[blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars

Mike mikefry79 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 20 13:10:33 UTC 2013


The California law allows the cars to be driven on public streets legally for testing purposes.  If the cars log something like a million driving hours without an accident then regulators may start issuing licenses to the public.  As of right now no state allows a person in the general population to drive these things.  Driving permits are only issued to companies for testing purposes.  The license plate for a test vehicle is like the color red and the license plate for a non- test vehicle is green.  As of now no one has been issued a green plate in any state.

Does any body on the list know Steve Mahan?  He's the blind driver that demonstrated Google's car last year on YouTube.  

Self driving cars will have a profound impact on everything from freight trucks to allowing blind people to live comfortably in the suburbs.

In think NFB should be very interested in this thech.  If blind people are denied access to these cars for fifty years based on irrational fears about the in reliability of the computers, that would be a real shame.  

Sent from Mike Fry

On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:31 AM, "Ross Doerr" <rumpole at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure of that. IO thought the law California passed permitted the
> testing of the cars on California roads.
> Can anyone on the list admitted to practice law in California check that
> out?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Russ Thomas
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:22 AM
> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/rumpole%40roadrunner.c
> om
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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%40gmail.com




More information about the BlindLaw mailing list