road.cc live blog: The various stances on the Froome case, the value of hi-vis, a fella with a bullet lodged in his stomach riding Red Bull Trans-Siberian Extreme + more

If Waymo are allowed to patent a system to detect fallen/falling pedestrians and cyclists, it means no-one else may use the same method without incurring licencing fees -- unless Waymo waives their rights. (If that is their intention, why don't they just publish the method without spending money on a patent -- they don't come cheap?) And they would be in a position to block anyone else using it. The method sounds pretty common-sense to me (rarely an issue with the US Patent Office), so other developers may find they have to remove parts of their software if they've already gone down that route. So safety research plus patent will end up costing lives. If your car swerves to avoid a tumbling pedestrian, its manufacturer could get sued. Still, I'm sure Trump would support moves to make such patent-abuse illegal...

@mark1212123 Thank you for answering my question. Get well soon. Hugs xxx

@No Reply "Vanthourenhart is a smacked ass cheat." You may not have noticed but cycle racing is built on the cheat foundation, homo sapiens. Witness, even, Rendel Harris trying to cheat you from your free speech flagpoles on this very thread. Rendel is a cyclist he's informed the forum before regarding his bike stable. If you are against cheating why do you follow cycle racing?

Not a lawyer, but not sure awarding a patent on a safety feature that only really benefits the non-contracted party (I.e. the cyclist) is the right way forward. Hopefully they do not make the proliferation of a feature restrictive, as it would benefit the greater good. I think Volvo did that with the 3-point seatbelt? PS. Having used Waymo as a passenger, I feel their city driving is waaaay better than pretty much any Uber driver - at least in the US.

@Rendel Harris I've been reading you hurl your curtain twitcher approach on many others. I think being grammar police around cycling is simply someone wishing to be publicly pompous. Your strawman argument highlighting "difference" and "appreciation" would be interesting to get into but they are two distinct areas, not one, as you implied by landing, bumpity, bump..........bump, on "problem." I'm wondering now, if you can explain the difference between "swearing and homophobic slurs" it will get us all on the same page? Don't just google it either, use your own strength so we can see.

@genesis cops are not our allies... I think we can all cope with that, it's the Axis of the Police and the Judicial system being both our sworn enemy and the unreasoning Friend of the Driver that constitutes the danger

This is the Ann-Arbor-Bridge in Tübingen, Germany Scandalous waste of money! Nobody uses it!!

@Rendel Harris "explain the distinctions between a quote and direct speech, teach!" Though TBF speaking through the words of others is and has always been common. Maybe they're calling for a discussion on the etymology of common abuse? "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

@mark1212123 If you can't appreciate the difference between swearing and homophobic slurs then that's very much your problem, not mine. Are you quite well? Your scattergun approach to grammar, punctuation and indeed comprehensibility is somewhat concerning and makes one wonder if an intervention might be required.

@Rendel Harris Lol. How can you employ reference to the 'C' word whilst concerned about what No Reply is laying down above? I think you may owe No Reply an apology. I cant comment on anything else because to said nothing. A tiddly rugger quote, is that all you can conjure up regarding your voices positioning? We are a long time dead I suppose.