[blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars

[Russ Thomas]

I thought these cars were available now (if you can afford the price). Two
years ago, California passed a law permitting their use so long as a
licensed driver was in the front passenger seat.


-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Michael Fry
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 6:53 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars

I have been so excited about the Google self-driving car and others like it.
I have been eagerly anticipating this technology for at least five years.
Ross, I could not agree with you more.  We, the visually impaired community,
should have a loud voice in this debate.  This is technology that could
literally transform our lives.  Our compelling interest in seeing this
technology come to the market as quickly and safely as possible gives us a
strong and credible voice that should resonate in the debate.
I think the NFB should actively start lobbying for blind people to be able
to use self-driving cars when they come to market.  My strong suspicion is
that the technology is safe and effective but hasn't been approved because
of entrenched government regulations that are serving to stifle this
technology rather than keep us safe.  The sad fact is that the regulators in
charge of approving this technology have no interest, desire, or benefit in
considering our need to be able to use this stuff quickly.


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Ross Doerr <rumpole at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> About two weeks ago on this list I posted some material about Google's 
> driverless car along with some legal and ethical questions that go 
> "along for the ride" as it were.
> Lest  we think that Google is the sole company putting a car like this 
> out there in testing, read the following article about its competition at:
>
>
> http://www.wbur.org/npr/212683617/hitting-the-road-without-a-driver?ft
> =3&f=2
> 12683617
> Note two things in this article that I, as well as many others on the 
> list have verbalized.
> The manufacturers of this car are also concerned about the car and its 
> automation being accepted by the general public as well as them 
> waiting for the legal profession and insurance industry to catch up with
them.
> This car has a "big red button"  in the middle of the dashboard which, 
> when activated, disconnects the automatics operating the car. This is 
> not surprising.
>  My point is that the legal and insurance issues for driverless cars 
> are now being outlined and debated, and we are not a part of this 
> debate. Debating those issues on this list is one thing, but we are 
> not the decision makers.
> We need to be a part of the debate at the discussion level so that 
> policy can be shaped in such a way that we are not excluded at the outset.
> That is a statement that is very easily said, and not so easily done.
> Ross A. Doerr, Attorney at law
> Augusta, Maine
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmai
> l.com
>
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas%40emplmntattor
ney.com