The fragility of car computers revealed.

[Doug[_3_]]

Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?

"The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
to attack, say experts.

An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
"fragile" and easily subverted.

The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
readings.

Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
attackers to reproduce their work..."

"...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."

Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[webreader]

On May 21, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.
>
> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> readings.
>
> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.



"The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."

This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?

WSR

[Dr Zoidberg[_7_]]

"webreader" > wrote in message
...
> On May 21, 7:17 am, Doug > wrote:
>> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
>> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
>> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>>
>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>> to attack, say experts.
>>
>> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
>> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>>
>> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
>> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
>> readings.
>>
>> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
>> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>>
>> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
>> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>>
>> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>>
>> More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>>
>> --
>> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>
> "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
> standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
> vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>
> This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
> port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>
Amazing, isn't it.

If someone has physical access to the inside of your car , they can stop it
working correctly.
Just like they could with mechanical systems...

--
Alex

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> Is it any wonder that

Doug doesn't show the whole article, just cherry picks it ...

"Cars benefit from the fact that they are (hopefully) not connected to
the internet (yet) and currently are not able to be remotely accessed,"
said Rik Fergson, a security analyst at Trend Micro. "So in order to
carry out a successful attack you would already need to have physical
access to the vehicle, as a break-in or as a mechanic, seem the two
most likely scenarios."

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely

So it just coasts to a halt.

Is that a problem?

> turn off the brakes so the car would not stop

No, they didn't.

> and make instruments give false readings.

Big. Fat. Wow.

[Squashme]

On 21 May, 07:58, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Is it any wonder that
>
> Doug doesn't show the whole article, just cherry picks it ...
>
> "Cars benefit from the fact that they are (hopefully) not connected to
> the internet (yet) and currently are not able to be remotely accessed,"
> said Rik Fergson

The sooner they can be remotely accessed the better. External controls
on speed must come.

[Conor[_3_]]

On 21/05/2010 07:35, webreader wrote:
> On May 21, 7:17 am, > wrote:
>> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
>> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
>> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>>
But you wanted them to be more environmentally friendly, Doug.

BTW, where are the mandatory safety tests for bicycles? I've seen
****loads out with knackered brakes, bald tyres and no lights at night.
It was so bad, a Police Force carried out a sting operation.

>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>> to attack, say experts.
>>

And just how do they get access to it, Doug?


>> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
>> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
>> readings.
>>

Remotely? I doubt anything but the engine turning off.\

>> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
>> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>>

So in fact its irrelevent then. Just like you.


> "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
> standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
> vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>
> This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
> port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?


So you actually have to have physical access to the service port in the
car. How many are going to be able to do that as its driving past them?

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
Conor > wrote:
>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>
>
>And just how do they get access to it, Doug?

Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!

B2003

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.
>
> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>

I don't know how they managed to control the brakes through the ecu
interface - you can reset service warnings, idle timings (on some), change
the clock, engine odometer (illegal) and other trivial performance tweaks on
the majority of cars. The brakes are a physical system, controlled by a
large lever at the drivers feet. Press the lever and it compresses fluid in
cables and that applies the brakes. Even in a power assisted car, the brakes
still work manually. The only CPU controlled part of the braking system in
most cars is the ABS and turning that off would simply result in less
efficient braking in poor traction conditions. Perhaps they hacked into one
of the new remotely poluting hybrid vehicles as their brakes are not
'traditional' friction brakes, but mini generators used to reclaim kinetic
energy and convert it into electric energy to recharge batteries. This
highlights another reason not to drive a remotely poluting, low range,
electric car.



In order to log into the ECU of a car you need physical access to the
interior of the moving vehicle. You also need a laptop with the correct
connections (most don't have serial ports any more). You need the correct
cables and you need the correct specialist software and the experience in
using it. I don't think there are many people out there who would spend that
much money just to change the dials on a passing car. Besides, don't you
think the driver might notice when someone gets into their car and removed
the handbrake cover and starts plugging cables into the car and typing stuff
on their laptops? This is only likely to happen if the driver is blind and
deaf.



This post seems to vaguely refer to road safety and the potential damage
caused by the clearly impossible (outside of a lab) malicious damage to a
car's ECU. Lets focus on the bicycle, which is proposed here as a safer
alternative to the car. How much expensive, specialist equipment and knowhow
would it take to make that bicycle into a rider and pedestrian killing
machine - about 10 seconds with a strong pair of scissors or secateurs and
the bike has no brakes, turning it into a murderous weapon just waiting to
plough into and kill pedestrians. Horrifying! So anything can happen when
there is a glitch!



My reply here is not an anti-cycling post (although it might appear so). My
point is that there are some wierdos in this world who go out of their way
to twist reports and stories in order to further an irrelevant argument that
they have already lost with the world.

[Derek C]

On 21 May, 08:01, Squashme > wrote:
> On 21 May, 07:58, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > Is it any wonder that
>
> > Doug doesn't show the whole article, just cherry picks it ...
>
> > "Cars benefit from the fact that they are (hopefully) not connected to
> > the internet (yet) and currently are not able to be remotely accessed,"
> > said Rik Fergson
>
> The sooner they can be remotely accessed the better. External controls
> on speed must come.

You can often accelerate out of dangerous situations better than
slamming the anchors on, which only reduces the severity of the
subsequent crash. Please leave drivers with some discretion as to
their actions, and God help us if Big Brother takes over completely!

Derek C

[Adrian]

Derek C > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > "Cars benefit from the fact that they are (hopefully) not connected
>> > to the internet (yet) and currently are not able to be remotely
>> > accessed," said Rik Fergson

>> The sooner they can be remotely accessed the better. External controls
>> on speed must come.

> You can often accelerate out of dangerous situations better than
> slamming the anchors on, which only reduces the severity of the
> subsequent crash. Please leave drivers with some discretion as to their
> actions, and God help us if Big Brother takes over completely!

Rather more relevantly to this discussion, can you imagine the
consequences of malicious tampering with remote vehicle speed control?
<shudder>

Not to mention that many drivers will very rapidly become acclimatised to
just slapping the pedal straight down and turning brain off. That's
really going to be a boon to road safety on roads shared with pedestrians
and cyclists, isn't it?

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?

Let's all laugh at Doug - he thinks that 'so many' car crashes are as a
result of someone jumping into a moving vehicle and hacking into the onboard
software using specialist hardware and software, in order to force a car to
crash into a cyclist or pedestrian. He's been watching too many mission
impossible films!!

Brilliant editing Doug, you cut out the majority of the facts and made it
sound like the car isn't safe!! Good joke! Let us now re-edit the original
article and see if it highlights a different side to the story. Do note the
parts about 'moving vehicle' and 'hard to reproduce' and 'need physical
access to the vehicle' in the following edit, taken from the OP article:


****

"The team of researchers, led by Professor Stefan Savage set out to see what
resilience cars had to an attack on their control systems.

The researchers created software to monitor communications between the ECUs
and mounted a series of attacks against a moving vehicle to see how much of
the car could fall under their control. The team got at the ECUs via the
communications ports fitted as standard on most cars.

The researchers make instruments give false readings.

Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
attackers to reproduce their work.

Our findings suggest that in order to carry out a successful attack you
would need to have physical access to the vehicle."

****

[Derek C]

On 21 May, 07:17, Doug > wrote:
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.
>
> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> readings.
>
> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>

Nice to know that cars can be vulnerable, as well as bicycles and
cyclists.

Derek C

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

GT wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
Perhaps they hacked into one of
> the new remotely poluting hybrid vehicles as their brakes are not
> 'traditional' friction brakes, but mini generators used to reclaim
> kinetic energy and convert it into electric energy to recharge
> batteries. This highlights another reason not to drive a remotely
> poluting, low range, electric car.

The Toyota prius has entirely standard brakes, with pads and shoes and
hydraulics. It is also able to slow down by running its generator from the
momentum of the car (which slows it down) Light braking causes the generator
to start working which gives the regenerating braking you have heard of,
this reduces fuel use by charging the batteries rather than wasting the
energy as heat. BUT if you slam the anchors on then you get normal type
braking as well. It also has a 'LOW' setting which gives the effect of
selecting a low gear for descending hills etc.

Try a Prius, they are really quite a revelation after a conventional car,
and well worth a drive.

A vehicle which had entirely electrically operated brakes or steering would
not get type approval AFAIK

[GT]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
> Perhaps they hacked into one of
>> the new remotely poluting hybrid vehicles as their brakes are not
>> 'traditional' friction brakes, but mini generators used to reclaim
>> kinetic energy and convert it into electric energy to recharge
>> batteries. This highlights another reason not to drive a remotely
>> poluting, low range, electric car.
>
> The Toyota prius has entirely standard brakes, with pads and shoes and
> hydraulics. It is also able to slow down by running its generator from
> the momentum of the car (which slows it down) Light braking causes the
> generator to start working which gives the regenerating braking you have
> heard of, this reduces fuel use by charging the batteries rather than
> wasting the energy as heat. BUT if you slam the anchors on then you get
> normal type braking as well.

That is re-assuring thanks.

[Ian Dalziel]

On 21 May 2010 06:59:52 GMT, Adrian > wrote:

>> and make instruments give false readings.
>
>Big. Fat. Wow.

But... but... you wouldn't be able to match speed limits. That kills
children, doesn't it?

--

Ian D

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:08:08 +0100
"GT" > wrote:
>still work manually. The only CPU controlled part of the braking system in
>most cars is the ABS and turning that off would simply result in less
>efficient braking in poor traction conditions. Perhaps they hacked into one
>of the new remotely poluting hybrid vehicles as their brakes are not

They could probably do something so that the ABS cuts in all the time so
your braking distance would be slightly increased but other than that it
seems to be scaremongering to me. As a last resort just switch the ignition
off and coast the car to a stop. Though this simple solution didn't
occur to some clueless yanks in toyotas.

B2003

[Adrian]

"Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> Perhaps they hacked into one of the new remotely poluting hybrid
>> vehicles as their brakes are not 'traditional' friction brakes

> The Toyota prius has entirely standard brakes, with pads and shoes and
> hydraulics.

Yup.

> Try a Prius, they are really quite a revelation after a conventional
> car, and well worth a drive.

No, they're not. They're utterly bland. They're dull, they're slow,
they're noisy internally, they're not even particularly economical if
driven so as to keep up with traffic - I averaged about 35mpg in a one
hour test drive.

> A vehicle which had entirely electrically operated brakes or steering
> would not get type approval AFAIK

Very true.

>> This highlights another reason not to drive a remotely poluting, low
>> range, electric car.

Still, at least Duhg proves he can be right every so often - in
conclusion, if not in logic.

[GT]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> Perhaps they hacked into one of the new remotely poluting hybrid
>>> vehicles as their brakes are not 'traditional' friction brakes
>
>> The Toyota prius has entirely standard brakes, with pads and shoes and
>> hydraulics.
>
> Yup.
>
>> Try a Prius, they are really quite a revelation after a conventional
>> car, and well worth a drive.
>
> No, they're not. They're utterly bland. They're dull, they're slow,
> they're noisy internally, they're not even particularly economical if
> driven so as to keep up with traffic - I averaged about 35mpg in a one
> hour test drive.

I'll second that. They are only efficient when 'trundling' round on the
electric motor. This is of course ideal for some people, but for others the
petrol engine kicks in over a certain speed and they are no longer the
wonder vehicle that they are made out to be. My 2.0 alfa is more economical
on an out of town run!!

[GT]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:08:08 +0100
> "GT" > wrote:
>>still work manually. The only CPU controlled part of the braking system in
>>most cars is the ABS and turning that off would simply result in less
>>efficient braking in poor traction conditions. Perhaps they hacked into
>>one
>>of the new remotely poluting hybrid vehicles as their brakes are not
>
> They could probably do something so that the ABS cuts in all the time so
> your braking distance would be slightly increased but other than that it
> seems to be scaremongering to me. As a last resort just switch the
> ignition
> off and coast the car to a stop. Though this simple solution didn't
> occur to some clueless yanks in toyotas.

With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox and
ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a tradition
'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't possible while the
engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by Toyota really!

[Adrian]

"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox

So move the lever to "N"

> and ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a
> tradition 'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't possible
> while the engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by Toyota really!

If people bothered to read the handbook, they'd know that pressing the
button for a couple of seconds over-rode the software control - just as
it does on a locked-up PC.

[Adrian]

"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>>> Try a Prius, they are really quite a revelation after a conventional
>>> car, and well worth a drive.

>> No, they're not. They're utterly bland. They're dull, they're slow,
>> they're noisy internally, they're not even particularly economical if
>> driven so as to keep up with traffic - I averaged about 35mpg in a one
>> hour test drive.

> I'll second that. They are only efficient when 'trundling' round on the
> electric motor. This is of course ideal for some people, but for others
> the petrol engine kicks in over a certain speed and they are no longer
> the wonder vehicle that they are made out to be. My 2.0 alfa is more
> economical on an out of town run!!

I should add that I got a very similar figure out of a MkV Golf 1.9TDi in
a week of commuting on the same route that I regularly get about 25 out
of a 1990 Saab 900T16...

I've been using 'erselfs '90 Pug 205 (1.1 4spd) for the commute for a
while - and getting around 35 from that. Despite it being not only
petrol, but having a carb.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:43:41 +0100
"GT" > wrote:
>With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox and
>ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a tradition
>'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't possible while the
>engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by Toyota really!

I guess it must have electronic fob then that has to be plugged in a slot
or at least kept nearby. Yeah , I wouldn't want one of them - technology for
its own sake. However they could still put the auto box in neutral. Though I
guess if it doesn't want to play ball then you're royally ****ed and should
just steer into the nearest wall or barrier and hope for the best before the
speed becomes so high you're going to die no matter what you do.

B2003

[GT]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox
>
> So move the lever to "N"

Not sure you can physically do that on a automatic when its moving?

>> and ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a
>> tradition 'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't possible
>> while the engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by Toyota really!
>
> If people bothered to read the handbook, they'd know that pressing the
> button for a couple of seconds over-rode the software control - just as
> it does on a locked-up PC.

A very useful piece of information - this should be more widely broadcast/.
I am sad enough to actually read the manual for my car, but I'll bet that
98% of people never even open theirs!

[Scott M[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."

<cough> ********.

The only system in a car that would have anything in the way of hefty
amounts of code would be the in-car Nav/UI job (like BMW's I-Drive, etc.)

And $DEITY knows what they're counting for ECUs - everything down to the
PICs in the memory seats presumably.

It's all crap anyway - anyone remember how our cars were going to stop
working at the Millenium? The holes in that one were equally laughable.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

[Adrian]

"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>>> With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox

>> So move the lever to "N"

> Not sure you can physically do that on a automatic when its moving?

Have you ever driven an automatic? Of course you can. As with fail-safe
brakes and steering, it's a legal requirement.

>>> and ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a
>>> tradition 'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't
>>> possible while the engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by
>>> Toyota really!

>> If people bothered to read the handbook, they'd know that pressing the
>> button for a couple of seconds over-rode the software control - just as
>> it does on a locked-up PC.

> A very useful piece of information - this should be more widely
> broadcast/. I am sad enough to actually read the manual for my car, but
> I'll bet that 98% of people never even open theirs!

You're right. They should broadcast it more widely. They could put it on
a piece of paper, with similarly important information, and provide a
copy with each and every new car sold. Maybe bind it in book form, and
stick it in the glovebox?

[Adrian]

Scott M > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
>> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."

> <cough> ********.
>
> The only system in a car that would have anything in the way of hefty
> amounts of code would be the in-car Nav/UI job (like BMW's I-Drive,
> etc.)

Whilst I'd agree that 100MB is probably OTT, you might want to read up on
the complexity of modern engine management, especially on common-rail
diesels.

> And $DEITY knows what they're counting for ECUs - everything down to the
> PICs in the memory seats presumably.

Given that multiplexed electronics are ubiquitous in modern cars, I don't
find it at all difficult to believe.

Many modern brake/tail lights are LEDs which are merely pulsed more
regularly to vary the intensity, f'rinstance. Then there's the auto-
dimming LED front fogs used for "cornering lights" or dimming the DRL to
allow the indicator to be seen, or just to play tunes when switching
between sets of lights as a tailgate's opened (electronically...)

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Adrian wrote:
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> Try a Prius, they are really quite a revelation after a
>>>> conventional car, and well worth a drive.
>
>>> No, they're not. They're utterly bland. They're dull, they're slow,
>>> they're noisy internally, they're not even particularly economical
>>> if driven so as to keep up with traffic - I averaged about 35mpg in
>>> a one hour test drive.
>
>> I'll second that. They are only efficient when 'trundling' round on
>> the electric motor. This is of course ideal for some people, but for
>> others the petrol engine kicks in over a certain speed and they are
>> no longer the wonder vehicle that they are made out to be. My 2.0
>> alfa is more economical on an out of town run!!
>
> I should add that I got a very similar figure out of a MkV Golf
> 1.9TDi in a week of commuting on the same route that I regularly get
> about 25 out of a 1990 Saab 900T16...
>
> I've been using 'erselfs '90 Pug 205 (1.1 4spd) for the commute for a
> while - and getting around 35 from that. Despite it being not only
> petrol, but having a carb.

my friends last prius showed just over 60mpg as lifetime average, the latest
one that he has shows 68mpg, but it is not really run in yet, his use is
commuting on back roads about 30 miles a day. the performance is certainly
adequate for any normal use, the new ones are quieter internally. there
will always be something that you can find which is more economical on
certain usage, particularly diseasels, but so what, it is horses for
courses.

[Squashme]

On 21 May, 11:11, Adrian > wrote:
> Derek C > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> > "Cars benefit from the fact that they are (hopefully) not connected
> >> > to the internet (yet) and currently are not able to be remotely
> >> > accessed," said Rik Fergson
> >> The sooner they can be remotely accessed the better. External controls
> >> on speed must come.
> > You can often accelerate out of dangerous situations better than
> > slamming the anchors on, which only reduces the severity of the
> > subsequent crash. Please leave drivers with some discretion as to their
> > actions, and God help us if Big Brother takes over completely!
>
> Rather more relevantly to this discussion, can you imagine the
> consequences of malicious tampering with remote vehicle speed control?
> <shudder>
>
> Not to mention that many drivers will very rapidly become acclimatised to
> just slapping the pedal straight down and turning brain off. That's
> really going to be a boon to road safety on roads shared with pedestrians
> and cyclists, isn't it?

Sorry, is that now, or then?

[GT]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox
>
>>> So move the lever to "N"
>
>> Not sure you can physically do that on a automatic when its moving?
>
> Have you ever driven an automatic? Of course you can. As with fail-safe
> brakes and steering, it's a legal requirement.
>
>>>> and ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a
>>>> tradition 'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't
>>>> possible while the engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by
>>>> Toyota really!
>
>>> If people bothered to read the handbook, they'd know that pressing the
>>> button for a couple of seconds over-rode the software control - just as
>>> it does on a locked-up PC.
>
>> A very useful piece of information - this should be more widely
>> broadcast/. I am sad enough to actually read the manual for my car, but
>> I'll bet that 98% of people never even open theirs!
>
> You're right. They should broadcast it more widely. They could put it on
> a piece of paper, with similarly important information, and provide a
> copy with each and every new car sold. Maybe bind it in book form, and
> stick it in the glovebox?

You mean a sort of 'guide book' type thing? We could call it a 'manual' and
even put it in a nice leather case along with business cards for the garage
and service dept etc. That might just catch on you know - still don't think
people would read it though! I think we'll to go for a 'total recall' type
approach. When you buy a car that has a stop/start button, you have to go in
for mental programming that 'teaches' you how to override the off in case of
an emergency. I wonder what Doug thinks of this idea - being brainwashed
seems to be his specialist topic. (was that too harsh?!)

[Man at B&Q]

On May 21, 12:04*pm, Adrian > wrote:
> Scott M > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> >> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
> > <cough> ********.
>
> > The only system in a car that would have anything in the way of hefty
> > amounts of code would be the in-car Nav/UI job (like BMW's I-Drive,
> > etc.)
>
> Whilst I'd agree that 100MB is probably OTT, you might want to read up on
> the complexity of modern engine management, especially on common-rail
> diesels.
>
> > And $DEITY knows what they're counting for ECUs - everything down to the
> > PICs in the memory seats presumably.
>
> Given that multiplexed electronics are ubiquitous in modern cars, I don't
> find it at all difficult to believe.
>
> Many modern brake/tail lights are LEDs which are merely pulsed more
> regularly to vary the intensity, f'rinstance. Then there's the auto-
> dimming LED front fogs used for "cornering lights" or dimming the DRL to
> allow the indicator to be seen, or just to play tunes when switching
> between sets of lights as a tailgate's opened (electronically...)

The point is that they are not ECUs. MCUs maybe.

MBQ

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

GT wrote:

> "Adrian" > wrote in message
> ... >"GT" > gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> >
> > > With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic
> > > gearbox
> >
> > So move the lever to "N"
>
> Not sure you can physically do that on a automatic when its moving?
>
> > > and ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a
> > > tradition 'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't
> > > possible while the engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by
> > > Toyota really!
> >
> > If people bothered to read the handbook, they'd know that pressing
> > the button for a couple of seconds over-rode the software control -
> > just as it does on a locked-up PC.
>
> A very useful piece of information - this should be more widely
> broadcast/. I am sad enough to actually read the manual for my car,
> but I'll bet that 98% of people never even open theirs!

We've just got a 'new' Renault Laguna with a Stop-Start button and
separate keycard ... I can confirm that the engine will stop when the
button is held in for 2 seconds and longer .. haven't tried removing
the card first .. have to wait till wfie gets home from work to try it.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

GT wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> > cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> > mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> Let's all laugh at Doug -

Heh, that's a given isn't it?

> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work.

Actually, bearing in mind I run a Landrover Discovery that doesn't have
an ECU at all ... One issue that hasn't been mentioned is the sheer
effort needed to get PC's to 'talk' to a cars ECU .. any of the ECU's
or PC's on the car.

Even with the right software, the right connection hardware and the
wind blowing the right way after you've done the fan dance with a
headless chicken, there are times when it simply doesn't work ... you
have to refresh the unit or fall-back to read the number of flashes to
de-code what it's saying is wrong ... the vehicle that is .. ;)

Some later Landrover models from about 1997 onwards, possibly earlier,
have a suspension system that regularly won't speak to it's own
software let alone a hackers software, yet which drops into the
'fail-safe' mode which limits speed when problems are encoutered ...
but these are mostly hardware issues, sensors not clean for instance.
They FAIL SAFE ... they can't be made to do other stuff. Same for the
engine ECU, any issues it encounters drops it into a FAIL SAFE mode
which limits speed and power.

To think that people can hack into a cars software willy-nilly and make
it 'do bad stuff' in the real world and in real time whilst someone
else is driving is so far out there as to be utterly impossible without
very specific circumstances happening .. such as in a scientific
experiment or under very controlled conditions.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Conor[_3_]]

On 21/05/2010 12:13, Mrcheerful wrote:

> my friends last prius showed just over 60mpg as lifetime average, the latest
> one that he has shows 68mpg, but it is not really run in yet, his use is
> commuting on back roads about 30 miles a day. the performance is certainly
> adequate for any normal use, the new ones are quieter internally. there
> will always be something that you can find which is more economical on
> certain usage, particularly diseasels, but so what, it is horses for
> courses.
>

At least with my Mondeo, I can seat four people.


--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Conor wrote:
> On 21/05/2010 12:13, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> my friends last prius showed just over 60mpg as lifetime average,
>> the latest one that he has shows 68mpg, but it is not really run in
>> yet, his use is commuting on back roads about 30 miles a day. the
>> performance is certainly adequate for any normal use, the new ones
>> are quieter internally. there will always be something that you can
>> find which is more economical on certain usage, particularly
>> diseasels, but so what, it is horses for courses.
>>
>
> At least with my Mondeo, I can seat four people.

the new one has got better rear headroom than the old, (which was ok before
as long as you were under 6 foot in the back) and comfortably takes 5 people
inc. driver and a small shed load of luggage.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> GT wrote:
>
>> "Adrian" > wrote in message
>> ... >"GT" > gurgled
>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>> With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic
>>>> gearbox
>>>
>>> So move the lever to "N"
>>
>> Not sure you can physically do that on a automatic when its moving?
>>
>>>> and ignition control was a start/stop button so the key wasn't a
>>>> tradition 'stick it in and turn it' job - pulling it out isn't
>>>> possible while the engine is going. Bit of a safety oversight by
>>>> Toyota really!
>>>
>>> If people bothered to read the handbook, they'd know that pressing
>>> the button for a couple of seconds over-rode the software control -
>>> just as it does on a locked-up PC.
>>
>> A very useful piece of information - this should be more widely
>> broadcast/. I am sad enough to actually read the manual for my car,
>> but I'll bet that 98% of people never even open theirs!
>
> We've just got a 'new' Renault Laguna with a Stop-Start button and
> separate keycard ... I can confirm that the engine will stop when the
> button is held in for 2 seconds and longer .. haven't tried removing
> the card first .. have to wait till wfie gets home from work to try
> it.

it will keep running with a warning on the dashboard, how long it runs for
after you throw the card out of the window I don't know.

[GT]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
>> > cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
>> > mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>>
>> Let's all laugh at Doug -
>
> Heh, that's a given isn't it?
>
>> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
>> attackers to reproduce their work.
>
> Even with the right software, the right connection hardware and the
> wind blowing the right way after you've done the fan dance with a
> headless chicken, there are times when it simply doesn't work ... you
> have to refresh the unit or fall-back to read the number of flashes to
> de-code what it's saying is wrong ... the vehicle that is .. ;)

That's just computers for you - it all comes down to beeps and flashes!

> Some later Landrover models from about 1997 onwards, possibly earlier,
> have a suspension system that regularly won't speak to it's own
> software let alone a hackers software, yet which drops into the
> 'fail-safe' mode which limits speed when problems are encoutered ...
> but these are mostly hardware issues, sensors not clean for instance.
> They FAIL SAFE ... they can't be made to do other stuff. Same for the
> engine ECU, any issues it encounters drops it into a FAIL SAFE mode
> which limits speed and power.

In fairness we should also point out that bikes do have a fail safe mode:
Should the brakes fail - you soil yourself, then put your feet down and
close your eyes (or put a hand down and strip all the skin off if you are
precariously balanced on a 'retarded cummerbund' from which we are told you
cannot use your feet for stability)

[GT]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> With regard to the toyota thing - I believe it was a automatic gearbox
>
>>> So move the lever to "N"
>
>> Not sure you can physically do that on a automatic when its moving?
>
> Have you ever driven an automatic? Of course you can. As with fail-safe
> brakes and steering, it's a legal requirement.

I have driven an automatic, but I have never tried to pull it out of gear
whilst moving. I've been told by a number of different people that it would
strip the gearbox and is therefore restricted. If you have done it, then
fair enough - they should have done that, but don't you think they would
have tried that? OK, they were American, but even so...

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

GT wrote:
> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> ...
>> GT wrote:
>>
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
>>>> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
>>>> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>>>
>>> Let's all laugh at Doug -
>>
>> Heh, that's a given isn't it?
>>
>>> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
>>> attackers to reproduce their work.
>>
>> Even with the right software, the right connection hardware and the
>> wind blowing the right way after you've done the fan dance with a
>> headless chicken, there are times when it simply doesn't work ... you
>> have to refresh the unit or fall-back to read the number of flashes
>> to de-code what it's saying is wrong ... the vehicle that is .. ;)
>
> That's just computers for you - it all comes down to beeps and
> flashes!
>> Some later Landrover models from about 1997 onwards, possibly
>> earlier, have a suspension system that regularly won't speak to it's
>> own software let alone a hackers software, yet which drops into the
>> 'fail-safe' mode which limits speed when problems are encoutered ...
>> but these are mostly hardware issues, sensors not clean for instance.
>> They FAIL SAFE ... they can't be made to do other stuff. Same for
>> the engine ECU, any issues it encounters drops it into a FAIL SAFE
>> mode which limits speed and power.
>
> In fairness we should also point out that bikes do have a fail safe
> mode: Should the brakes fail - you soil yourself, then put your feet
> down and close your eyes (or put a hand down and strip all the skin
> off if you are precariously balanced on a 'retarded cummerbund' from
> which we are told you cannot use your feet for stability)

but cycles don't need any safety equipment since they are so much less
dangerous than cars, don't you get it? That is why they go through red
lights (no brakes) crash into pedestrians (no horn and no brakes) get mown
down at night (no lights) etc. etc.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

GT wrote:

> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> They FAIL SAFE ... they can't be made to do
> > other stuff. Same for the engine ECU, any issues it encounters
> > drops it into a FAIL SAFE mode which limits speed and power.
>
> In fairness we should also point out that bikes do have a fail safe
> mode: Should the brakes fail - you soil yourself, then put your feet
> down and close your eyes (or put a hand down and strip all the skin
> off if you are precariously balanced on a 'retarded cummerbund' from
> which we are told you cannot use your feet for stability)

Heheheh, had a few of those. Best recovery was an un-planned shoe
stuck between front wheel and frame, making an effective, if rather hot
for the foot, brake ... ;)

'course, I also went ass over tip a few times, but a lack of helmet was
probably what killed me. Or saved me, can't think which ... I also
didn't injure, harm or otherwise hurt anyone or anything other than me
and my pride ... ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[GT]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>
>> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
>> They FAIL SAFE ... they can't be made to do
>> > other stuff. Same for the engine ECU, any issues it encounters
>> > drops it into a FAIL SAFE mode which limits speed and power.
>>
>> In fairness we should also point out that bikes do have a fail safe
>> mode: Should the brakes fail - you soil yourself, then put your feet
>> down and close your eyes (or put a hand down and strip all the skin
>> off if you are precariously balanced on a 'retarded cummerbund' from
>> which we are told you cannot use your feet for stability)
>
> Heheheh, had a few of those. Best recovery was an un-planned shoe
> stuck between front wheel and frame, making an effective, if rather hot
> for the foot, brake ... ;)
>
> 'course, I also went ass over tip a few times, but a lack of helmet was
> probably what killed me. Or saved me, can't think which ... I also
> didn't injure, harm or otherwise hurt anyone or anything other than me
> and my pride ... ;)

I can't reply any more as I can't think of any other alternative names for
the high unstable 'recurring bint'.

;)

[Brimstone]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...

> If people bothered to read the handbook,

Now I know you live on a different planet.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk?

Errr, yes

> Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control,

Errr, no, you're the one bleating about emissions, electronics cut them
down.

> which sensibly is still used on bicycles?

Does that include your illegal, untaxed, uninsured e-bike.

>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.

Ahh experts, they would know about such things.

>
> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> "fragile" and easily subverted.

When their test gear was plugged into the admin port.
>
> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely,

Remotely from the end of a cable, not very remote is it?

> turn off the
> brakes so the car would not stop

They must be very good experts to control a mechanical system with a
'remote' terminal,
> and make instruments give false
> readings.
>
> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work..."

So not so vulnerable then?

>
> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."

Thought by whom?

>
> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> More:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Did you notice that your censoring & selective editing left a few thing
out, like having to have access to the inside of the car.

So yet again you have been caught out lying, distorting the truth & only
quoting bits that you like.

What a waste of space you are.
--
Tony Dragon

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.
>
> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
The only thing that's fragile Doug, is your grasp on reality.

[Marie]

On May 21, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.
>
> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> readings.
>
> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Breaking news, breaking news.
Doug lies & misquotes from an article that he thinks will make a point
for his stupid views.
Will Doug now go silient, move the goal posts or bluster?
We await the next amount of Doug********.

Marie

[Doug[_3_]]

On 21 May, 09:54, Conor > wrote:
> On 21/05/2010 07:35, webreader wrote:> On May 21, 7:17 am, > *wrote:
> >> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> >> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> >> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> But you wanted them to be more environmentally friendly, Doug.
>
> BTW, where are the mandatory safety tests for bicycles? I've seen
> ****loads out with knackered brakes, bald tyres and no lights at night.
> It was so bad, a Police Force carried out a sting operation.
>
If a bicycle is defective it is ore than likely that the cyclist will
be killed or injured becuase he i9s far less dangerous to others than
a driver. I have no doubt that ths sting was practiced by cops who are
also motorists.
>
> >> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> >> to attack, say experts.
>
> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>
Electromagnetic pulse? But that is not the question is it. The car
computer system, like all computer systems, is susceptible to glitches
but unlike your computer at home when it happens it can be highly
dangerous.
>
> >> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> >> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> >> readings.
>
> Remotely? I doubt anything but the engine turning off.\
>
Well you would wouldn't you, because your car uses a computer.
>
> >> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> >> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> So in fact its irrelevent then. Just like you.
>
Not irrelevant at all. See above.
>
> > "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
> > standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
> > vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>
> > This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
> > port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>
> So you actually have to have physical access to the service port in the
> car. How many are going to be able to do that as its driving past them?
>
Again, see above.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>
> Conor > wrote:
> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> >>> to attack, say experts.
>
> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>
> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>
Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
to inure anyone but himself.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Marie]

On May 22, 6:34*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>
> > Conor > wrote:
> > >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> > >>> to attack, say experts.
>
> > >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>
> > Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
> > the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>
> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> to inure anyone but himself.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


Here we go again, Doug does not answer a question, but post an answer
that is rubbish, no change there then.

Marie

[Marie]

On May 22, 6:33*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 21 May, 09:54, Conor > wrote:> On 21/05/2010 07:35, webreader wrote:> On May 21, 7:17 am, > *wrote:
> > >> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> > >> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> > >> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> > But you wanted them to be more environmentally friendly, Doug.
>
> > BTW, where are the mandatory safety tests for bicycles? I've seen
> > ****loads out with knackered brakes, bald tyres and no lights at night.
> > It was so bad, a Police Force carried out a sting operation.
>
> If a bicycle is defective it is ore than likely that the cyclist will
> be killed or injured becuase he i9s far less dangerous to others than
> a driver.

Here we go again it is ok for cycles to be defective, because the
riders would only injure themselves, lets ignore the problems that
they would cause to other road users.

> I have no doubt that ths sting was practiced by cops who are
> also motorists.
>

Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
are car drivers' rubbish.
Well at least Doug will be allright, because he is not a 'real
cyclist'

> > >> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> > >> to attack, say experts.
>
> > And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>
> Electromagnetic pulse?

Here we go again, this time it is Doug physics.
EMP can be used to programme a computor, not just stop it working but
to control it.

>But that is not the question is it.

Are the sideslip answer, problem is that it is the question, more Doug
moving goalposts.

> The car
> computer system, like all computer systems, is susceptible to glitches
> but unlike your computer at home when it happens it can be highly
> dangerous.
>

Are the old, 'if I say it enough time, it will be true' mantra, this
from a person who believes an EMP can be used to control a computor.

> > >> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> > >> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> > >> readings.
>
> > Remotely? I doubt anything but the engine turning off.\
>
> Well you would wouldn't you, because your car uses a computer.

Here we go again, this time it's the 'I havn't got an answer so I will
post rubbish' mantra.

>
> > >> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> > >> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> > So in fact its irrelevent then. Just like you.
>
> Not irrelevant at all. See above.

Yes everybody, Doug refers you to the rubbish he has posted.

>
> > > "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
> > > standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
> > > vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>
> > > This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
> > > port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>
> > So you actually have to have physical access to the service port in the
> > car. How many are going to be able to do that as its driving past them?
>
> Again, see above.

Oh look I can now repeat a Doug answer:- "Again, see above."

>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Marie

[Dave Plowman]

In article
>,
Doug > wrote:
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?

What proportion of cyclists get injured in say Central London versus car
drivers?

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW 12

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>
>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>
> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> to inure anyone but himself.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

Watch those goalposts move.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 21 May, 09:54, Conor > wrote:
>> On 21/05/2010 07:35, webreader wrote:> On May 21, 7:17 am, > wrote:
>>>> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
>>>> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
>>>> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>> But you wanted them to be more environmentally friendly, Doug.
>>
>> BTW, where are the mandatory safety tests for bicycles? I've seen
>> ****loads out with knackered brakes, bald tyres and no lights at night.
>> It was so bad, a Police Force carried out a sting operation.
>>
> If a bicycle is defective it is ore than likely that the cyclist will
> be killed or injured becuase he i9s far less dangerous to others than
> a driver. I have no doubt that ths sting was practiced by cops who are
> also motorists.
>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>> to attack, say experts.
>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>
> Electromagnetic pulse? But that is not the question is it. The car
> computer system, like all computer systems, is susceptible to glitches
> but unlike your computer at home when it happens it can be highly
> dangerous.
>>>> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
>>>> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
>>>> readings.
>> Remotely? I doubt anything but the engine turning off.\
>>
> Well you would wouldn't you, because your car uses a computer.
>>>> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
>>>> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>> So in fact its irrelevent then. Just like you.
>>
> Not irrelevant at all. See above.
>>> "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
>>> standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
>>> vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>>> This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
>>> port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>> So you actually have to have physical access to the service port in the
>> car. How many are going to be able to do that as its driving past them?
>>
> Again, see above.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

Doug, there are a number of computer companies not to mention security
services who would like to use your unique knowledge, why don't you put
yourself up for sale?

--
Tony Dragon

[Conor[_3_]]

On 22/05/2010 06:33, Doug wrote:

> If a bicycle is defective it is ore than likely that the cyclist will
> be killed or injured becuase he i9s far less dangerous to others than
> a driver. I have no doubt that ths sting was practiced by cops who are
> also motorists.
>
Most bicycles are defective. The fact 400+ were caught at night without
lights has nothing to do with the copper being a motorist.

>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>
>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>
> Electromagnetic pulse?

BWAHAHA.

> But that is not the question is it. The car
> computer system, like all computer systems, is susceptible to glitches
> but unlike your computer at home when it happens it can be highly
> dangerous.
>
Wrong.

> Again, see above.

Doug. Please just ****ing die. You are the only person I have ever come
across who I would actually take joy in knowing that they're dead.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

[Tony Dragon]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010 01:35:54
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
>> are car drivers' rubbish.
>
> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
> this one.
>
> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police to
> a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to others,
> where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are largely ignored.

Marie seemed to be commenting on Doug s repetitive ramblings.

You on the other hand are quoting stats, but it would be a good idea if
you also provided the stats & a credible link.

By the way the police also target other crimes that are in theirself not
a danger

--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010 01:35:54
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
>> are car drivers' rubbish.
>
> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
> this one.
>
> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police to
> a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to others,
> where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are largely ignored.

Perhaps they are targeted in proportion to the traffic laws they break.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 22 May, 14:29, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Phil W Lee wrote:
> > Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010 01:35:54
> > -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
> >> are car drivers' rubbish.
>
> > Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
> > this one.
>
> > Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police to
> > a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to others,
> > where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are largely ignored.
>
> Perhaps they are targeted in proportion to the traffic laws they break.
>
What like stopping in ASLs or tailgating other drivers, even ramming
cyclists? Its fun to watch the police in action on TV pulling drivers
right left and centre until you realise they are only getting a tiny
proportion of them. Its even more entertaining when the cops start
talking about their beloved and expensive pursuit cars and you realise
that they are just another bunch of petrol heads with the same
primitive, speed-hungry mentality as all the rest. Of course they
don't like cyclists, who get in their way but who can get through gaps
in traffic jams they can't..

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 22 May, 14:29, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010 01:35:54
>>> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
>>>> are car drivers' rubbish.
>>> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
>>> this one.
>>> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police to
>>> a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to others,
>>> where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are largely ignored.
>> Perhaps they are targeted in proportion to the traffic laws they break.
>>
> What like stopping in ASLs or tailgating other drivers, even ramming
> cyclists? Its fun to watch the police in action on TV pulling drivers
> right left and centre until you realise they are only getting a tiny
> proportion of them. Its even more entertaining when the cops start
> talking about their beloved and expensive pursuit cars and you realise
> that they are just another bunch of petrol heads with the same
> primitive, speed-hungry mentality as all the rest. Of course they
> don't like cyclists, who get in their way but who can get through gaps
> in traffic jams they can't..
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>
>
>

Only just the start of the week & you've used the 'r' word.

--
Tony Dragon

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>
>> Conor > wrote:
>> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>> >>> to attack, say experts.
>>
>> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>
>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>
> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> to inure anyone but himself.

Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>
> >> Conor > wrote:
> >> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> >> >>> to attack, say experts.
>
> >> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>
> >> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
> >> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>
> > Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> > to inure anyone but himself.
>
> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>
They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
people.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Bod[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>> to inure anyone but himself.
>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> people.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>

Change the record Doug.

Bod

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010 01:35:54
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
>> are car drivers' rubbish.
>
> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
> this one.
>
> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police to
> a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to others,
> where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are largely ignored.

it is odd, because over the years I have seen several hundred cars, vans,
lorries and motorcycles stopped by police, but I really cannot remember a
single cyclist being stopped by a police man. So, yes it is anecdotal, but
my road experience over many years says that cyclists are NOT persecuted by
the police as you suggest.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
> >>>> Conor > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>
> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> > people.
>
> *>
>
> * Change the record Doug.
>
OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?

> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[roger merriman]

Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010 01:35:54
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >
> >Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because cops
> >are car drivers' rubbish.
>
> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
> this one.
>
> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police to
> a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to others,
> where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are largely ignored.

they are, but they are also viewed as a anti social behavour, which to
be honest is fair enough. a sizeable number of cyclists ride like fools.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>> >>>> Conor > wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>> >>>>>>> vulnerable
>> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
>> >>>> in
>> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>> >> Unlike
>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>> > people.
>>
>> >
>>
>> Change the record Doug.
>>
> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the car
will stop.

Happy now?

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Brimstone wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message

>>> Change the record Doug.
>>>
>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might
>> happen with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>>
> No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then
> the car will stop.
>
> Happy now?

No. It can happen all too easily. It happened to me once.

I was in southern Nevada USA, near the air force base, Area 51 I think it
was called, driving along, minding my own business - and all of a sudden the
cars computer started speaking in this funny voice, and the car started
going faster & then it took off.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Ian Dalziel]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 17:00:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
> wrote:

>"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>> >>>> Conor > wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>>> >>>>>>> vulnerable
>>> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
>>> >>>> in
>>> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
>>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>>> >> Unlike
>>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>>
>>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>> > people.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Change the record Doug.
>>>
>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>>
>No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the car
>will stop.
>
>Happy now?
>

But what about the etc?

--

Ian D

[Brimstone]

"Ian Dalziel" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 17:00:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>>>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>> >>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>>>> >>>>>>> vulnerable
>>>> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large
>>>> >>>> stick
>>>> >>>> in
>>>> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>>> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be
>>>> >>> unlikely
>>>> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
>>>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>>>> >> Unlike
>>>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>>>
>>>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>>> > people.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Change the record Doug.
>>>>
>>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>>>
>>No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the
>>car
>>will stop.
>>
>>Happy now?
>>
>
> But what about the etc?
>
"There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are
known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't
know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we
don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information
together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the
situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And
each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. "

With thanks to D Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defence
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>> to inure anyone but himself.
>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> people.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Are you saying these incidents are deliberate?

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
>>>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>>>> to inure anyone but himself.
>>>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
>>>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>> people.
>> >
>>
>> Change the record Doug.
>>
> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>

Feel free to tell me of a computer that controls braking.
Feel free to tell me of a computer that controls braking & doesn't fail
on the safe side?

--
Tony Dragon

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Sun, 23 May 2010
> 16:24:45 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010
>>> 01:35:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because
>>>> cops are car drivers' rubbish.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
>>> this one.
>>>
>>> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police
>>> to a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to
>>> others, where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are
>>> largely ignored.
>>
>> it is odd, because over the years I have seen several hundred cars,
>> vans, lorries and motorcycles stopped by police, but I really cannot
>> remember a single cyclist being stopped by a police man. So, yes it
>> is anecdotal, but my road experience over many years says that
>> cyclists are NOT persecuted by the police as you suggest.
>>
> Maybe you should make use of the FOI act.

presumably you have online access to the figures? URL?

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Sun, 23 May 2010
> 16:24:45 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010
>>> 01:35:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because
>>>> cops are car drivers' rubbish.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
>>> this one.
>>>
>>> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police
>>> to a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to
>>> others, where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are
>>> largely ignored.
>>
>> it is odd, because over the years I have seen several hundred cars,
>> vans, lorries and motorcycles stopped by police, but I really cannot
>> remember a single cyclist being stopped by a police man. So, yes it
>> is anecdotal, but my road experience over many years says that
>> cyclists are NOT persecuted by the police as you suggest.
>>
> Maybe you should make use of the FOI act.

Maybe you should stop making things up you ****wit.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" > considered Sun, 23 May 2010
>> 16:24:45 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>> Marie > considered Sat, 22 May 2010
>>>> 01:35:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Doug uses the old 'cops are against cyclists, because
>>>>> cops are car drivers' rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should look at some actual statistics before arguing with
>>>> this one.
>>>>
>>>> Then you would see that cyclists are indeed targeted by the police
>>>> to a degree out of all proportion to the danger they represent to
>>>> others, where the far more dangerous motorist behaviours are
>>>> largely ignored.
>>>
>>> it is odd, because over the years I have seen several hundred cars,
>>> vans, lorries and motorcycles stopped by police, but I really cannot
>>> remember a single cyclist being stopped by a police man. So, yes it
>>> is anecdotal, but my road experience over many years says that
>>> cyclists are NOT persecuted by the police as you suggest.
>>>
>> Maybe you should make use of the FOI act.
>
> presumably you have online access to the figures? URL?

He never does. This is the ****wit who claimed cyclists outnumbered
motorists remember?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 May, 17:00, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
> >> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
> >> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
> >> >>>> Conor > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
> >> >>>>>>> vulnerable
> >> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
> >> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
> >> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
> >> >>>> in
> >> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
> >> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> >> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
> >> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
> >> >> Unlike
> >> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>
> >> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> >> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> >> > people.
>
> >> * Change the record Doug.
>
> > OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> > experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
> > with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
> No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the car
> will stop.
>
> Happy now?
>
Don't you think it is about time you read the link at the start of
this thread before posting any more of your nonsense?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 May, 17:00, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>>>>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
>>>>>>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>>>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>>>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>>>>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>>>>>> to inure anyone but himself.
>>>>>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>>>>>> Unlike
>>>>>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>>>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>>>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>>>> people.
>>>> Change the record Doug.
>>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>> No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the car
>> will stop.
>>
>> Happy now?
>>
> Don't you think it is about time you read the link at the start of
> this thread before posting any more of your nonsense?
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

You mean the link that goes to a web page that says "The researchers
showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the brakes so the car
would not stop and make instruments give false readings. "

--
Tony Dragon

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?

I fail to see where you're taking this ... A computer crash doesn't
normally harm anyone and is a completely different system to a car
computer.

A (car) computer fails safe so also doesn't normally harm anyone as it
closes power and speed down, it always fails safe. Indeed I know of no
computers which control braking or the engine ECU, to the extent that
they won't allow operation of the brakes and/or which speed a car up
when they fail. Indeed, they always, and that is always, at all times,
even under complete electrical failure such that the computer isn't
even operating, fail safe.

They don't not brake when they break, and they slow down or limit power
when they crash .. ;)

You appear (surprise, surprise) to have little clue of that which you
speak.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Adrian]

"Paul - xxx" > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> Doug wrote:
>
>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
> I fail to see where you're taking this ... A computer crash doesn't
> normally harm anyone and is a completely different system to a car
> computer.

The other thing to consider is the major difference between dedicated
embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due to user error,
primarily in the installation (often unintentional) of poor-quality
software. With embedded systems, that's not an option - when did your
washing machine, fridge or freeview box last crash?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 09:14, Adrian > wrote:
> "Paul - xxx" > gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
> > Doug wrote:
>
> >> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> >> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
> >> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
> > I fail to see where you're taking this ... A computer crash doesn't
> > normally harm anyone and is a completely different system to a car
> > computer.
>
> The other thing to consider is the major difference between dedicated
> embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due to user error,
> primarily in the installation (often unintentional) of poor-quality
> software. With embedded systems, that's not an option - when did your
> washing machine, fridge or freeview box last crash?
>
Freeview boxes quite often. I don't waste energy with a washing
machine and my little fridge is not computer controlled.

Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> The other thing to consider is the major difference between dedicated
>> embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due to user error,
>> primarily in the installation (often unintentional) of poor-quality
>> software. With embedded systems, that's not an option - when did your
>> washing machine, fridge or freeview box last crash?

> Freeview boxes quite often.

Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
hardware issues.

> I don't waste energy with a washing machine

Hands up who's surprised? <looks around> Nope, don't see any hands.

> and my little fridge is not computer controlled.

Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.

> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power supply
> faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.

No, leaving the driver with a mechanical fail-safe.

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 May, 17:00, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>> >> Doug wrote:
>> >> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>> >> >>>> Conor > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>> >> >>>>>>> vulnerable
>> >> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>> >> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>> >> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large
>> >> >>>> stick
>> >> >>>> in
>> >> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>> >> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be
>> >> >>> unlikely
>> >> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
>> >> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>> >> >> Unlike
>> >> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
>> >> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>> >> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>> >> > people.
>>
>> >> Change the record Doug.
>>
>> > OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> > experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>> > with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>>
>> No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the
>> car
>> will stop.
>>
>> Happy now?
>>
> Don't you think it is about time you read the link at the start of
> this thread before posting any more of your nonsense?
>
So that's another "Bugger I've been caught out again" is it Doug?

[[email protected]]

On 24 May 2010 09:01:48 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>> The other thing to consider is the major difference between dedicated
>>> embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due to user error,
>>> primarily in the installation (often unintentional) of poor-quality
>>> software. With embedded systems, that's not an option - when did your
>>> washing machine, fridge or freeview box last crash?
>
>> Freeview boxes quite often.
>
>Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
>hardware issues.

Or its made by Humax.

B2003

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
> supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.

Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply to you?

Do you not understand the concept of FAIL SAFE?

A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
control.

It effectively doesn't crash either, it generally shuts down systems or
FAILS SAFE when erratic external sensor readings are read ... it lowers
power output or throttle position and limits speed to a FAIL SAFE
level. The driver is never "no longer in control" ... NEVER.

Even if power fails completely there are mechanical systems that work
at a pre-set low power/speed level as a FAIL SAFE.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 11:27, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
> > supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
>
> Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply to you?
>
Did you not read the linked quote which opened this thread?
>
> Do you not understand the concept of FAIL SAFE?
>
See above.
>
> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
> control.
>
How do you know? Source?
>
> It effectively doesn't crash either, it generally shuts down systems or
> FAILS SAFE when erratic external sensor readings are read ... it lowers
> power output or throttle position and limits speed to a FAIL SAFE
> level. *The driver is never "no longer in control" ... NEVER.
>
See above.
>
> Even if power fails completely there are mechanical systems that work
> at a pre-set low power/speed level as a FAIL SAFE.
>
Source?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
>> control.

> How do you know? Source?

Because it's a requirement of type approval that the systems must "fail
safe" - there must be a purely physical/mechanical connection that
ensures that the vehicle can still be steered, and there must be two
separate hydraulic circuits that ensure that the vehicle can still be
braked.

Even if the vehicle's battery fell out of the bottom, you could still
steer and brake.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 24 May, 11:27, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
> > > supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
> >
> > Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply to
> > you?
> >
> Did you not read the linked quote which opened this thread?

Of course, that was about an experiment, devoid from the actual reality
of road driving .. you're erroniously applying what was found
experimentally to actual driving which simply doesn't work.

> > Do you not understand the concept of FAIL SAFE?
> >
> See above.
> >
> > A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
> > control.
> >
> How do you know? Source?

Regulations .. they're not allowed to. There has to be a direct
mechanical/physical link between the driver and steering and at least
two separate hydraulic systems for braking. As has been said the
elctrice could fail totally and the driver still has control over
steering and slowing down.

> > It effectively doesn't crash either, it generally shuts down
> > systems or FAILS SAFE when erratic external sensor readings are
> > read ... it lowers power output or throttle position and limits
> > speed to a FAIL SAFE level. *The driver is never "no longer in
> > control" ... NEVER.
> >
> See above.
> >
> > Even if power fails completely there are mechanical systems that
> > work at a pre-set low power/speed level as a FAIL SAFE.
> >
> Source?

To coin a phrase, see above.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 10:01, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> The other thing to consider is the major difference between dedicated
> >> embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due to user error,
> >> primarily in the installation (often unintentional) of poor-quality
> >> software. With embedded systems, that's not an option - when did your
> >> washing machine, fridge or freeview box last crash?
> > Freeview boxes quite often.
>
> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
> hardware issues.
>
Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box
it doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.
>
> > I don't waste energy with a washing machine
>
> Hands up who's surprised? <looks around> Nope, don't see any hands.
>
> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled.
>
> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.
>
No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not
a computer. I take it yours is much more lavish and therefore less
environmentally friendly.
>
> > Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power supply
> > faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
>
> No, leaving the driver with a mechanical fail-safe.
>
You wish. In case you hadn't noticed yet, or didn't want to notice
more likely, some Toyota faults have been attributed to car computer
problems.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 11:37, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
> >> control.
> > How do you know? Source?
>
> Because it's a requirement of type approval that the systems must "fail
> safe" - there must be a purely physical/mechanical connection that
> ensures that the vehicle can still be steered, and there must be two
> separate hydraulic circuits that ensure that the vehicle can still be
> braked.
>
Again, source?
>
> Even if the vehicle's battery fell out of the bottom, you could still
> steer and brake.
>
Source?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >> The other thing to consider is the major difference between
>> >> dedicated embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due
>> >> to user error, primarily in the installation (often unintentional)
>> >> of poor-quality software. With embedded systems, that's not an
>> >> option - when did your washing machine, fridge or freeview box last
>> >> crash?

>> > Freeview boxes quite often.

>> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
>> hardware issues.

> Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
> never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box it
> doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.

Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different standards
of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a 10-20yr service
life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of cheap consumer tat.

Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on the
hard shoulder.

>> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled.

>> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.

> No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not a
> computer.

Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics.

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
>> >> control.

>> > How do you know? Source?

>> Because it's a requirement of type approval that the systems must "fail
>> safe" - there must be a purely physical/mechanical connection that
>> ensures that the vehicle can still be steered, and there must be two
>> separate hydraulic circuits that ensure that the vehicle can still be
>> braked.

> Again, source?

>> Even if the vehicle's battery fell out of the bottom, you could still
>> steer and brake.

> Source?

Construction & Use regs. They're not online in their entirety, though.

[Man at B&Q]

On May 23, 6:06*pm, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Ian Dalziel" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Sun, 23 May 2010 17:00:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"Doug" > wrote in message
> ....
> >>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
> >>>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> >>>> ...
>
> >>>> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
> >>>> >>>> Conor > wrote:
> >>>> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
> >>>> >>>>>>> vulnerable
> >>>> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
> >>>> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
> >>>> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large
> >>>> >>>> stick
> >>>> >>>> in
> >>>> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
> >>>> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be
> >>>> >>> unlikely
> >>>> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
> >>>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
> >>>> >> Unlike
> >>>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>
> >>>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> >>>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> >>>> > people.
>
> >>>> * Change the record Doug.
>
> >>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> >>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
> >>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
> >>No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the
> >>car
> >>will stop.
>
> >>Happy now?
>
> > But what about the etc?
>
> "There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are
> known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't
> know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we
> don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information
> together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the
> situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And
> each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. "
>
> With thanks to D Rumsfeld, former *US Secretary of Defencehttp://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm

He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not, That He Knows Not, is A Fool - shun
Him.
He Who Knows Not, And Knows That, He Knows Not, is a child - Teach
Him.
He Who Knows, But Knows Not, That He Knows, Is Asleep - Awake Him,
He Who Knows, And Knows That, He Knows, Is Wise - Follow Him.

MBQ

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
"Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not, That He Knows Not, is A Fool - shun
>Him.
>He Who Knows Not, And Knows That, He Knows Not, is a child - Teach
>Him.
>

[bod]

wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
> "Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>> He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not, That He Knows Not, is A Fool - shun
>> Him.
>> He Who Knows Not, And Knows That, He Knows Not, is a child - Teach
>> Him.
>>
>

Are you referring to Filth?

Bod

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
"Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not, That He Knows Not, is A Fool - shun
>Him.
>He Who Knows Not, And Knows That, He Knows Not, is a child - Teach
>Him.
>He Who Knows, But Knows Not, That He Knows, Is Asleep - Awake Him,
>He Who Knows, And Knows That, He Knows, Is Wise - Follow Him.

He Who Knows Knots, And Knows Spats, He Knows, Is A Cobbler - Now Pay Him

Now wheres my coat...

B2003

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might
>> happen with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>
> I fail to see where you're taking this ... A computer crash doesn't
> normally harm anyone and is a completely different system to a car
> computer.
>
> A (car) computer fails safe so also doesn't normally harm anyone as it
> closes power and speed down, it always fails safe. Indeed I know of
> no computers which control braking or the engine ECU, to the extent
> that they won't allow operation of the brakes and/or which speed a
> car up when they fail. Indeed, they always, and that is always, at
> all times, even under complete electrical failure such that the
> computer isn't even operating, fail safe.
>
> They don't not brake when they break, and they slow down or limit
> power when they crash .. ;)
>
> You appear (surprise, surprise) to have little clue of that which you
> speak.

mind you there are some cruise control systems that have gone wrong, giving
full power when you don't want any!! read up on the Ford Explorer, they had
an incredible range of faults, killed countless people, Ford paid out
fortunes in damages.

[Brimstone]

> wrote in message
...

> He Who Knows Knots, And Knows Spats, He Knows, Is A Cobbler - Now Pay Him
>
> Now wheres my coat...
>
Don't worry about it, there's already a taxi outside for you.

[Tony Dragon]

Adrian wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>> The other thing to consider is the major difference between dedicated
>>> embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due to user error,
>>> primarily in the installation (often unintentional) of poor-quality
>>> software. With embedded systems, that's not an option - when did your
>>> washing machine, fridge or freeview box last crash?
>
>> Freeview boxes quite often.
>
> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
> hardware issues.

A bit like Doug with both H/W & S/W issues.

>
>> I don't waste energy with a washing machine
>
> Hands up who's surprised? <looks around> Nope, don't see any hands.
>
>> and my little fridge is not computer controlled.
>
> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.
>
>> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power supply
>> faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
>
> No, leaving the driver with a mechanical fail-safe.


--
Tony Dragon

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:

> Paul - xxx wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
> > > experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might
> > > happen with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
> >
> > I fail to see where you're taking this ... A computer crash doesn't
> > normally harm anyone and is a completely different system to a car
> > computer.
> >
> > A (car) computer fails safe so also doesn't normally harm anyone as
> > it closes power and speed down, it always fails safe. Indeed I
> > know of no computers which control braking or the engine ECU, to
> > the extent that they won't allow operation of the brakes and/or
> > which speed a car up when they fail. Indeed, they always, and that
> > is always, at all times, even under complete electrical failure
> > such that the computer isn't even operating, fail safe.
> >
> > They don't not brake when they break, and they slow down or limit
> > power when they crash .. ;)
> >
> > You appear (surprise, surprise) to have little clue of that which
> > you speak.
>
> mind you there are some cruise control systems that have gone wrong,
> giving full power when you don't want any!! read up on the Ford
> Explorer, they had an incredible range of faults, killed countless
> people, Ford paid out fortunes in damages.

'Ford Exploder'

Unfortunately for Doug, nothing to do with computers .. ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Tony Dragon]

Adrian wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>>> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
>>>>> control.
>
>>>> How do you know? Source?
>
>>> Because it's a requirement of type approval that the systems must "fail
>>> safe" - there must be a purely physical/mechanical connection that
>>> ensures that the vehicle can still be steered, and there must be two
>>> separate hydraulic circuits that ensure that the vehicle can still be
>>> braked.
>
>> Again, source?
>
>>> Even if the vehicle's battery fell out of the bottom, you could still
>>> steer and brake.
>
>> Source?
>
> Construction & Use regs. They're not online in their entirety, though.

Doug is not familiar with those regs, his e-bike does not comply.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 11:27, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
>>> supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
>> Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply to you?
>>
> Did you not read the linked quote which opened this thread?

Did you not read any of the followups?

>> Do you not understand the concept of FAIL SAFE?
>>
> See above.
>> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
>> control.
>>
> How do you know? Source?
>> It effectively doesn't crash either, it generally shuts down systems or
>> FAILS SAFE when erratic external sensor readings are read ... it lowers
>> power output or throttle position and limits speed to a FAIL SAFE
>> level. The driver is never "no longer in control" ... NEVER.
>>
> See above.
>> Even if power fails completely there are mechanical systems that work
>> at a pre-set low power/speed level as a FAIL SAFE.
>>
> Source?
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 11:37, Adrian > wrote:
>> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>> A car computer doesn't fail or crash and leave the driver with no
>>>> control.
>>> How do you know? Source?
>>
>> Because it's a requirement of type approval that the systems must
>> "fail safe" - there must be a purely physical/mechanical connection
>> that ensures that the vehicle can still be steered, and there must
>> be two separate hydraulic circuits that ensure that the vehicle can
>> still be braked.
>>
> Again, source?
>>
>> Even if the vehicle's battery fell out of the bottom, you could still
>> steer and brake.
>>
> Source?

Getting desperate now.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Marie]

On May 21, 7:35*am, webreader > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> > cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> > mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> > "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> > to attack, say experts.
>
> > An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> > "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> > The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> > brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> > readings.
>
> > Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> > attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> > "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> > binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> > Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
> standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
> vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>
> This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
> port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>
> WSR

Found these quotes at http://www.physorg.com/wire-news/35299025/experimental-security-analysis-of-a-modern-car.html

"how much resilience a conventional automobile has against a digital
attack mounted against its internal components by an attacker with
access to the car's internal network. "

"Should car owners be concerned?

We believe that car owners today should not be overly concerned at
this time. It requires significant sophistication to develop the
capabilities described in our paper and we are unaware of any
attackers who are even targeting automobiles at this time."

WSR

[Adrian]

Marie > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. "

^^^^ the important bit.

An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to
cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. Just
slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 11:50, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> >> The other thing to consider is the major difference between
> >> >> dedicated embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due
> >> >> to user error, primarily in the installation (often unintentional)
> >> >> of poor-quality software. With embedded systems, that's not an
> >> >> option - when did your washing machine, fridge or freeview box last
> >> >> crash?
> >> > Freeview boxes quite often.
> >> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
> >> hardware issues.
> > Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
> > never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box it
> > doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.
>
> Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different standards
> of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a 10-20yr service
> life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of cheap consumer tat.
>
> Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on the
> hard shoulder.
>
Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy
traffic with no brakes and no engine? Or, coast to a stop to remain in
the fast lane in heavy traffic? Glad it will never happen to me.
>
> >> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled.
> >> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.
> > No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not a
> > computer.
>
> Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics.
>
What for? It only needs the thermostat to switch the motor on and off?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 18:34, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 24 May, 11:27, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
> >>> supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
> >> Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply to you?
>
> > Did you not read the linked quote which opened this thread?
>
> Did you not read any of the followups?
>
There were no follow up sources posted. I am still waiting for one. In
case you didn't bother to read it, or have forgotten it already, my
source clearly says...

"...The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off
the
brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
readings..."

So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
malfunctions.

Why have you no source that says otherwise but you are still arguing
to the contrary?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 22:12, Marie > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:35*am, webreader > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> > > cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> > > mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> > > "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> > > to attack, say experts.
>
> > > An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> > > "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> > > The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> > > brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> > > readings.
>
> > > Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> > > attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> > > "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> > > binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> > > Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> > > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> > > --
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> > "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
> > standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
> > vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>
> > This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
> > port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>
> > WSR
>
> Found these quotes athttp://www.physorg.com/wire-news/35299025/experimental-security-analy...
>
> "how much resilience a conventional automobile has against a digital
> attack mounted against its internal components by an attacker with
> access to the car's internal network. "
>
> "Should car owners be concerned?
>
> We believe that car owners today should not be overly concerned at
> this time. It requires significant sophistication to develop the
> capabilities described in our paper and we are unaware of any
> attackers who are even targeting automobiles at this time."
>
Strange that you left out the paragraph that followed that one...

"...However, we do believe that our work should be read as a wake-up
call. While today's car owners should not be alarmed, we believe that
it is time to focus squarely on addressing potential automotive
security issues to ensure that future cars — with ever more
sophisticated computer control and broader wireless connectivity —
will be able to offer commensurately strong security guarantees as
well..."

A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.

Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
risk. Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
the motorists who post here.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 22:14, Adrian > wrote:
> Marie > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> > by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. "
>
> ^^^^ the important bit.
>
> An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to
> cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. Just
> slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance.
>
You are still missing the point then? This is not about people
sabotaging cars it is about the fragility of car computers, as
demonstrated by the researchers, and the potential danger it
represents when it controls engine and brakes.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 24 May, 18:34, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 24 May, 11:27, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > >> Doug wrote:
> > >>> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
> > >>> supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
> > >> Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply
> > to you?
> >
> > > Did you not read the linked quote which opened this thread?
> >
> > Did you not read any of the followups?
> >
> There were no follow up sources posted. I am still waiting for one. In
> case you didn't bother to read it, or have forgotten it already, my
> source clearly says...
>
> "...The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off
> the
> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> readings..."
>
> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
> malfunctions.
>
> Why have you no source that says otherwise but you are still arguing
> to the contrary?

"This represents an opportunity to head off a problem before it starts,"

So, not a problem now then ... but we ought to be thinking about it ...
as many of us have been saying. You appear to think it's a problem now.

As I've advocated (on Landrover forums) for a long time, we ought to be
doing away with a lot of electrical and computer control in vehicles
(Landrovers) and going back to simplicity, reliability and the ability
to repair ourselves.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
> malfunctions.

No Doug, only when it is interfered with by an external computer which has
been plugged in to the car's system.

> Why have you no source that says otherwise but you are still arguing
> to the contrary?
>
Perhaps it would be better if you learnt to understand your own sources.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 18:34, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 24 May, 11:27, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, embeded might still malfunction due to hardware or power
>>>>> supply faults, etc., leaving the driver no longer in control.
>>>> Why do you never read what people actually say when they reply to you?
>>> Did you not read the linked quote which opened this thread?
>> Did you not read any of the followups?
>>
> There were no follow up sources posted. I am still waiting for one. In
> case you didn't bother to read it, or have forgotten it already, my
> source clearly says...
>
> "...The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off
> the
> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> readings..."
>
> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
> malfunctions.
>
> Why have you no source that says otherwise but you are still arguing
> to the contrary?
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

And there were followups to all of those quotes, as you well know.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 22:14, Adrian > wrote:
>> Marie > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>> by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. "
>> ^^^^ the important bit.
>>
>> An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to
>> cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. Just
>> slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance.
>>
> You are still missing the point then? This is not about people
> sabotaging cars it is about the fragility of car computers, as
> demonstrated by the researchers, and the potential danger it
> represents when it controls engine and brakes.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No, the article was about hacking into the cars computer & altering
various systems, you decided to ignore the fact that they had access to
the admin port, & in the article there was no explanation of what they
did, only results, e.g. how did the computer turn off the brakes?

--
Tony Dragon

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. "

>> ^^^^ the important bit.
>>
>> An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to
>> cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments.
>> Just slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance.

> You are still missing the point then?

One of us is. It ain't me.

> This is not about people sabotaging cars

That's _precisely_ what the article you originally posted is about.

> it is about the fragility of car computers, as demonstrated by the
> researchers

The fragility in what context? Oh, yes - in the context of receiving an
attack from an attacker with a physical connection to the car's
electronics.

> and the potential danger it represents when it controls engine and
> brakes.

Despite the fact that you've been repeatedly told that that danger
doesn't really exist.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 22:12, Marie > wrote:
>> On May 21, 7:35 am, webreader > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 21, 7:17 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
>>>> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
>>>> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
>>>> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>>>> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
>>>> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
>>>> readings.
>>>> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
>>>> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>>>> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
>>>> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>>>> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>>>> More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>>>> --
>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>> "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as
>>> standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a
>>> vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work."
>>> This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms
>>> port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that?
>>> WSR
>> Found these quotes athttp://www.physorg.com/wire-news/35299025/experimental-security-analy...
>>
>> "how much resilience a conventional automobile has against a digital
>> attack mounted against its internal components by an attacker with
>> access to the car's internal network. "
>>
>> "Should car owners be concerned?
>>
>> We believe that car owners today should not be overly concerned at
>> this time. It requires significant sophistication to develop the
>> capabilities described in our paper and we are unaware of any
>> attackers who are even targeting automobiles at this time."
>>
> Strange that you left out the paragraph that followed that one...
>
> "...However, we do believe that our work should be read as a wake-up
> call. While today's car owners should not be alarmed, we believe that
> it is time to focus squarely on addressing potential automotive
> security issues to ensure that future cars — with ever more
> sophisticated computer control and broader wireless connectivity —
> will be able to offer commensurately strong security guarantees as
> well..."
>
> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
> I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
> working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>
> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
> risk. Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
> remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
> anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
> the motorists who post here.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>

To put it in simple terms, they have made claims, but not said how they
archived these claims

--
Tony Dragon

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
>> > never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box
>> > it doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.

>> Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different
>> standards of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a
>> 10-20yr service life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of
>> cheap consumer tat.
>>
>> Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on
>> the hard shoulder.

> Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy traffic
> with no brakes and no engine?

Yup.

It's really not that complicated.

>> >> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled.
>> >> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.

>> > No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not
>> > a computer.

>> Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics.

> What for? It only needs the thermostat to switch the motor on and off?

You don't have the first clue, do you?

[roger merriman]

Doug > wrote:

> On 24 May, 11:50, Adrian > wrote:
> > Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
> >
> > >> >> The other thing to consider is the major difference between
> > >> >> dedicated embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due
> > >> >> to user error, primarily in the installation (often unintentional)
> > >> >> of poor-quality software. With embedded systems, that's not an
> > >> >> option - when did your washing machine, fridge or freeview box last
> > >> >> crash?
> > >> > Freeview boxes quite often.
> > >> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
> > >> hardware issues.
> > > Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
> > > never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box it
> > > doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.
> >
> > Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different standards
> > of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a 10-20yr service
> > life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of cheap consumer tat.
> >
> > Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on the
> > hard shoulder.
> >
> Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy
> traffic with no brakes and no engine? Or, coast to a stop to remain in
> the fast lane in heavy traffic? Glad it will never happen to me.
> >
brakes still work, many years back had a car cut out on the outside
lane, we coasted over no worries, rest of traffic parted as fuel had
gone into the hot exaust, so was plainly clear that *something* had
happened.

as luck would have it, was with my cousan who was legally a child, all 6
foot + of him so we got piority and where fixed up in no time by the AA.

> > >> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled.
> > >> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.
> > > No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not a
> > > computer.
> >
> > Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics.
> >
> What for? It only needs the thermostat to switch the motor on and off?
>
becuase it's cheaper and more energy efficient to do so. dumb computors
surround us.

roger
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 May, 22:14, Adrian > wrote:
>> Marie > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>> > by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. "
>>
>> ^^^^ the important bit.
>>
>> An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to
>> cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. Just
>> slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance.
>>
> You are still missing the point then? This is not about people
> sabotaging cars it is about the fragility of car computers, as
> demonstrated by the researchers, and the potential danger it
> represents when it controls engine and brakes.
>
And those researchers found that if they plug a computer into the car's port
and play around with things that the cars ceases to function as designed.

Why is that such a surprise to you Doug?

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
> I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
> working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.

What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one on
your desk Doug?

> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
> risk.

Only when interfered with by an external computer.

> Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
> remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
> anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
> the motorists who post here.
>
It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you would
realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting excited.

The only result from this research for the future is that car designers need
to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those with evil
intent.

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message
>, Man
at B&Q > writes
>On May 23, 6:06*pm, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Ian Dalziel" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Sun, 23 May 2010 17:00:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>> >>>> Doug wrote:
>> >>>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> >>>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ...
>>
>> >>>> >>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>> >>>> >>>> Conor > wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>> >>>> >>>>>>> vulnerable
>> >>>> >>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>> >>>> >>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>> >>>> >>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large
>> >>>> >>>> stick
>> >>>> >>>> in
>> >>>> >>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>> >>>> >>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be
>> >>>> >>> unlikely
>> >>>> >>> to inure anyone but himself.
>> >>>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>> >>>> >> Unlike
>> >>>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
>> >>>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>> >>>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>> >>>> > people.
>>
>> >>>> * Change the record Doug.
>>
>> >>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> >>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>> >>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>>
>> >>No computer controls braking and if one controlling speed fails then the
>> >>car
>> >>will stop.
>>
>> >>Happy now?
>>
>> > But what about the etc?
>>
>> "There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are
>> known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't
>> know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we
>> don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information
>> together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the
>> situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And
>> each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. "
>>
>> With thanks to D Rumsfeld, former *US Secretary of
>>Defencehttp://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm
>
>He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not, That He Knows Not, is A Fool - shun
>Him.
>He Who Knows Not, And Knows That, He Knows Not, is a child - Teach
>Him.
>He Who Knows, But Knows Not, That He Knows, Is Asleep - Awake Him,
>He Who Knows, And Knows That, He Knows, Is Wise - Follow Him.
>
Too many commas! It should be:
He Who Knows Not, And Knows Not That He Knows Not, is A Fool - Shun Him.
He Who Knows Not, And Knows That He Knows Not, is a child - Teach Him.
He Who Knows, But Knows Not That He Knows, Is Asleep - Awake Him,
He Who Knows, And Knows That He Knows, Is Wise - Follow Him.
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message >, Tony Dragon
> writes
>Doug wrote:
>> On 23 May, 15:26, Bod > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>>>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
>>>>>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick in
>>>>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>>>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>>>>> to inure anyone but himself.
>>>>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike
>>>>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>>> people.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Change the record Doug.
>>>
>> OK how about getting back to the thread title? Have you ever
>> experienced a computer crash? If so, can you imagine what might happen
>> with a computer which controls speed and braking, etc?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>
>Feel free to tell me of a computer that controls braking.
>Feel free to tell me of a computer that controls braking & doesn't fail
>on the safe side?
>
The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail
safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't
realise that it had failed? Moderate levels of RF interference are
probably more likely to confuse a computer than to disable it.
--
Ian

[Adrian]

Ian Jackson > gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail
> safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't
> realise that it had failed?

In what way?

Regenerative light-braking on hybrids apart, there's really only three
ways in which computers affect the brakes on modern vehicles.

- ABS anti-lock. Are wheels locking under heavy braking? Yes? Release the
brakes and reapply. The signals are constantly monitored for "sense" by
the control unit, and if they do not fit expected results, the ABS is
disabled, leaving the brakes functioning as if no ABS were fitted.

- Emergency Brake Assist. Is the driver pressing the pedal very hard,
very suddenly? If so, then just slam full assistance to the brakes, and
let the ABS sort locking out. ABS not functioning? Then neither's EBA.
Brakes work as if no EBA was fitted.

- ESP stability control. Do the ABS sensors indicate that one or more
wheel is losing lateral grip? Yes? Then apply the brake lightly to regain
grip on that wheel. ABS not functioning? Then neither's ESP. Brakes work
as if no ESP was fitted.

And, in all of those cases, that means a direct hydraulic link between
foot and pedal. Same on a hybrid with regenerative braking. The only
difference is that - if the self-tests indicate that all is well - light
braking adds in regeneration of electrical charge, assuming charge is
required.

All of those systems are constantly self-testing, and will interpret any
anomaly as "shut down and get out of the way", with a fail-safe being
designed-in. Sure, you might have to press the pedal a bit harder, and
you might have to remember what to do if they lock - but that's a rather
fundamental driving skill that all drivers should be expected to
understand. It's why we still require wetware instead of leaving it to
hardware and software alone.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:03:07 +0100
Ian Jackson > wrote:
>The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail
>safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't
>realise that it had failed? Moderate levels of RF interference are
>probably more likely to confuse a computer than to disable it.

Doesn't even have to be computerised. If someone or something has messed
up the innards no "fail safe" system can be guaranteed to work as the
clapham rail crash demonstrated.

But the point is that (so far) computers don't have enough control of a car
to cause the driver to lose control unless they're stupid americans.

B2003

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message >, Adrian
> writes
>Ian Jackson > gurgled happily,
>sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail
>> safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't
>> realise that it had failed?
>
>In what way?
>
>Regenerative light-braking on hybrids apart, there's really only three
>ways in which computers affect the brakes on modern vehicles.
>
>- ABS anti-lock. Are wheels locking under heavy braking? Yes? Release the
>brakes and reapply. The signals are constantly monitored for "sense" by
>the control unit, and if they do not fit expected results, the ABS is
>disabled, leaving the brakes functioning as if no ABS were fitted.
>
>- Emergency Brake Assist. Is the driver pressing the pedal very hard,
>very suddenly? If so, then just slam full assistance to the brakes, and
>let the ABS sort locking out. ABS not functioning? Then neither's EBA.
>Brakes work as if no EBA was fitted.
>
>- ESP stability control. Do the ABS sensors indicate that one or more
>wheel is losing lateral grip? Yes? Then apply the brake lightly to regain
>grip on that wheel. ABS not functioning? Then neither's ESP. Brakes work
>as if no ESP was fitted.
>
>And, in all of those cases, that means a direct hydraulic link between
>foot and pedal. Same on a hybrid with regenerative braking. The only
>difference is that - if the self-tests indicate that all is well - light
>braking adds in regeneration of electrical charge, assuming charge is
>required.
>
>All of those systems are constantly self-testing, and will interpret any
>anomaly as "shut down and get out of the way", with a fail-safe being
>designed-in. Sure, you might have to press the pedal a bit harder, and
>you might have to remember what to do if they lock - but that's a rather
>fundamental driving skill that all drivers should be expected to
>understand. It's why we still require wetware instead of leaving it to
>hardware and software alone.

Oh, indeed. However, the ability of any system to perform correctly and
react appropriately in all circumstances does depend vitally on the
designers' ability to foresee all possible eventualities. Occasionally,
their foresight fails. If that were not the case, why have there been so
many updates with (just as an example) computer software?!!
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message >,
writes
>On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:03:07 +0100
>Ian Jackson > wrote:
>>The problem is, while a braking system might have been designed to fail
>>safe if the computer failed, what would happen if the computer didn't
>>realise that it had failed? Moderate levels of RF interference are
>>probably more likely to confuse a computer than to disable it.
>
>Doesn't even have to be computerised. If someone or something has messed
>up the innards no "fail safe" system can be guaranteed to work as the
>clapham rail crash demonstrated.
>
>But the point is that (so far) computers don't have enough control of a car
>to cause the driver to lose control unless they're stupid americans.
>
Quite. I still reckon that the best brakes I ever had were rod-operated,
on my old 1954 Ford Prefect. Of course, there was no fail-safe system,
but then, there was little to fail!
--
Ian

[Adrian]

Ian Jackson > gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

>>All of those systems are constantly self-testing, and will interpret any
>>anomaly as "shut down and get out of the way", with a fail-safe being
>>designed-in. Sure, you might have to press the pedal a bit harder, and
>>you might have to remember what to do if they lock - but that's a rather
>>fundamental driving skill that all drivers should be expected to
>>understand. It's why we still require wetware instead of leaving it to
>>hardware and software alone.

> Oh, indeed. However, the ability of any system to perform correctly and
> react appropriately in all circumstances does depend vitally on the
> designers' ability to foresee all possible eventualities.

Don't forget that there's a huge difference in complexity between (say) a
PC app and an embedded controller - both in terms of the range of
functionality and the scope of the environment it has to deal with.

The simplest - and by far and away most common is an ABS controller.
You've got a very finite range of valid inputs. Four wheel sensor
channels, with a narrow range of "correct" values on each. Add in an oil
pressure warning feed, so that the ABS is disabled when the engine's not
running, a brake light switch feed, so that it only does something when
the pedal's actually pressed, and that's about the extent of it.

> Occasionally, their foresight fails. If that were not the case, why
> have there been so many updates with (just as an example) computer
> software?!!

The vast majority of which, to embedded systems such as we're talking
about, are only minor calibration tweaks.

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message
>,
Doug > writes
>On 24 May, 11:50, Adrian > wrote:
>>


>> Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different standards
>> of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a 10-20yr service
>> life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of cheap consumer tat.
>>
>> Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on the
>> hard shoulder.
>>
>Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy
>traffic with no brakes and no engine? Or, coast to a stop to remain in
>the fast lane in heavy traffic? Glad it will never happen to me.

It did (sort of) happen to me when the car suddenly ran out of fuel with
no warning (duff gauge) - on the M40 north, just before the junction
with the M42. Fortunately, the traffic at that moment was light, and I
was able to coast unhindered across to hard shoulder, and roll to a
standstill at the next emergency telephone. If the traffic had been
heavy, t could have been a lot worse.
--
Ian

[[email protected]]

On 25 May 2010 10:08:51 GMT
Adrian > wrote:
>> Oh, indeed. However, the ability of any system to perform correctly and
>> react appropriately in all circumstances does depend vitally on the
>> designers' ability to foresee all possible eventualities.
>
>Don't forget that there's a huge difference in complexity between (say) a
>PC app and an embedded controller - both in terms of the range of
>functionality and the scope of the environment it has to deal with.

Depends on what controller. The embedded controllers in a train or an
aircraft will be running software a lot more complicated than your average
PC app. The control software on the Prius is probably pretty involved as
well I should imagine.

>The simplest - and by far and away most common is an ABS controller.
>You've got a very finite range of valid inputs. Four wheel sensor
>channels, with a narrow range of "correct" values on each. Add in an oil
>pressure warning feed, so that the ABS is disabled when the engine's not
>running, a brake light switch feed, so that it only does something when
>the pedal's actually pressed, and that's about the extent of it.

The software for ABS is probably not as simple as you seem think as it could
be getting difference speed readings from all 4 wheels and then has to decide
if thats because all the wheels are slipping at a different rate or because
he car is going around a corner and other situations along those lines.
Any sufficiently complex bit of software will have potential bugs and its
still just software running on a CPU even if its an embedded system.

B2003

[Adrian]

gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>Don't forget that there's a huge difference in complexity between (say)
>>a PC app and an embedded controller - both in terms of the range of
>>functionality and the scope of the environment it has to deal with.

> Depends on what controller. The embedded controllers in a train or an
> aircraft will be running software a lot more complicated than your
> average PC app. The control software on the Prius is probably pretty
> involved as well I should imagine.

No, still fairly straightforward. Think about the sheer range of
functionality required for even something simple like an OS running a web
browser - and the range of likely attack vectors and input sanitisation
required. Compare that to "Oh, look - that wheel's suddenly slowed down
much more than the others"

>>The simplest - and by far and away most common is an ABS controller.
>>You've got a very finite range of valid inputs. Four wheel sensor
>>channels, with a narrow range of "correct" values on each. Add in an oil
>>pressure warning feed, so that the ABS is disabled when the engine's not
>>running, a brake light switch feed, so that it only does something when
>>the pedal's actually pressed, and that's about the extent of it.

> The software for ABS is probably not as simple as you seem think as it
> could be getting difference speed readings from all 4 wheels and then
> has to decide if thats because all the wheels are slipping at a
> different rate or because he car is going around a corner and other
> situations along those lines.

All it's looking for is a sudden change in the deceleration rate of a
subset of wheels, relative to the others.

> Any sufficiently complex bit of software will have potential bugs and
> its still just software running on a CPU even if its an embedded system.

Of course.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Brimstone wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
>> I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
>> working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>
> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the
> one on your desk Doug?
>
>> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users
>> at risk.
>
> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>
>> Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
>> remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
>> anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
>> the motorists who post here.
>>
> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you
> would realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and
> getting excited.
> The only result from this research for the future is that car
> designers need to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered
> with by those with evil intent.

I worry far more about the nut behind the wheel (or the handlebars)

[Adrian]

"Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Brimstone wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
>>> I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
>>> working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>>
>> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one
>> on your desk Doug?
>>
>>> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>>> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
>>> risk.
>>
>> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>>
>>> Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way remains a
>>> moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to anyone who
>>> cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of the
>>> motorists who post here.
>>>
>> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you
>> would realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting
>> excited.
>> The only result from this research for the future is that car designers
>> need to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those
>> with evil intent.
>
> I worry far more about the nut behind the wheel (or the handlebars)

*ding*

Like the **** this morning. He came out of the access into farm units,
the other side of a wide verge, and pulled up to the edge of the road. He
paused, waited for two vehicles to pass him right-to-left, so he could
turn right - and pulled out.

Unfortunately, I was doing about 50-55 (NSL) in that same direction, and
only about 100yds away...

Something had made me think he might be about to do that, and since there
was nothing more oncoming, I just continued unabated and passed him - and
got a blast of his horn and gesticulations for my troubles. He pulls up
CLOSE behind me at the junction a bit further on, and starts to
gesticulate wildly at me...

I'd had clear sight of him pulling up to the edge of the road, waiting,
then pulling out for maybe four or five seconds. Did he just not look in
my direction, even briefly? Where's the acknowledgement of the cause of
the error?

[Man at B&Q]

On May 25, 11:38*am, wrote:
> On 25 May 2010 10:08:51 GMT
>
> Adrian > wrote:
> >> Oh, indeed. However, the ability of any system to perform correctly and
> >> react appropriately in all circumstances does depend vitally on the
> >> designers' ability to foresee all possible eventualities.
>
> >Don't forget that there's a huge difference in complexity between (say) a
> >PC app and an embedded controller - both in terms of the range of
> >functionality and the scope of the environment it has to deal with.
>
> Depends on what controller. The embedded controllers in a train or an
> aircraft will be running software a lot more complicated than your average
> PC app. The control software on the Prius is probably pretty involved as
> well I should imagine.

All of those examples are closed systems that are designed and tested
to very rigorous standards by people who know what they are doing.
look up things like "functional safety" "IEC61508" and "Safety
integrity Level" or "SIL", but don't expect to understand it straight
away if you are still at the stage of making statement such as the
above.

PCs are oppen system and is simply not possible with current OS and
software models to prove any real degree of reliability.

MBQ

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 04:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>> PC app. The control software on the Prius is probably pretty involved as
>> well I should imagine.
>
>All of those examples are closed systems that are designed and tested
>to very rigorous standards by people who know what they are doing.
>look up things like "functional safety" "IEC61508" and "Safety
>integrity Level" or "SIL", but don't expect to understand it straight
>away if you are still at the stage of making statement such as the
>above.

Yes, thanks for the heads up, but I work in software development and I've
written realtime systems so don't try and tell me my job. Unless some
software has been formally proved which is VERY time consuming and expensive to
do and VERY rare then there will almost always be some bugs lurking somewhere
that only come to light in exceptional and unexpected combination or sequence
of events.

>PCs are oppen system and is simply not possible with current OS and
>software models to prove any real degree of reliability.

Rubbish. There are many PCs running Linux and other versions of Unix which
have been running 24/7 for literally years as back end servers. If you're
alluding to that pile of poorly designed poorly written ****e called Windows
then yes , all bets are off.

B2003

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Adrian wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>
> ...
>>>
>>>> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned
>>>> maybe? I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a
>>>> computer working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the
>>> one on your desk Doug?
>>>
>>>> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>>>> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road
>>>> users at risk.
>>>
>>> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>>>
>>>> Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way remains
>>>> a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to anyone
>>>> who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of the
>>>> motorists who post here.
>>>>
>>> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you
>>> would realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and
>>> getting excited.
>>> The only result from this research for the future is that car
>>> designers need to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered
>>> with by those with evil intent.
>>
>> I worry far more about the nut behind the wheel (or the handlebars)
>
> *ding*
>
> Like the **** this morning. He came out of the access into farm units,
> the other side of a wide verge, and pulled up to the edge of the
> road. He paused, waited for two vehicles to pass him right-to-left,
> so he could turn right - and pulled out.
>
> Unfortunately, I was doing about 50-55 (NSL) in that same direction,
> and only about 100yds away...
>
> Something had made me think he might be about to do that, and since
> there was nothing more oncoming, I just continued unabated and passed
> him - and got a blast of his horn and gesticulations for my troubles.
> He pulls up CLOSE behind me at the junction a bit further on, and
> starts to gesticulate wildly at me...
>
> I'd had clear sight of him pulling up to the edge of the road,
> waiting, then pulling out for maybe four or five seconds. Did he just
> not look in my direction, even briefly? Where's the acknowledgement
> of the cause of the error?

you 'must' have seen him, therefore he took that as his right to pull out,
like the dingbat in a lorry that decided to turn right in front of me
earlier, I was the only car heading toward him, nothing behind me at all, so
he just swerves across the road in front of me, I kept going and he had to
slam on the brakes. Pity, I was going to have a nice easy claim there,
witnesses on the pavement, everything.

[Man at B&Q]

On May 25, 1:07*pm, wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 04:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
> "Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>
> >> PC app. The control software on the Prius is probably pretty involved as
> >> well I should imagine.
>
> >All of those examples are closed systems that are designed and tested
> >to very rigorous standards by people who know what they are doing.
> >look up things like "functional safety" "IEC61508" and "Safety
> >integrity Level" or "SIL", but don't expect to understand it straight
> >away if you are still at the stage of making statement such as the
> >above.
>
> Yes, thanks for the heads up, but I work in software development and

Then you only have one viewpoint. Designing safety critical systems is
as much about the hardware and *system* design than it is about
software. Again. don't expect to understand if you can't grasp that
point.

I've
> written realtime systems so don't try and tell me my job. Unless some
> software has been formally proved which is VERY time consuming and expensive to
> do and VERY rare then there will almost always be some bugs lurking somewhere
> that only come to light in exceptional and unexpected combination or sequence
> of events.

The *system* is designed to fail safe in that eventuality.

> >PCs are oppen system and is simply not possible with current OS and
> >software models to prove any real degree of reliability.
>
> Rubbish. There are many PCs running Linux and other versions of Unix which
> have been running 24/7 for literally years as back end servers. If you're
> alluding to that pile of poorly designed poorly written ****e called Windows
> then yes , all bets are off.

Again, closed systems, probably in a secure environment, dedicated to
one specific task, much like the automotive systems we are talking
about in that respect. Pretty much proves my point that a general
purpopse PC (whatever OS) is open to having all kinds of 3rd party
hardware and software added to it.

MBQ

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 06:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
"Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>> Yes, thanks for the heads up, but I work in software development and
>
>Then you only have one viewpoint. Designing safety critical systems is
>as much about the hardware and *system* design than it is about
>software. Again. don't expect to understand if you can't grasp that
>point.

The hardware will generally be stock microcontrollers probably running
an ARM core which is a proven design. The peripheral circuitry will obviously
be bespoke for a given task but the software will be a lot more complicated
than any of the hardware.

>> written realtime systems so don't try and tell me my job. Unless some
>> software has been formally proved which is VERY time consuming and expens=
>ive to
>> do and VERY rare then there will almost always be some bugs lurking somew=
>here
>> that only come to light in exceptional and unexpected combination or sequ=
>ence
>> of events.
>
>The *system* is designed to fail safe in that eventuality.

Tell that to the people who died in the air france crash. Whatever fail safe
there was for when the pitot tubes ****ed up clearly didn't work or didn't
even exist.

Fail safes are only as good as the people who designed them are smart.

B2003

[Brimstone]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
>>> I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
>>> working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>>
>> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the
>> one on your desk Doug?
>>
>>> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>>> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users
>>> at risk.
>>
>> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>>
>>> Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
>>> remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
>>> anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
>>> the motorists who post here.
>>>
>> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you
>> would realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and
>> getting excited.
>> The only result from this research for the future is that car
>> designers need to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered
>> with by those with evil intent.
>
> I worry far more about the nut behind the wheel (or the handlebars)
Indeed, a factor which passes Doug by, unless he chooses to collide with it,
which he seems to do more often than anyone else.

[Brimstone]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> Like the **** this morning. He came out of the access into farm units,
> the other side of a wide verge, and pulled up to the edge of the road. He
> paused, waited for two vehicles to pass him right-to-left, so he could
> turn right - and pulled out.
>
> Unfortunately, I was doing about 50-55 (NSL) in that same direction, and
> only about 100yds away...
>
> Something had made me think he might be about to do that, and since there
> was nothing more oncoming, I just continued unabated and passed him - and
> got a blast of his horn and gesticulations for my troubles. He pulls up
> CLOSE behind me at the junction a bit further on, and starts to
> gesticulate wildly at me...
>
> I'd had clear sight of him pulling up to the edge of the road, waiting,
> then pulling out for maybe four or five seconds. Did he just not look in
> my direction, even briefly? Where's the acknowledgement of the cause of
> the error?

An amusing tale told to me by a civil servant type chap who had been
stationed in Cyprus and who used the local bus to get to work.

One particular morning the bus was late. As it was heading along the road
the driver slammed the brakes on and leant on the horn. Everyone looked out
to see what was going on and heard the exchange of pleasantries between the
driver and the farmer leading his donkey and cart across the road.

Roughly translated the exchange went something like:-

Driver; What the **** do you think your doing?
Farmer; I've been crossing at this time every morning for the last thirty
years. Where the **** have you been?

I suspect your man also pulled out at that time every morning and now thinks
he's got the god given right to do it without looking for oncoming traffic.

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message >,
writes
>On Tue, 25 May 2010 06:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
>"Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>>> Yes, thanks for the heads up, but I work in software development and
>>
>>Then you only have one viewpoint. Designing safety critical systems is
>>as much about the hardware and *system* design than it is about
>>software. Again. don't expect to understand if you can't grasp that
>>point.
>
>The hardware will generally be stock microcontrollers probably running
>an ARM core which is a proven design. The peripheral circuitry will obviously
>be bespoke for a given task but the software will be a lot more complicated
>than any of the hardware.
>
>>> written realtime systems so don't try and tell me my job. Unless some
>>> software has been formally proved which is VERY time consuming and expens=
>>ive to
>>> do and VERY rare then there will almost always be some bugs lurking somew=
>>here
>>> that only come to light in exceptional and unexpected combination or sequ=
>>ence
>>> of events.
>>
>>The *system* is designed to fail safe in that eventuality.
>
>Tell that to the people who died in the air france crash. Whatever fail safe
>there was for when the pitot tubes ****ed up clearly didn't work or didn't
>even exist.
>
>Fail safes are only as good as the people who designed them are smart.
>
And one of the absolute essentials is for the fail-safe system to 'know'
that it has failed. If (for whatever reason) it is fooled into believing
that it is still working OK, it won't default to the fail-safe mode. It
may therefore continue happily working in a dangerous mode.
--
Ian

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 May, 11:50, Adrian > wrote:
>> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>>>> The other thing to consider is the major difference between
>>>>>> dedicated embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash
>>>>>> due to user error, primarily in the installation (often
>>>>>> unintentional) of poor-quality software. With embedded systems,
>>>>>> that's not an option - when did your washing machine, fridge or
>>>>>> freeview box last crash?
>>>>> Freeview boxes quite often.
>>>> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing
>>>> hardware issues.
>>> Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
>>> never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview
>>> box it doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.
>>
>> Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different
>> standards of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a
>> 10-20yr service life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit
>> of cheap consumer tat.
>>
>> Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely
>> on the hard shoulder.
>>
> Despite being in the fast lane


Please can you read the Highway Code, there is no such thing as a 'fast
lane' .

Hundreds, possibly thousands of cars on UK roads run out of fuel every day
and manage to coast to a halt on the hard shoulder. Even with the engine
stopped the brakes still work, as does the steering, as does the indicators,
lights etc.

Just think Doug, your chain might suddenly jump off the sprockets and lock
the wheel hurling you into a bus queue, or your spokes break, or any one of
a million things CAN happen, but that is life, you can't legislate away
every possibility, you can plan sensibly and drive sensibly. Lets face it,
people drop dead walking on the street, should they be forced to stay
indoors , just in case?

[cupra]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>> > Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You
>>> > never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box
>>> > it doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway.
>
>>> Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different
>>> standards of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a
>>> 10-20yr service life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of
>>> cheap consumer tat.
>>>
>>> Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on
>>> the hard shoulder.
>
>> Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy traffic
>> with no brakes and no engine?
>
> Yup.
>
> It's really not that complicated.
>
>>> >> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled.
>>> >> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient.
>
>>> > No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not
>>> > a computer.
>
>>> Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics.
>
>> What for? It only needs the thermostat to switch the motor on and off?
>
> You don't have the first clue, do you?

lol... points Doug to "PI loop"....

[cupra]

"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
>> malfunctions.
>
> No Doug, only when it is interfered with by an external computer which has
> been plugged in to the car's system.

Could happen... only today on the M5 someone pulled alongside me and tried
to hurl a comms cable though my closed window - lord only knows what could
have happened if he'd hit the port!

[Halmyre]

In article >, says...
>
>
> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Doug" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
> >> malfunctions.
> >
> > No Doug, only when it is interfered with by an external computer which has
> > been plugged in to the car's system.
>
> Could happen... only today on the M5 someone pulled alongside me and tried
> to hurl a comms cable though my closed window - lord only knows what could
> have happened if he'd hit the port!
>

It might have spilled it. Do you serve it with Stilton?

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.

[cupra]

"Halmyre" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Doug" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
>> >> malfunctions.
>> >
>> > No Doug, only when it is interfered with by an external computer which
>> > has
>> > been plugged in to the car's system.
>>
>> Could happen... only today on the M5 someone pulled alongside me and
>> tried
>> to hurl a comms cable though my closed window - lord only knows what
>> could
>> have happened if he'd hit the port!
>>
>
> It might have spilled it. Do you serve it with Stilton?

Port, on the M5? Manners dear boy!

[Doug[_3_]]

On 25 May, 08:17, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
> > I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
> > working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>
> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one on
> your desk Doug?
>
Its not the same. The one on my desk is not a threat to my life and
the lives of others as is a car computer.
>
> > Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
> > cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
> > risk.
>
> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>
How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by
dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?
>
> > Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
> > remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
> > anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
> > the motorists who post here.
>
> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you would
> realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting excited.
>
> The only result from this research for the future is that car designers need
> to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those with evil
> intent.
>
Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 25 May, 08:17, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
>>> I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
>>> working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one on
>> your desk Doug?
>>
> Its not the same. The one on my desk is not a threat to my life and
> the lives of others as is a car computer.
>>> Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>>> cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
>>> risk.
>> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>>
> How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by
> dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?
>>> Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
>>> remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
>>> anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
>>> the motorists who post here.
>> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you would
>> realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting excited.
>>
>> The only result from this research for the future is that car designers need
>> to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those with evil
>> intent.
>>
> Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
> in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
> when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

Sighhhh, oh dear.

--
Tony Dragon

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>> > cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users
>> > at risk.

>> Only when interfered with by an external computer.

> How do you know that for sure? Source?

The article you posted at the start of the thread.

> How about interfered with by dampness or cold or heat or corrosion,
> vibration, etc?

Specifically designed for it.

> Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable in
> all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even when
> operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.

Specifically designed and tested for it.

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 May, 08:17, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe?
>> > I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer
>> > working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime.
>>
>> What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one on
>> your desk Doug?
>>
> Its not the same.

> I'm glad we sorted that one out.

> The one on my desk is not a threat to my life and
> the lives of others as is a car computer.

Another stupid comment Doug?

>> > Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can
>> > cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at
>> > risk.
>>
>> Only when interfered with by an external computer.
>>
> How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by
> dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?

Because the designers and engineers go to great lengths the ensure that the
device is insulated from those factors.

>> > Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way
>> > remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to
>> > anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of
>> > the motorists who post here.
>>
>> It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you would
>> realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting
>> excited.
>>
>> The only result from this research for the future is that car designers
>> need
>> to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those with
>> evil
>> intent.
>>
> Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
> in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
> when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.
>
The evidence says that they have.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
> in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
> when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.

You have a source for that statement?

I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake ...
other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an unusual
setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'. Perhaps you know
otherwise ?

I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of car
computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents directly
caused by the car computer removing control from the driver that your
conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic conditions over a time
period of several years, even when operated on a daily basis" has been
proven true already. Perhaps you know otherwise?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 00:01:26 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:

>The sooner they can be remotely accessed the better.

the OP was talking crap
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message >, Paul - xxx
> writes
>Doug wrote:
>
>> Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
>> in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
>> when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.
>
>You have a source for that statement?
>
>I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
>malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake ...
>other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an unusual
>setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'. Perhaps you know
>otherwise ?
>
>I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of car
>computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents directly
>caused by the car computer removing control from the driver that your
>conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic conditions over a time
>period of several years, even when operated on a daily basis" has been
>proven true already. Perhaps you know otherwise?
>
I had an 04-reg 'New Astra' which, according to the handbook, was rated
for in-car transmitters of up to 10W, on any frequency.

In previous cars, I had used 30W on 145MHz and 40W on 29MHz. What would
have happened if I had used these powers in the Astra?
--
Ian

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On 25 May 2010 09:11:49 GMT, Adrian > wrote:

>- Emergency Brake Assist. Is the driver pressing the pedal very hard,
>very suddenly? If so, then just slam full assistance to the brakes, and
>let the ABS sort locking out. ABS not functioning? Then neither's EBA.
>Brakes work as if no EBA was fitted.

I am pretty sure I had this fail in a hire car. I got in and drove a
few yards to pick up luggage etc and was surprised how quickly it
stopped. Then drove 50 yards to exit, put foot gently on brakes again
and it just stopped dead in a full emergency stop and the next hire
car behind drove right into the back of me. They changed the car
without a word and no charges came through so I assume they knew it
was defective, great!
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message >, Paul - xxx
> > writes
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100%
> > > reliable in all climatic conditions over a time period of several
> > > years, even when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to
> > > you is impossible.
> >
> > You have a source for that statement?
> >
> > I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
> > malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake
> > ... other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an
> > unusual setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'.
> > Perhaps you know otherwise ?
> >
> > I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of
> > car computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents
> > directly caused by the car computer removing control from the
> > driver that your conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic
> > conditions over a time period of several years, even when operated
> > on a daily basis" has been proven true already. Perhaps you know
> > otherwise?
> >
> I had an 04-reg 'New Astra' which, according to the handbook, was
> rated for in-car transmitters of up to 10W, on any frequency.
>
> In previous cars, I had used 30W on 145MHz and 40W on 29MHz. What
> would have happened if I had used these powers in the Astra?

I don't know. ;)

I assume that if the transmitter caused any problems the system would
fail safe. I can't recall any vehicles having been caused to crash by
transmitters, can you? I assume you aren't the only one operating
higher power transmitters so it isn't likely to be an unheard of
scenario. I used to run 100w CB stuff in my younger days and they
never caused cars to crash either ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>
>> >> Conor > wrote:
>> >> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>> >> >>> vulnerable
>> >> >>> to attack, say experts.
>>
>> >> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>
>> >> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
>> >> in
>> >> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>
>> > Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>> > to inure anyone but himself.
>>
>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>> Unlike
>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> people.

No, they are accidents. To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider
deliberately crashed. You are heading down the road of slander and will be
prosecuted if you start quoting particular cases and accusing drivers or
riders of deliberately crashing a vehicle. Most car *accidents* don't injure
anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike most bicycle accidents where
people tend to injure hands and knees.

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
On 21 May, 09:54, Conor > wrote:
> On 21/05/2010 07:35, webreader wrote:> On May 21, 7:17 am,
> > wrote:
> >> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> >> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> >> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> But you wanted them to be more environmentally friendly, Doug.
>
> BTW, where are the mandatory safety tests for bicycles? I've seen
> ****loads out with knackered brakes, bald tyres and no lights at night.
> It was so bad, a Police Force carried out a sting operation.
>

Doug forgot to indent:
"If a bicycle is defective it is ore than likely that the cyclist will
be killed or injured"

Precisely why bikes should be subject to the same rigourous annual safety
tests as cars. The riders of these killing machines should also be made to
pass a legal test, proving their knowledge of the highway code, before they
are allowed on our highways.

[Ian Jackson[_2_]]

In message >, Paul - xxx
> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In message >, Paul - xxx
>> > writes
>> > Doug wrote:
>> >
>> > > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100%
>> > > reliable in all climatic conditions over a time period of several
>> > > years, even when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to
>> > > you is impossible.
>> >
>> > You have a source for that statement?
>> >
>> > I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
>> > malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake
>> > ... other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an
>> > unusual setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'.
>> > Perhaps you know otherwise ?
>> >
>> > I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of
>> > car computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents
>> > directly caused by the car computer removing control from the
>> > driver that your conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic
>> > conditions over a time period of several years, even when operated
>> > on a daily basis" has been proven true already. Perhaps you know
>> > otherwise?
>> >
>> I had an 04-reg 'New Astra' which, according to the handbook, was
>> rated for in-car transmitters of up to 10W, on any frequency.
>>
>> In previous cars, I had used 30W on 145MHz and 40W on 29MHz. What
>> would have happened if I had used these powers in the Astra?
>
>I don't know. ;)
>
>I assume that if the transmitter caused any problems the system would
>fail safe.

What's 'fail-safe'? Might it include disabling the fuel supply?
Disabling the power-assistance for the brakes?

> I can't recall any vehicles having been caused to crash by
>transmitters, can you?

No. But there's always a first time.

> I assume you aren't the only one operating
>higher power transmitters so it isn't likely to be an unheard of
>scenario. I used to run 100w CB stuff in my younger days

Ooh! You naughty boy!

> and they
>never caused cars to crash either ...
>
In one of my earlier cars (a Focus), I recall that one of the
transmitters did affect the electrics. It caused the left indicator
(when selected) to wink at three times the normal speed.
--
Ian

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:17:13 +0100, "GT" > wrote:

>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>> people.
>
>No, they are accidents. To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider
>deliberately crashed.

I'm afraid anti car people often have a problem with English. They
wish to change the meaning of "accident" from "unintentional event"
because they wrongly think "accident" implies lack of blame.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[GT]

"ChelseaTractorMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:17:13 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>
>>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>> people.
>>
>>No, they are accidents. To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider
>>deliberately crashed.
>
> I'm afraid anti car people often have a problem with English. They
> wish to change the meaning of "accident" from "unintentional event"
> because they wrongly think "accident" implies lack of blame.

The ones that spam off topic posts in here seem to have a problem with
English... logic... facts... etc etc.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message >, Paul - xxx
> > writes
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > In message >, Paul - xxx
> > writes
> >>> Doug wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100%
> >>> > reliable in all climatic conditions over a time period of
> several >>> > years, even when operated on a daily basis, which I
> suggest to >>> > you is impossible.
> > > >
> >>> You have a source for that statement?
> > > >
> >>> I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
> >>> malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake
> >>> ... other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an
> >>> unusual setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'.
> >>> Perhaps you know otherwise ?
> > > >
> >>> I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of
> >>> car computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents
> >>> directly caused by the car computer removing control from the
> >>> driver that your conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic
> >>> conditions over a time period of several years, even when operated
> >>> on a daily basis" has been proven true already. Perhaps you know
> >>> otherwise?
> > > >
> > > I had an 04-reg 'New Astra' which, according to the handbook, was
> > > rated for in-car transmitters of up to 10W, on any frequency.
> > >
> > > In previous cars, I had used 30W on 145MHz and 40W on 29MHz. What
> > > would have happened if I had used these powers in the Astra?
> >
> > I don't know. ;)
> >
> > I assume that if the transmitter caused any problems the system
> > would fail safe.
>
> What's 'fail-safe'? Might it include disabling the fuel supply?

I don't know of any 'car computers' that disable the fuel supply, but
they do put it into a 'limp home' mode, so you're not left stranded.
Power and engine speed are limited to such an extent that you're
unlikely to get much more than 20mph out of a vehicle in such a state.

> Disabling the power-assistance for the brakes?

Possibly, but that isn't necessary unless the ABS malfunctions, but all
that means is it needs a firmer press of the pedal.

> > I can't recall any vehicles having been caused to crash by
> > transmitters, can you?
>
> No. But there's always a first time.
>
> > I assume you aren't the only one operating
> > higher power transmitters so it isn't likely to be an unheard of
> > scenario. I used to run 100w CB stuff in my younger days
>
> Ooh! You naughty boy!
>
> > and they
> > never caused cars to crash either ...
> >
> In one of my earlier cars (a Focus), I recall that one of the
> transmitters did affect the electrics. It caused the left indicator
> (when selected) to wink at three times the normal speed.

LOL, hardly the catastrophies envisaged by Doug ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Adrian]

"Paul - xxx" > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> What's 'fail-safe'? Might it include disabling the fuel supply?

> I don't know of any 'car computers' that disable the fuel supply

If engine management/injection was badly enough affected, it certainly
would completely disable fuel supply.

>> Disabling the power-assistance for the brakes?

> Possibly, but that isn't necessary unless the ABS malfunctions

Again, if the engine stopped, any assistance for the brakes would cease.

> but all that means is it needs a firmer press of the pedal.

Indeed.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Adrian wrote:

> "Paul - xxx" > gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
> >> What's 'fail-safe'? Might it include disabling the fuel supply?
>
> > I don't know of any 'car computers' that disable the fuel supply
>
> If engine management/injection was badly enough affected, it
> certainly would completely disable fuel supply.

Stands to reason I guess .. ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Halmyre]

In article >, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)
uk> says...
> Halmyre > considered Tue, 25 May 2010 20:19:24
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >In article >, says...
> >>
> >>
> >> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Doug" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >> So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer
> >> >> malfunctions.
> >> >
> >> > No Doug, only when it is interfered with by an external computer which has
> >> > been plugged in to the car's system.
> >>
> >> Could happen... only today on the M5 someone pulled alongside me and tried
> >> to hurl a comms cable though my closed window - lord only knows what could
> >> have happened if he'd hit the port!
> >>
> >
> >It might have spilled it. Do you serve it with Stilton?
>
> Don't be silly.
> Stilton is on the A1(M).
>

It must be terribly slippery.

(Noel Coward eat your heart out)

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 26 May, 09:34, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
> > in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
> > when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.
>
> You have a source for that statement?
>
See below. Do you have any sources for your assertions?
>
> I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
> malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake ...
> other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an unusual
> setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'. *Perhaps you know
> otherwise ?
>
Yes indeed I do...

"Tokyo, Japan (CNN) -- Without issuing a recall of its iconic Prius
hybrid vehicles, Toyota said Thursday a software glitch is to blame
for braking problems in the 2010 model..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/04/japan.prius.complaints/index.html

Oh dear! Even Toyota admits that a software glitch can occur. That
tends to give the lie to those motorists here who are vigorously
trying to defend car computers, for obvious reasons, and would try to
maintain that they are 100% reliable at all times and in all
conditions. And of course, that doesn't begin to address the
reliability of the firmware and hardware.
>
> I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of car
> computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents directly
> caused by the car computer removing control from the driver that your
> conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic conditions over a time
> period of several years, even when operated on a daily basis" has been
> proven true already. *Perhaps you know otherwise?
>
See above and weep. Of course, given the number of car computers in
use and their susceptibility to glitches alone I wonder how many
people have been killed world-wide by car computer failures which were
not properly investigated? Due no doubt that motorists world-wide are
in constant denial that their cars are inherently unsafe and dangerous
for those reasons..

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 26 May, 10:12, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In message >, Paul - xxx
> > > writes
> > > Doug wrote:
>
> > > > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100%
> > > > reliable in all climatic conditions over a time period of several
> > > > years, even when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to
> > > > you is impossible.
>
> > > You have a source for that statement?
>
> > > I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
> > > malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake
> > > ... *other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an
> > > unusual setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'.
> > > Perhaps you know otherwise ?
>
> > > I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of
> > > car computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents
> > > directly caused by the car computer removing control from the
> > > driver that your conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic
> > > conditions over a time period of several years, even when operated
> > > on a daily basis" has been proven true already. *Perhaps you know
> > > otherwise?
>
> > I had an 04-reg 'New Astra' which, according to the handbook, was
> > rated for in-car transmitters of up to 10W, on any frequency.
>
> > In previous cars, I had used 30W on 145MHz and 40W on 29MHz. What
> > would have happened if I had used these powers in the Astra?
>
> I don't know. *;)
>
> I assume that if the transmitter caused any problems the system would
> fail safe. *I can't recall any vehicles having been caused to crash by
> transmitters, can you?
>
Anecdotal and therefore worthless. When are you going to come up with
sourced evidence that car computers are 100% reliable under all
conditions?
>
> *I assume you aren't the only one operating
> higher power transmitters so it isn't likely to be an unheard of
> scenario. *I used to run 100w CB stuff in my younger days and they
> never caused cars to crash either ...
>
They probably didn't have car computers then.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 26 May, 10:17, "GT" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>
> >> >> Conor > wrote:
> >> >> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
> >> >> >>> vulnerable
> >> >> >>> to attack, say experts.
>
> >> >> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>
> >> >> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
> >> >> in
> >> >> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>
> >> > Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
> >> > to inure anyone but himself.
>
> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
> >> Unlike
> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>
> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
> > people.
>
> No, they are accidents.
>
You are asserting that they are NOT crashes? Explain.
>
> To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider
> deliberately crashed.
>
Wrong. It implies that the driver either lost control or that their
vehicle was in some way faulty.
>
> You are heading down the road of slander and will be
> prosecuted if you start quoting particular cases and accusing drivers or
> riders of deliberately crashing a vehicle.
>
See above.
>
> Most car *accidents* don't injure
> anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike most bicycle accidents where
> people tend to injure hands and knees.
>
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision

"...As the factors involved in collisions have become better
understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term
"accident," as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event
and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the
crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of
vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the
contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper
signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency
by a third or more.[4] That is why these organizations prefer the
term "collision" rather than "accident"...

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 May, 10:12, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > In message >, Paul - xxx
>> > > writes
>> > > Doug wrote:
>>
>> > > > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100%
>> > > > reliable in all climatic conditions over a time period of several
>> > > > years, even when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to
>> > > > you is impossible.
>>
>> > > You have a source for that statement?
>>
>> > > I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
>> > > malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake
>> > > ... other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an
>> > > unusual setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'.
>> > > Perhaps you know otherwise ?
>>
>> > > I suggest that given the number of cars on the road, the number of
>> > > car computers in those cars and the number of reported accidents
>> > > directly caused by the car computer removing control from the
>> > > driver that your conditions of "100% reliable in all climatic
>> > > conditions over a time period of several years, even when operated
>> > > on a daily basis" has been proven true already. Perhaps you know
>> > > otherwise?
>>
>> > I had an 04-reg 'New Astra' which, according to the handbook, was
>> > rated for in-car transmitters of up to 10W, on any frequency.
>>
>> > In previous cars, I had used 30W on 145MHz and 40W on 29MHz. What
>> > would have happened if I had used these powers in the Astra?
>>
>> I don't know. ;)
>>
>> I assume that if the transmitter caused any problems the system would
>> fail safe. I can't recall any vehicles having been caused to crash by
>> transmitters, can you?
>>
> Anecdotal and therefore worthless. When are you going to come up with
> sourced evidence that car computers are 100% reliable under all
> conditions?

Try looking around you when you go out Doug. All those vehicles under about
twenty years old have a computer built in and they're all in good working
order.

>> I assume you aren't the only one operating
>> higher power transmitters so it isn't likely to be an unheard of
>> scenario. I used to run 100w CB stuff in my younger days and they
>> never caused cars to crash either ...
>>
> They probably didn't have car computers then.
>
So you don't know?

[Man at B&Q]

On May 21, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
> Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> to attack, say experts.
>
> An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> readings.
>
> Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Here's the full link for those who prefer not to have it filtered by
BBC journos or Duhg.

http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

On May 27, 8:35*am, "Man at B&Q" > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:17*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put
> > cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to
> > mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles?
>
> > "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable
> > to attack, say experts.
>
> > An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be
> > "fragile" and easily subverted.
>
> > The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the
> > brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false
> > readings.
>
> > Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious
> > attackers to reproduce their work..."
>
> > "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of
> > binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..."
>
> > Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch?
>
> > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> Here's the full link for those who prefer not to have it filtered by
> BBC journos or Duhg.
>
> http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf
>
> MBQ

Just read this bit, quoted here especially for Duhg

"In reflecting on our overall experiences, we observe that
while automotive components are clearly and explicitly designed
to safely tolerate *failures* — responding appropriately
when components are prevented from communicating — it
seems clear that tolerating *attacks* has not been part of the
same design criteria."

So there we have it. Vehicle system are fault tolerant *by design* as
meny have pointed out. Malicious and determined attacks are a very
different kettle of fish.

MBQ

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 00:41:21 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
> wrote:

>Malicious and determined attacks are a very
>different kettle of fish.

so do not connect you car to the internet
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 26 May, 10:17, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>>>>> Conor > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>>>>>>>>> vulnerable
>>>>>>>>> to attack, say experts.
>>>>>>> And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>>>>> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>>>> Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>>>>> to inure anyone but himself.
>>>> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>>>> Unlike
>>>> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>>> people.
>> No, they are accidents.
>>
> You are asserting that they are NOT crashes? Explain.

Very simple, crashes can be accidental.

>> To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider
>> deliberately crashed.
>>
> Wrong. It implies that the driver either lost control

On purpose?

Dou you remember this thread
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.misc/msg/54cd3a81a5db3065

> or that their
> vehicle was in some way faulty.
>> You are heading down the road of slander and will be
>> prosecuted if you start quoting particular cases and accusing drivers or
>> riders of deliberately crashing a vehicle.
>>
> See above.
>> Most car *accidents* don't injure
>> anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike most bicycle accidents where
>> people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
> 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.

& several don't

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision
>
> "...As the factors involved in collisions have become better
> understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term
> "accident," as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event
> and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the
> crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of
> vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the
> contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper
> signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency
> by a third or more.[4] That is why these organizations prefer the
> term "collision" rather than "accident"...
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 00:41:21 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
> > wrote:
>
>> Malicious and determined attacks are a very
>> different kettle of fish.
>
> so do not connect you car to the internet

Over the weekend I am installing a lockable cover over the cars admin
port & I will be fitting a Faraday cage around the computer.
I have also reported to the police, that I have noticed a man in the
station car park with one of these
http://www.b2btrade.biz/images2/img4b3c1556ecde2.jpg

--
Tony Dragon

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 May, 10:17, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" > wrote:
>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On 21 May, 09:59, wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100
>>
>> >> >> Conor > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very
>> >> >> >>> vulnerable
>> >> >> >>> to attack, say experts.
>>
>> >> >> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug?
>>
>> >> >> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large
>> >> >> stick
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug!
>>
>> >> > Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely
>> >> > to inure anyone but himself.
>>
>> >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps.
>> >> Unlike
>> >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
>> > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes
>> > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore
>> > people.
>>
>> No, they are accidents.
>>
> You are asserting that they are NOT crashes? Explain.
>>
>> To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider
>> deliberately crashed.
>>
> Wrong. It implies that the driver either lost control or that their
> vehicle was in some way faulty.
>>
>> You are heading down the road of slander and will be
>> prosecuted if you start quoting particular cases and accusing drivers or
>> riders of deliberately crashing a vehicle.
>>
> See above.
>>
>> Most car *accidents* don't injure
>> anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike most bicycle accidents where
>> people tend to injure hands and knees.
>>
> As I said, the word 'accidents' is a euphemism

No, the word accident is not a euphemism. A euphemism is the substitution of
one word for another. However, using the word crash or collision *is* a
problem as it does not tell the whole truth.

Oxford English Dictionary:
Accident: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs
unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss
Collision: the act of colliding; a coming violently into contact

The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
mistake or unforeseen event. Using the word accident in this context is not
a substitution for another word as you say, but is the correct word to
describe the unintentional incident or event. The word collision or crash
simply describes an event and is incomplete as a description of the
collision between two vehicles. If you insist on using the word crash or
collision, then you are going to have to insert the word 'accidental' before
them! To use 'crash' or 'collision' without implying intent is to
deliberately avoid acknowledging blame or lack of blame and therefore
implies that someone is to blame or has deliberately caused the crash. Most
car 'impacts' are accidents - very few of them are deliberate collisions.

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
On 26 May, 09:34, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Wrong again. They must ensure that their computers are 100% reliable
> > in all climatic conditions over a time period of several years, even
> > when operated on a daily basis, which I suggest to you is impossible.
>
> I know of no time when a 'car computer' has caused a crash or
> malfunctioned such that the driver couldn't either steer or brake ...
> other than in the laboratory as described, which is such an unusual
> setup that it couldn't be replicated 'in real life'. Perhaps you know
> otherwise ?
>

Doug still didn't work out how to correct post:
"Yes indeed I do...

"Tokyo, Japan (CNN) -- Without issuing a recall of its iconic Prius
hybrid vehicles, Toyota said Thursday a software glitch is to blame
for braking problems in the 2010 model..."
"


Well, we had better get all cars off the roads then. The last 15+ years of
cars driving millions and millions of miles without a software failure must
have been a dream. I have done almost 90,000 miles in my car and it is full
of computers, firmware and software - I can't understand why I'm not dead I
must get rid of that ticking time bomb immediately. Perhaps I could drive it
into doug's house. Anyone got his address - I'll put it into my satnav and
cross my fingers that the satnav doesn't disable my brakes.



I just pray that no one jumps into my moving vehicle en-route and rips the
rubber lining off my handbrake cover and then plugs his expensive specialist
cable from his laptop into the rs232 port and fires up his expensive and
bespoke software programme, written specifically for my model, age, firmware
version and make of car in order to override my odometer reading. That would
just be carnage.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:

>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
>mistake or unforeseen event.

No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
form "who in your opinion was to blame?".

"Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.

You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
penalised.

Manslaughter is killing somebody
Murder is premeditated manslaughter
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:59:34 +0100, Tony Dragon
> wrote:

>Over the weekend I am installing a lockable cover over the cars admin
>port & I will be fitting a Faraday cage around the computer.
>I have also reported to the police, that I have noticed a man in the
>station car park with one of these
>http://www.b2btrade.biz/images2/img4b3c1556ecde2.jpg

yes, if you find your passengers plugging black boxes into your
engine, politely ask them why. Especially if marked "suicide brake
over-rider".
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:21:01 +0100, ChelseaTractorMan
> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>
>>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
>>mistake or unforeseen event.
>
>No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
>form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
>
>"Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
>
>You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
>pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
>driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
>observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
>penalised.
>
>Manslaughter is killing somebody
>Murder is premeditated manslaughter
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[GT]

"ChelseaTractorMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>
>>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
>>mistake or unforeseen event.
>
> No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
> form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
>
> "Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
>
> You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
> pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
> driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
> observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
> penalised.

Fair point and I agree. So 'accident' is the correct word to describe the
vast majority of all road collisions.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 13:14:10 +0100, "GT" > wrote:

>Fair point and I agree. So 'accident' is the correct word to describe the
>vast majority of all road collisions.

Yes, 99.9%.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:

> ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 00:41:21 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Malicious and determined attacks are a very
> > > different kettle of fish.
> >
> > so do not connect you car to the internet
>
> Over the weekend I am installing a lockable cover over the cars admin
> port & I will be fitting a Faraday cage around the computer. I have
> also reported to the police, that I have noticed a man in the station
> car park with one of these
> http://www.b2btrade.biz/images2/img4b3c1556ecde2.jpg

That's me OK then .. my Landrover doesn't have an ECU, but if it were
to have one, you'd need a specific 'box' to plug into it .. generic
boxes don't work well .. ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Thu, 27 May
> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>
> >>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
> >>mistake or unforeseen event.
>
> >No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
> >form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
>
> >"Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
>
> >You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
> >pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
> >driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
> >observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
> >penalised.
>
> >Manslaughter is killing somebody
> >Murder is premeditated manslaughter
>
> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict
> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road
> safety circles.
> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
> them.
> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.
>
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.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

"Doug" > 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 usage of the term 'collision' rather than 'accident' by the emergency
services has nothing to do with your fantasies. They stopped using the term
'accident' because smart ass lawyers would claim that the emergency services
had deem the incident an accident and therefore their client could not be
blamed.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

"Doug" > 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.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Thu, 27 May
>> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>>>> The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
>>>> mistake or unforeseen event.
>>> No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
>>> form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
>>> "Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
>>> You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
>>> pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
>>> driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
>>> observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
>>> penalised.
>>> Manslaughter is killing somebody
>>> Murder is premeditated manslaughter
>> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict
>> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road
>> safety circles.
>> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
>> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
>> them.
>> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.
>>
> 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.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

By the same reasoning a cyclist can not have an accident, as he has made
a decision to use the bike.

--
Tony Dragon

[DavidR[_2_]]

"Doug" > wrote
>>
> How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by
> dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?

Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or corrosion,
vibration, etc.

That would be a good old fashioned mechanical problem.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Doug" > 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.

The point here is that the use of computers increases their danger.
Even Toyota has admitted that they can be susceptible to glitches.
>
> The usage of the term 'collision' rather than 'accident' by the emergency
> services has nothing to do with your fantasies. *They stopped using the term
> 'accident' because smart ass lawyers would claim that the emergency services
> had deem the incident an accident and therefore their client could not be
> blamed.
>
So you admit that the euphemistic term 'accident' tends to absolve
from blame whereas the more neutral 'collision' or 'crash' does not?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 27 May, 18:09, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> >> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Thu, 27 May
> >> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
> >>>> The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
> >>>> mistake or unforeseen event.
> >>> No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
> >>> form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
> >>> "Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
> >>> You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
> >>> pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
> >>> driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
> >>> observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
> >>> penalised.
> >>> Manslaughter is killing somebody
> >>> Murder is premeditated manslaughter
> >> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict
> >> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road
> >> safety circles.
> >> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
> >> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
> >> them.
> >> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.
>
> > 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.
>
>
> By the same reasoning a cyclist can not have an accident, as he has made
> a decision to use the bike.
>
I agree. A cyclist who kills is no better than a motorist who kills
except that cyclists do it much less often and therefore are much less
of a threat to others.

So lets finally dispense with the euphemistic word 'accident' shall
we?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 27 May, 20:25, "DavidR" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote
>
>
>
> > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with by
> > dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?
>
> Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or corrosion,
> vibration, etc.
>
> That would be a good old fashioned *mechanical problem.
>
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.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely. You're absolutely correct. There ought to be laws to
control it and minimise the risk.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 27 May, 20:25, "DavidR" > wrote:
> > "Doug" > wrote
> >
> >
> >
> > > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with
> > > by dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?
> >
> > Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or corrosion,
> > vibration, etc.
> >
> > That would be a good old fashioned *mechanical problem.
> >
> 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.

All software has glitches, it's how they're handled that's at issue ..
and in cars the computer or system fails safe.

Stupid people who panic can have different reactions and negate this by
simply doing the wrong thing.

That's not the cars or computers fault, that's human.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

> 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?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 28 May, 07:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 27 May, 20:25, "DavidR" > wrote:
> > > "Doug" > wrote
>
> > > > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered with
> > > > by dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?
>
> > > Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or corrosion,
> > > vibration, etc.
>
> > > That would be a good old fashioned *mechanical problem.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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. Do you have an authoritative source that
claims that car computers are 100% fail-safe under all conditions?
>
> Stupid people who panic can have different reactions and negate this by
> simply doing the wrong thing.
>
> That's not the cars or computers fault, that's human.
>
They are all potentially at fault and dangerous, as thousands of
deaths and serious injuries every year prove.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > 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.

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > 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?

[Adrian]

Doug > 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.

[bod]

Adrian wrote:
> Doug > 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

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 28 May, 07:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 27 May, 20:25, "DavidR" > wrote:
> > > > "Doug" > wrote
> >
> > > > > How do you know that for sure? Source? How about interfered
> > > > > with by dampness or cold or heat or corrosion, vibration, etc?
> >
> > > > Software isn't susceptible to dampness or cold or heat or
> > > > corrosion, vibration, etc.
> >
> > > > That would be a good old fashioned *mechanical problem.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.

The braking issues at Toyota are so minor that they are, in actual
fact, hardly worth mentioning other than it's so rare that it's a
newsworthy item. They don't lose any braking power .. it's an issue
that affected the operation of the ABS system and is more to do with an
external sensor reading than a problem with the actual computer, as I
understand it.

> Do you have an authoritative source that
> claims that car computers are 100% fail-safe under all conditions?

Nope, it's a bit like breathing.

It's going on now, has been for many years. Rather than me prove it's
safe, can you cite any instance where a car computer caused injury or
death, as your original claim?

> > Stupid people who panic can have different reactions and negate
> > this by simply doing the wrong thing.
> >
> > That's not the cars or computers fault, that's human.
> >
> They are all potentially at fault and dangerous, as thousands of
> deaths and serious injuries every year prove.

A bit like our lungs then?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> 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 already have .. my 4x4 is now used mostly off-road, only using the
road for shorter journeys and to get to off-road places ... ;)

The car that replaced it as my main transport, you'll be pleased to
hear, has a lot of computers in it. I can say truthfully that I feel
entirely safe and in control when driving it and don't give a care to
the computers that control braking or the engine, or the lights or
windows or Air con et al. I know they're as reliable as they've ever
been.

It is, incidentally, slightly longer and just about the same width as
my 4x4, so actually takes up more road space, even though it's
considerably lower in height. Doesn't tow the caravan quite as well,
but it's good enough.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[ChelseaTractorMan]

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.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:31:21 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
>and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
>them.
>Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.

"totally foreseeable" - bull****. They are all accidents, those that
make up new meanings for words to promote their agenda just make
themselves look like nutters.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:05:14 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>They stopped using the term
>'accident' because smart ass lawyers would claim that the emergency services
>had deem the incident an accident and therefore their client could not be
>blamed.

since when did accidents avoid blame?
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[bod]

ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:31:21 +0100, Phil W Lee
> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
>> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
>> them.
>> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.
>
> "totally foreseeable" - bull****. They are all accidents, those that
> make up new meanings for words to promote their agenda just make
> themselves look like nutters.
>
>

Agreed. The same is true with our emergency services, when, instead of
referring to an accident as an 'RTA' (Road Traffic Accident), it's RTC
now. Whoever makes these things up, are a strange bunch.

Bod

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:47:47 +0100, bod >
wrote:

> The same is true with our emergency services, when, instead of
> referring to an accident as an 'RTA' (Road Traffic Accident), it's RTC
>now. Whoever makes these things up, are a strange bunch.

sadly they caved in, it seems.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[FrengaX]

On May 28, 6:29*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>
>
>
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Doug" > 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.
>
> The point here is that the use of computers increases their danger.
> Even Toyota has admitted that they can be susceptible to glitches.
>
> > The usage of the term 'collision' rather than 'accident' by the emergency
> > services has nothing to do with your fantasies. *They stopped using the term
> > 'accident' because smart ass lawyers would claim that the emergency services
> > had deem the incident an accident and therefore their client could not be
> > blamed.
>
> So you admit that the euphemistic term 'accident' tends to absolve
> from blame whereas the more neutral 'collision' or 'crash' does not?

You seem to have forgotten what the definition of "accident" is.
Someone who, by a moment of distraction or inattention, or whose foot
slips, never set out deliberately to crash into something. So, it's an
accident when they don't spot the car approaching and pull out into
its path. There may still be blame to be apportioned, but it was in no
way a delibrate, premedited action.

Why is it that you, a person who throws around the word "semantics" so
often, now gets all hung up of the semantics between the words
"accident" and "collision"? Could it be that you are an utter
hypocrite?

[ChelseaTractorMan]

>> So you admit that the euphemistic term 'accident' tends to absolve
>> from blame

it isn't a euphemism.
It does not absolve from blame.
RTAs are hardly ever intentional.
If all people drove at all times in perfect accordance with the law
and to the best of their abilities there would still be accidents.

Those that think all accidents are avoidable are fanatical idiots.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:47:47 +0100, bod >
wrote:

>Whoever makes these things up, are a strange bunch.

I wonder what they will rename "Accident and Emergency" when the
newspeakers get their way and accident only means blameless. What a
load of total bolox. How do you know at the time if blame is
appropriate? The US gun lobby talk a similar load of nonsense about
"dangerous" they misrepresent it as only being possible of sentient
beings in order to avoid guns being seen as something we should
control for safety. Once you start distorting because it suits your
current objective you never know when it will turn round and bite you.

objects can be "dangerous"
"accident" does not imply blameless.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 27 May, 18:09, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>>> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Thu, 27 May
>>>> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>>>>>> The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a
>>>>>> mistake or unforeseen event.
>>>>> No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
>>>>> form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
>>>>> "Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
>>>>> You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
>>>>> pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
>>>>> driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
>>>>> observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
>>>>> penalised.
>>>>> Manslaughter is killing somebody
>>>>> Murder is premeditated manslaughter
>>>> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict
>>>> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road
>>>> safety circles.
>>>> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
>>>> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
>>>> them.
>>>> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.
>>> 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.
>>
>> By the same reasoning a cyclist can not have an accident, as he has made
>> a decision to use the bike.
>>
> I agree. A cyclist who kills is no better than a motorist who kills
> except that cyclists do it much less often and therefore are much less
> of a threat to others.
>
> So lets finally dispense with the euphemistic word 'accident' shall
> we?
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

No, because I know what the word means.

--
Tony Dragon

[Marie]

On May 28, 8:09*am, bod > wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > Doug > 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

You pay that much tax, get yourself a caravan, a pickup truck & call
yourself a travveler.

Marie

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> 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.

You mean like the computers that run some of these safety measures.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> 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 already have .. my 4x4 is now used mostly off-road, only using the
> road for shorter journeys and to get to off-road places ... ;)
>
> The car that replaced it as my main transport, you'll be pleased to
> hear, has a lot of computers in it. I can say truthfully that I feel
> entirely safe and in control when driving it and don't give a care to
> the computers that control braking or the engine, or the lights or
> windows or Air con et al. I know they're as reliable as they've ever
> been.
>
> It is, incidentally, slightly longer and just about the same width as
> my 4x4, so actually takes up more road space, even though it's
> considerably lower in height. Doesn't tow the caravan quite as well,
> but it's good enough.
>


4x4
off road
main transport
computers
air con
longer(=bigger)
driving
road space
towing

All those words in one post, Doug will have to report to the Collision &
Emergency unit at his local hospital after reading that.

--
Tony Dragon

[bod]

Marie wrote:
> On May 28, 8:09 am, bod > wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> Doug > 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
>
> You pay that much tax, get yourself a caravan, a pickup truck & call
> yourself a travveler.
>
> Marie
>
>

Good idea, know any good fields I can pull on to?

Bod

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:

> Paul - xxx wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > 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 already have .. my 4x4 is now used mostly off-road, only using the
> > road for shorter journeys and to get to off-road places ... ;)
> >
> > The car that replaced it as my main transport, you'll be pleased to
> > hear, has a lot of computers in it. I can say truthfully that I
> > feel entirely safe and in control when driving it and don't give a
> > care to the computers that control braking or the engine, or the
> > lights or windows or Air con et al. I know they're as reliable as
> > they've ever been.
> >
> > It is, incidentally, slightly longer and just about the same width
> > as my 4x4, so actually takes up more road space, even though it's
> > considerably lower in height. Doesn't tow the caravan quite as
> > well, but it's good enough.
> >
>
>
> 4x4
> off road
> main transport
> computers
> air con
> longer(=bigger)
> driving
> road space
> towing
>
> All those words in one post, Doug will have to report to the
> Collision & Emergency unit at his local hospital after reading that.

We can dream ...

It could also, acc. to Doug, be Crash & Emergency ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Thu, 27 May
>> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>> >On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" > wrote:
>>
>> >>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame -
>> >>a
>> >>mistake or unforeseen event.
>>
>> >No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim
>> >form "who in your opinion was to blame?".
>>
>> >"Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*.
>>
>> >You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a
>> >pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say
>> >driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being
>> >observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are
>> >penalised.
>>
>> >Manslaughter is killing somebody
>> >Murder is premeditated manslaughter
>>
>> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict
>> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road
>> safety circles.
>> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable,
>> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to
>> them.
>> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident.
>>
> Even deciding to get behind the wheel of a dangerous machine and drive
> it at speed in pubic places is also no accident

No and anyone who gets behind the wheel of a dangerous machine should not be
allowed to drive it in public places at any speed. Cars are not in that
category though, so its not really a problem is it!

[GT]

"The Medway Handyman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug" > 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.

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Doug" > 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?

[Brimstone]

"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Doug" > 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>

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > 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!

[GT]

"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Doug" > 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"?

[Brimstone]

"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Doug" > 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.

[GT]

"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> "Doug" > 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...

[Brimstone]

"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" > 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.

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 1:30*pm, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "GT" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ....
> >>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> "Doug" > 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.

[GT]

"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Doug" > 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.

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 11:58*am, "GT" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > 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?

[Tony Dragon]

GT wrote:
> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Doug" > 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

[Adrian]

Tony Dragon > 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?

[Brimstone]

> wrote in message
...
> On May 28, 1:30 pm, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > "Brimstone" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>> >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> "Doug" > 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.

[FrengaX]

On May 28, 2:36*pm, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "GT" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> "Brimstone" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> On 27 May, 18:05, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> >>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Doug" > 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.

[webreader]

On May 28, 8:34*pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Fri, 28 May
> 2010 08:41:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:05:14 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> > wrote:
>
> >>They stopped using the term
> >>'accident' because smart ass lawyers would claim that the emergency services
> >>had deem the incident an accident and therefore their client could not be
> >>blamed.
>
> >since when did accidents avoid blame?
>
> Maybe you should look at the professional bodies who are responsible
> for researching such things, and the terminology they use.
>
> As a start, may I suggest a read of "Red for Danger" by LTC Rolt.

Would that be the origional 1955 version or the 1966 update?
A very good book about railway safety.
Here is a web site also about rail safety
http://www.raib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

It is the web site for "Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB)",
note the second word.

WSR

[GT]

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> ChelseaTractorMan > considered Fri, 28 May
> 2010 08:41:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:05:14 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:
>>
>>>They stopped using the term
>>>'accident' because smart ass lawyers would claim that the emergency
>>>services
>>>had deem the incident an accident and therefore their client could not be
>>>blamed.
>>
>>since when did accidents avoid blame?
>
> Maybe you should look at the professional bodies who are responsible
> for researching such things, and the terminology they use.

I think we are all happy with the dictionary for checking words definitions
thanks. Its only Doug who makes his own ones up!

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:34:28 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>>since when did accidents avoid blame?
>
>Maybe you should look at the professional bodies who are responsible
>for researching such things, and the terminology they use.
>
>As a start, may I suggest a read of "Red for Danger" by LTC Rolt.

I prefer the dictionary to axe grinders. I explained why its a bad
idea.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:36:03 +0100, "Brimstone"
> wrote:

>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.

so like my pet car hater. He had a minor accident to his knee with a
car doing a u turn, I suspect he was acting like a knob ("its my right
of way").
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:55:19 +0100, "Brimstone"
> wrote:

>That as well.

so why do you all bother with him?
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[ChelseaTractorMan]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:58:29 +0100, "GT" > wrote:

>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.

my pet car hater also refers to "car addicts", I assume its widely
used amongst such people. I'm afraid these people are beyond common
sense.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.

[Brimstone]

"ChelseaTractorMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:55:19 +0100, "Brimstone"
> > wrote:
>
>>That as well.
>
> so why do you all bother with him?
> --
Entertainment.