"Boot up?" It sounds like you're still working with a cassette drive TRS-80. :D

Not My Fault: Google Discloses Details of Its Self-Driving Car Accidents - NBC News

12 accidents in autonomous and human driven modes; mostly caused by other drivers.

Not My Fault: Google Discloses Details of Its Self-Driving Car Accidents - NBC News

12 accidents in autonomous and human driven modes; mostly caused by other drivers.

One of the Google cars was involved in an accident that resulted in injuries to the occupants of the Google car . . . it was rear ended by a vehicle driven by a human. :D

Google Self-Driving Car Slammed Into From Behind, Minor Injuries Reported - NBC News

They seem to have an inordinate rate of being rear ended. Is their braking program to sudden? Have a big target on the rear end?

Two travel maxims:

(1). If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

(2). Driverless vehicles? Not only no but hell no.

The second one doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

It's all those new 'self-braking' collision-avoidance vehicles.

Happy Motoring, Mark

My theory is that the car, with it's distinctive shape and roof mounted sensor array is an "attraction" to other drivers to tailgate.

Lest my comment about blaming collision-avoidance vehicles be considered silly or frivolous, here's something I found on a site called 'Jalopnik'.

In response to an article about disappearing dipsticks specifically, and the movement away from individual responsibility in general, an individual who calls himself 'Speednuts' said -

(Quote) As someone who has worked in the service departments of manufacturers from Honda to BMW, with a variety in between, I can wholeheartedly agree with this article.
When drivers no longer have to worry about the systems in their car, they do just that : get in, start the car,and think nothing else about it.
No thoughts as to what is going on in the vehicle, what it actually needs to be running,
Only thinking about the vehicle as a complicated synchronized mass of fluids and electricity and gears when it breaks down.

Here's a telling example: I had a driver of an Infiniti M56 come in raging, because he had rear ended someone. He had set the intelligent cruise control while on a road trip and then just checked out.
He came up on some traffic and expected the vehicle to brake for him, as it was designed. Except the sensor on the front bumper that monitors distance was filthy, covered in bugs and road grime. He got closer and closer to the other cars, waiting for the vehicle to brake. Never once applying the brake, he just watched his car slam into the back of another. When asked why he didn't try to stop when it was clear he was going to hit someone, he responded "I shouldn't have had to. The cruise control should have done it for me." (Quote)

Personally, last summer I was treated to a demonstration of the collision avoidance system in a friend's brand-new Subaru Forester. He sped along approaching some slow-moving cars to show me how the automatic braking system worked. Unfortunately, it didn't. Fortunately, my friend's foot did, and worked the brakes in time to avoid the sad situation of the hapless Infiniti driver related above. I was impressed, but not in a good way!

Happy Motoring, Mark

I sometimes think mechanics should have the power to revoke the driving licenses of customers like that.

I also don't think you should be able to get a license without demonstrating at least a basic understanding of how the critical systems of a car work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/technology/personaltech/google-says-its-not-the-driverless-cars-fault-its-other-drivers.html

“The real problem is that the car is too safe,” said Donald Norman, director of the Design Lab at the University of California, San Diego, who studies autonomous vehicles. “They have to learn to be aggressive in the right amount, and the right amount depends on the culture.”

A major fault with the Google car? I seems it's too safe and law abiding, unlike human drivers. :D

I spent about three hours this weekend driving a 2015 Mercedes S550 along a busy interstate. The car was equipped with Distronic Plus and whatever MB calls its lane guidance system. I have to say that it worked very well. I intentionally steered the car towards the road shoulder a few times, and received an audio spanking as the car simultaneously applied gentle braking and steered the car back into the middle of the traffic lane. The Distronic Plus worked very well in keeping a fixed interval from the four-wheeled vehicles in front of me, but was a little less predictable when a narrow vehicle such as a motorcycle was ahead.

I'm guessing that these systems are about a decade or so from being truly foolproof, but they're not bad today. For now, don't try to use your iPad to catch up on your email from behind the wheel...

Would you own a car like this once it becomes a decade or so old?

Happy Motoring, Mark

I wouldn't own a lawn tractor once it becomes a decade or so old. Most people are so worried about servicing/replacing sophisticated electronics in older cars that they forget that the engine and transmission can break as well.

WOW - just incredible...

This person apparently did something so he could afford to pay for an expensive car - did that something not include common sense??? :eek: