabilities to drive be change? Discuss please!
>>>
>>> I fear Joe's response is closer to the truth, but in theory, VH folk
>>> would I presume be able to buy and use (with appropriate user interface
>>> for entering instructions) autonomous vehicles just the same as anyone
>>> else.
>>
>> I take it that Mike's original question was in response to hearing the
>> same program about San Francisco that I did the other day. It appears
>> that you need a smartphone in order to open the door and then need to
>> use a touchscreen in the car in order to make it go. So the reality is
>> that many(?) would be unable to use them and so it would make no difference.
>>
>> There is an article this morning from the same chap at
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66611513 looking at the public
>> response rather than how it works.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I thinkthat the idea is the human must be on stand by and ready to
>>>> take over?
>>>
>>> I think it's been established that humans are particularly bad at that -
>>> i. e. letting a machine work most of the time but noticing it has gone
>>> wrong. Autopilots on planes, for example. If anything it's harder than
>>> doing the controlling manually anyway.
>
> What I love about the all electric car is that you can turn the
> heating on from the house. It also sends messages if the doors are not
> locked or you can check how much charge is still there, mileage
> possible etc. And when charging, which we do at home via the back
> gate, it tells you when it is finished. When I go out with the key in
> my pocket the door unlocks. Press a button on the handle to go in. It
> is a bit pushy though. Like your nanny in the car.
> 'The car ahead is moving on now' in stationary traffic.
> 'Beep beep' when you change lanes. and the main screen tells you the
> speed limit where you are and to start the car you have to agree to
> drive carefully and legally on the touch screen.
>
God help us all!
I am terrified by the thought of getting a new car to replace the '02
Clio or the '09 Hyundai
--
Mike Headon
R69S R850R
IIIc IIIg FT FTn FT2 EOS450D
e-mail: mike dot headon at enn tee ell world dot com

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:16:43 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On 30.8.23 10:05, Joe Kerr wrote:
>> If somebody is standing next to you with a key in their pocket sending
>> you off on your journey can you find yourself at your destination
>> without a key and no way to get in or start the car?
>
>I am pretty sure my car does not allow the engine to be started unless
>it senses that the key is inside the car with the doors closed - so the
>key cannot be with a third person.
Yes the key has to be in the car for it to start.

On 30-Aug-23 10:16, krw wrote:
> On 30.8.23 10:05, Joe Kerr wrote:
>> If somebody is standing next to you with a key in their pocket sending
>> you off on your journey can you find yourself at your destination
>> without a key and no way to get in or start the car?
>
> I am pretty sure my car does not allow the engine to be started unless
> it senses that the key is inside the car with the doors closed - so the
> key cannot be with a third person.
>
Mine _will_ allow you to start the car without the key being present -
but only once.
If you then switch it off, you need the key to restart it.[1] (I have
no idea why they decided on this.)

[1] I recall reading this somewhere in the 4,000 page handbook[2] - I've
never tried it.

[2] 2,500 pages relate to the "Infotainment" system, and is almost
entirely redundant due to software changes.

--
Sam Plusnet