From my experience of driving a car with radar, the long range radar is very narrow beam. One of the close range radars might have picked it up, but it would probably have been too late by then. From the description of the accident, the car appears to have been travelling quite quickly.
IME, that would be very unlikely. It took a lot of careful design and a special coating to give the stealth fighter a low radar signature. False positives are more of a problem with car radar.
I'm not entirety sure how putting solar panes on house roofs destroys the countryside
I'm with you on the economics though
tim
That is, of course, why automatic cars do not rely upon just one system
- none are perfect by themselves. On the Mercedes S Class, for example, the primary long range detection system is radar, with the video system providing backup at closer ranges for things, like pedestrians or vehicles coming out of side roads, that don't show up on the radar. In this case, it appears that both systems missed the trailer.
I would expect that to be for bodywork, rather than chassis components. You need a bit of weight low down, to keep the centre of gravity of a loaded vehicle low.
;-)
Well ... what we do know is what happens when a member of the EU.
What we don't fully know is what will happen if we are not.
What those who seem to study such things for a living seem to be suggesting though is were doing fine (thanks) and leaving is unlikely to change most of the points people voted on for the better (as they would see it).
It seems we *might* be able to reach other markets but they may not want to reach out to us like they did when we were part of the EU. Whatever the case it will take *loads* of work over quite a few years using loads of people (and therefore cost, directly and indirectly) to arrange such deals.
It seems we might be able to 'better' (?) control immigration to some level but can't change the existing numbers and may need all of them anyway (to full fill the roles we can't or won't, to pay their taxes and fund our pensions).
We *will* have to unravel the EU law from the UK law (even thought the vast majority were created / sanctioned by us in the first place) and that will put an additional burden on our system.
Leaving will probably break up the UK so so much for us being a / the 'United Kingdom'.
The 'cost' of being in the EU is insignificant compared with the general costs of running of the country.
Now I've not yet seen anything from the Brexiteers that can actually counter any of the points those who seem to know what they are doing have said and I have roughly relayed above (and what many of us who were looking for facts all along guessed might be the case anyway).
So, out of the frying pan and into the fire?
'Most' people agreed (agree) they don't know what will happen post Brexit and therefore all it can be is a leap into the dark. Anyone who was vehement that it was the right or only thing (as opposed to the coin tossers) to do, should be held personally responsible and fined for every pound we lose in the future.
I really really hope my worst fears don't come true but even if we don't I don't think it's going to be 'good' for a long long time (if ever).
Cheers, T i m
On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote: ...
...
If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of years before the EU Directive.
The car then rectified the oversight.
Pretty much a given for buyers of a Tesla
80,000 of their US Dollars for a car with a range of circa 200 miles between charges.Not exactly useful for driving out of state, is it?
tim
This thread illustrates quite well the result of putting too much faith in a system which is supposed to be better than the individual. Hopping into your tesla, hitting go and sitting comfortably on your arse doing nothing to control your destiny is like putting your trust in the EU.
Refreshing.
Sorry, no, what I meant is 'was it worth (potentially) destroying the country (financially, socially, ethically) *just because* (in the case of TNP specifically, as that is a crusade he is on) because of the EU / Green incentives'?
You aren't with me as I know little of all this but we seem to be with most of those who seem to be better placed than most of the Brexit fanatics in being very concerned that a minority of the population voted on something they had little knowledge that could potentially have such a negative outcome for all of us for a very long time? ;-(
*Nothing* anyone has said so far has countered any of my concerns on any of the subjects.Cheers, T i m
p.s. If anyone cares to counter *with quantifiable fact* any of the points raised on either of the videos linked on the OP I'm all ears.
Ok, but the spirit of the general point still stands. There are many perfectly sensible safety improvements have been implemented *EU wide* because all 28 states sanctioned them (for the benefit for the vast majority).
So, even if it was first raised in France or Germany, we would have had to accept it before it could have been implemented and would in turn benefit from it in this country or traveling or working within the EU.
Cheers, T i m
Or even out of county. You'd need your head examined to own one.
Except the EU is *nothing* like that.
Anyone relying 100% on something whilst traveling at speed and relying on some pretty new technology at that, is more like assuming that *Leaving* the EU is also 'safe' when it's mostly unknown, like driving blind.
And by 'unknown' I mean we know what the chances are any of what the minority of the population voted for (Brexiteers) won't come true and the chances on what a similar number of people voted for (and feared), will.
If nothing else it's going to take 2+ years of uncertainty to just leave the EU and then *at least* 10 years (the experts suggest and based on the progress of other countries trying similar now and in the past) to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst hoping we can still sell stuff via the WTO rules (at worse deals).
Cheers, T i m
You lost, move on.
They can't and they won't.
Remember the point about attacking the talker and not the argument, that has been what they have been doing in this newsgroup for months and it will continue as they have nothing else.
They even have the balls to call the opposition project fear when that is exactly what they do.
Its not over even if we leave, TNP and harry aren't content with us leaving the EU they still have an agenda to deal with others they don't like.
Not particularly unusual. Quite a few 'EU' laws are based upon prior UK practice, from the Common Fisheries Policy, to the Medical Devices Directive. Whatever the propaganda, the EU doesn't just sit down and think up regulations for the sake of it. They normally take examples of the best practice in a particular field in from member states, then extend those practices to all the states.
Well the certainly don't seem to have said anything of value so far. The thing is, if it were 'so obvious' leaving the EU was such a 'good thing' then I'm guessing all the experts across all fields ... and more than a minority of the population would be voting *for* it?
Ad hominem?
The guy in the video conceded that there was some pretty 'unprofessional stuff done by both sides pre Referendum but that the Brexit brigade stooped to some pretty low lows and the Leave published some straight facts. The problem was the great unwashed weren't able to differentiate between the two but the sensational 'we want something better but we don't know what we are voting for will or could ever deliver that' seemed to appeal and didn't appear bothered by the risk (that they themselves will also 'enjoy').
That's the problem with fanatics, they don't know when to stop and they can't see the facts for the red mist. ;-(
Cheers, T i m
MegaSquirt can't generally integrate with the other computers in a production car - like gearbox and ABS etc.
you are looking at this the wrong way
No country is going to treat us differently wrt to day to day trading, part of the EU or not.
They have things to sell (and things that they want to buy, that we sell). They aren't going to say "Oh we wont buy your Welsh lamb because you aren't part of the EU" or "we aren't going to sell our oranges to you because you aren't part of the EU", it would be a nonsense.
The argument is, because we aren't part of the EU it is too much effort for them to negotiate with us over a trade deal to make that trade easier (and hopefully increase it) because as a much smaller country, the rewards for making that deal would be smaller, so they wont even try
But that misses the point that getting a deal with the EU is extraordinarily difficult due to the number of vested interest that it has to protect (and the bloody mindedness of some countries to compromise - exercise for the reader here).
It much easier to get a deal with the UK, we have fewer industries to protect that developing countries are likely to compete in and the UK will compromise to achieve a quicker deal.
You would be a dumb country indeed not to look at this option out of spite, IMHO
tim
Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should. The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.
People need to get this in perspective, many drivers crash in the same circumstances and that there was a human driver at the wheel who also crashed the car not just the computer.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.