After Maybot MKI technology has moved on with Democrobot AI - Campaigning is already well underway
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I said many, not all, so that is not a generalisation in the sense you are reading it.
And like 50Hertz, I stand by that from a long lifetime of similar experience and I will not be silenced from speaking from the truth of my long experience by political correctness.
.
sounds like JC election pledge particularly the part about 1436.78 a weekAfter Maybot MKI technology has moved on with Democrobot AI - Campaigning is already well underway
Excellent idea!
"EU plan to fit cars with speed limiters could be UNSAFE: AA issues warning over plan to fit all new cars with technology that will force you stick to every speed limit from 2022"
Worked wonders when fitted to lorries, long overdue to get rid of nutters in high powered cars with low powered brains that think they are Rally drivers
I'm all for it!
There's nothing unsafe about it, that is sheer nonsense.
Amusingly the are with the highest support for the petition to revoke article 50 is none other than Islington North,
26,029 signatures, that's 22.42% of the electorate
In 2017 his support was 40,086 , so you would think that he would be taking note of the results of this petition and worrying about it!
26,029 signatures, that's 22.42% of the electorate
In 2017 his support was 40,086 , so you would think that he would be taking note of the results of this petition and worrying about it!
As I assume you've also recognised, this use of technology was eventually inevitable. For the same reasons politicians want automated cars.
But of course there are snags as has been pointed out. One is that automated cars make mistakes as my one shows only too well when I have the various systems switched on. Those mistakes will cause accidents as Tesla has demonstrated unintentionally by killing twice.
However, this announcement is premature. Although it's claimed the parliament has approved, that's not true since it won't be up for their ratification until September. My betting is that they'll chuck it out, just as they did the Commission's desire for pedelecs to be insured.
It will come in time, but the technology is nothing like good enough yet.
.
Spoken in true William Wallace voice, actually Mel Gibs. "You will never take our freedom".
And I didnt call you a misonogyst or sexist until you defended you misonogystic post. (I was careful to put misonogystic knowing your sensitive nature. What was it that caused the upset and referring it as bad language.. Hypocritical again flecc???
Last edited:
You are doing it again, it seems to be some sort of compulsion
Who are you to tell people what they should say or think?
It is for their consciences to guide their actions, not you and your holier than thou attitude.
Was purely for info. Personally see both pros and cons. Its inevitable. After accidents police can already download from your obd port, car's speed, where its been, etc etc. That came in under radar but its happening.If it really saves lives I, m all for it. Cars, motorbikes capable of 180mph is plain barmy. I think motorbikes should have had max 100bhp (as in France for years) and cars same to equate to equal bhp/tonne.
But enforcing strict limits will put more stress on over stressed road network.??? Did UK have any input??
Sorry OG, but I have to disagree on the last bit from knowledge and experience.
My car has the latest level three automation, but luckily I am able to select what parts I want. And that's as well since it has behaved very dangerously at times when in play. The fact is the technology isn't anywhere near good enough yet for all this to be introduced, not even the sat nav control within speed limits.
I'll happily give an example of the latter if you wish.
.
The government has responded to the “Revoke article 50 and remain in the EU” petition and has announced that it will debate it in Westminster on Monday.
The petition has so far garnered more than 5.7m signatures.
Here is the full text of the response by the Department for Exiting the European Union:
This government will not revoke article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.
It remains the government’s firm policy not to revoke article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to leave or to remain.
Revoking article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in government.
The government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK government.
British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 general election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.
This government stands by this commitment.
Revoking article 50 would break the promises made by government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the prime minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/26/brexit-government-may-ignore-result-of-indicative-votes-process-says-hancock-live-news
The petition has so far garnered more than 5.7m signatures.
Here is the full text of the response by the Department for Exiting the European Union:
This government will not revoke article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.
It remains the government’s firm policy not to revoke article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to leave or to remain.
Revoking article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in government.
The government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK government.
British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 general election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.
This government stands by this commitment.
Revoking article 50 would break the promises made by government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the prime minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/26/brexit-government-may-ignore-result-of-indicative-votes-process-says-hancock-live-news
It has been fitted sucessfully if fleets of commercial vehicles for many years
I feel far more concern for the dangers of fires in modern vehicles, and that includes Electric ones in particular, with such a huge amount of stored energy on board
In general I agree and even before I bought my Leaf I saw it;'s absolute maximum of 89mph as an advantage. Having plenty of power low down where it can do sensible work is far better than having it way beyond national speed limits.
The technology to do all the things mentioned isn't anywhere near good enough yet though, not even the speed limiting in restricted zones as I've demonstrated.
.
I dont mean to interupt this gentle foray into gender politics and motoring, but is there more than a corelation between brexit suddenly going tits up (sorry zlatan) and our happy bunch of brexiteers, including paid ones, dissapearing?
So has mine flecc, it has anti collision radar and the ability to take over the steering from the driver , as it did when I ran into deep water on the M62 at speed, and it has surprised me at times too when it decides there is a collision danger and hits the brakes.
Mine is not unconditional acceptance, but i have seen far worse decisions made by human drivers in the Thirty thousand miles i have driven in just over one year of ownership.
I speak from knowledge and experience too remember and can compare it with two previous 'Octavia 1.9 TDI that I drove for 200K miles in each since retiring.
This car is far safer to drive. I usually drive on adaptive cruise and let the radar "Fly the ship" while keeping a weather eye on events.
The radar is usually set to 2MPH below the stated speed limit which works just fine for me.
They don't have the level three technologies they are thinking of employing, those can be dangerous as I've experienced. And on satellite control in speed limited zones, the methods employed make mistakes as I again can show. Like telling me 60 mph is ok in a 30 mph zone, not because the car gets it wrong but because it paradoxically works too well and doesn't miss anything.
I think the likelyhood is the other way, as the rear ended crash fires in IC cars have demonstrated. Liquid fuel tanks, LPG tanks and hydrogen tanks across the rear are ideally placed for that. In contrast the batteries on such as mine are under the crumple resistant body between front and rear of the cabin, the front and rear crumple zones protecting that.
.
Having adaptive cruise control in my car, I find myself setting it to current speed limit much of the time. And it is spectacularly effective when descending steep hills.
My reservations include the accuracy of the sources of speed limits. How do the systems manage to update fast enough when changes are made? E.g. for roadworks, or removal of roadworks. Quite often I find my satnav gets it wrong, sometimes just thinking it is on a parallel road.
Local street signs are definitely not the way to go. Another car I regularly drive has a sign reading device. And it is so often wrong. It cannot work out whether national speed limit means 60 or 70. It cannot handle 30 due to street lighting only. It cannot distinguish between advisory speed limits (e.g. for bends) and enforceable limits. And I keep imagining people creating their own speed limit signs and holding them up just out of "fun".
Nah, we just wandered off and had a mini break to relieve the boredom of no bandits coming in over the Horizon to do battle.
Basically we are short of opposition due to it being the equivalent of "All Quiet on the Western Front"
We'll end up playing cards among ourselves and lamenting the "Glory days of Brexit debate "at this rate.
Maybe we should draw lots for who changes sides to give us a bit of competition?
You compare me to racist football hooligans and now you call me a hypocrite. That is not just bad language, it's offensive.
.
Can you please put the entire population of this thread on ignore?
then you can argue with yourself to your hearts content