threegee

Advantages: Safety; Lower pollution; Better/dynamic community traffic management; Vastly higher vehicle utilisation; Elimination of city-center/hub car parking; True door-door journeys; No wasteful cruising for a free parking spaces; Elimination of time-wasting driver navigation errors and sub-optimal routing; (for fleet operators) increased passenger capacity, and greatly reduced per-mile cost. I can explain to you why those predictions were silly (already touched on a bit of this earlier), and why autonomous vehicles are anything but - though it's too lengthy an ask tonight. I think you might want to rethink the wine thing: good quality wines here come in min. 5 litre containers and can easily cost less than drinking water. My point entirely: they are fully committed to autonomous vehicle technology in all phases, whereas Detroit may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the party.

Here's Duplicitous Dave's preferred occupant of the White House... Trump tells it as it is, and he can't cope with that!

You'd need to provide me with a link to that! Tesla have vastly more orders than they can handle, and their stuff is hardly cheap. Show me a Detroit metal basher who is in that happy situation. Follow the money - the Chinese and Koreans are!

Not really; it's saying the sub-systems very necessary for DCs will reduce accidents and so reduce premiums. Those don't necessarily even need to be deployed IN cars, and are going into smart-cars first. Fully autonomous cars themselves will be notionally more expensive, thus cost more to insure. There's a phased approach. This link will make things clearer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/how-long-until-we-have-fully-driverless-cars/ Tennis sounds "sexist": I'm beginning to like it!

Sorry: Greedy beggars the FT - nothing but money, money, money! What's a set, and what's the difference between a game and a match?

Game, set, and match! (If only I followed tennis, and knew quite what that meant. ) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91c4ef40-1d0b-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz497iAhbpg

OK, so the inevitable took a tad longer - as it often does. Just hope no one here got lumbered with one in a fire sale "promo"; I was tempted at one time.

Not exclusively you're not! How do you know a tiler has fixed them all properly? Supposing someone doing other work on your roof damaged them unbeknown to you - or a neighbour, or a criminal? Maybe a bit of an aircraft fell on your roof and dislodged them? Freak weather conditions; even a manufacturing defect in the tiles themselves; or the fixings... The real world is complex and driver-less cars don't add too much to that, and in other ways greatly simplify things. The real legal test is can lawyers make money. If they can't then there will be insuperable obstacles placed, but the driver-less car is just another welcome income source to them. They didn't kill aviation - simply ensured that taken in the round no one else ever makes any money out of it! I could provide you with a link to an impeccable source to confirm this truism?

Totally brilliant! Dave has been asking for this for a long time.

If a tile falls off your roof and kills someone then who is at fault? In fact with all the instrumentation and video there will be little argument as to culpability, so the lawyers might be a bit poorer - is that a bad thing?

Neither can a human. A cast iron case for banning motor cars I think - people get killed! Oh, and you forgot to mention that they frighten the horses, and that people will black-out in them. Everything is insurable - at a price. I'd imagine that if regular insurers aren't interested Google will throw the odd billion at the sector and show them how to make money.

"of course"? Why the of course? The thing which is conspicuous by its absence is the much vaunted Sovereignty Bill. Another of Duplicitous Dave's shoot-from-the-hip promises ditched at the first hurdle. Why? Because it will clash with the diktats of our new rulers in Brussels - OF COURSE!

An interesting article that explains why we should listen to the many "out-of-step" economists who don't engage in their fatal group-think habit, and almost invariably are proven right! In simple terms: precedent strongly indicates that the more economists Desperate Dave can cajole into signing his scaremongering the more likely it is they are wrong, and that the courageous dissenters are right! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/economists-have-a-century-of-failure-behind-them-no-wonder-they/

It's not too often I borrow Guardian content, but I believe The Guardian took it from Ukip in the first place.

You can take this "no links" policy too far Maggie! Football? no?.

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP believes that it's likely that there is written proof in the Downing Street files that our joke for a PM was plotting with Serco boss Rupert Soames (does that name ring a bell?) to keep us firmly in the EU just days before he was telling parliament that he "ruled nothing out" over campaigning for Brexit. What's the betting that the establishment and civil service will keep this one under wraps until well after the referendum? Tip of the iceberg here I think, and Cameron is going to end up even more discredited that Teflon Tony! This also explains why Soames has been putting out such obvious twaddle as to what his grandfather would have thought about Britain losing control of its own affairs - especially to Germany!

I can't see the EU sucking all the water out of the Thames just yet; but, yes, metaphorically and economically they are going to suck us dry! There's a tiny bit of merit in the upper picture, if you can see what I mean (and think of all those senseless billions saved on renovation), And, look: - as per usual - St Paul's is spared!

If you hate endless told-you-so's then VOTE LEAVE!

I was tempted to add a reference to Genesis 25:31 for Vince's consumption! Having just devoured my own (self-imported) porridge, and read some of the morning Camscares it seems quite appropriate. Because of what you say Malc a lot of economic activity is "off the books", so people have learned to get by. I suspect things are even more so in Greece - if that were possible! This is very bad for employment, and is no incentive to improve productivity or invest lest you attract unwanted attention. It's probably part of the explanation of the much vaunted "superior German productivity".

The "Peter Pan" 13 year-old that never learns!

You remember EUphile Vince Cable? Well, he's involved in the "Remain" campaign (what else!), and has just visited a porridge manufacturer on behalf of Desperate Dave. Here he warned of the disastrous consequences of Brexit on the - yes, you guessed it - UK Porridge Industry! The narrative is that this firm has found it easier to export porridge to Holland than to Australia! I offer this simple map for Vince's edification, to illustrate exactly why this could be the case, especially on a bulky low value item like porridge. I'd also hazard the input that there could be some upside in getting to grips with the Australian market, not the least of which would be tweaking the existing UK packaging rather than producing 27 different sets of packaging in languages they don't comprehend. Or worse - risking running fowl of hostile administrations like France, where if you put the accent in the wrong place they might consign your entire shipment for destruction. I can also advise Vince that porridge is an extremely hard sell in most of continental Europe, and that EuroBrits like me buy it on the internet, so the "mealsley" ex-pat-driven EU market is already pretty well catered for. I suspect that the small porridge manufacturer he's using as a platform for his scaremongering already knows this but doesn't want to spoil Vince's day. It appears that Aussies do like their oats though, so come Brexit this UK porrie maker had better shape up and look global, or we'll be eating Yummy Ozz-Oats from farmers who still know how to farm crops and not taxpayer subsidies! So.. chalk-up cheaper better quality porridge as one of the endless advantages to Brexit!

Ah, well, you see Trump is a "joke candidate". Well... that's what the Guardian, and their retirement fund the BBC, were confidently telling us, so this must be right. Trump won't even get the Republican nomination - they said. Our Facebook-generation, PR-driven, joke for a PM went along with this in issuing his own anti-Trump insults; this despite all warnings that he could easily end up damaging our most important foreign relationship. Then we've been fed the twaddle that Trump couldn't win because even Republicans were against him. What these bright UK "opinion formers" didn't reckon with is that that the world doesn't conform to their view of how it MUST be. They didn't reckon with the fact that many Democrats detest greasy fat-cat lawyer Hillary Clinton too; if they can't have leftie Bernie Sanders they'd much rather have a successfully business person who listens to real people, than a fat-cat lawyer who is bent on doing her (and the international elite's) own thing. Hillary is actually a Tony Blair transgender clone, and our transatlantic cousins can probably be credited with more common sense than the 1990's British electorate!

BBC bans white people from job - but workforce already reflects country's ethnic make-up ... So... this will likely end up in a lot of chancers bringing legal actions against the BBC, who will then pour millions from the TV Tax into trying to defend the indefensible! Meanwhile the overpaid BBC management structure won't blink an eye, as if they ever have to take the wrap they will walk into another media job with a huge pay-off for failure - again from our involuntary TV Tax!.

Oh, it will get a lot worse, and quite rapidly Moe! Does anyone actually think that the EU budget has now been extraordinary delayed until after the referendum for any other reason other than it is going to clearly show how rapidly this political experiment is going downhill? Then there's all the other things that have been cunningly rescheduled so's not to rock the politico's boat. The fact is that even the name of their campaign is a deception, intended to convey low-risk and the status quo, when it is anything but! Remain should be renamed as Slippery Slope to anti-democratic Federalism. With the vast propaganda resources of the EU where is Remain - The Movie? The sad fact is that in 43 years of our membership they have absolutely nothing to present that would show the EU in a good light. But.. wait.. I think that movie may already have been made anyway: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/?ref_=nv_sr_1