[blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars

[Bill Reif]

This debate validates the time and money the NFB has put into the 
blind-drivable vehicle. Even if that vehicle is displaced by the 
driverless car and never gains significant distribution, its successful 
operation demonstrates that we can monitor and, if necessary, intervene 
in its operation. Without that demonstration, we would find it harder to 
challenge the belief that we are as powerless as inanimate cargo. As 
driverless cars continue to evolve, we should work with developers to 
interface some of the blind-drivable technology in those a blind person 
may operate. Until that happens or until the driverless car is 
perfected, I would no more want to ride in one than a sighted person 
would sit in a car with no controls.

In terms of legal issues: I can't imagine that a car's being 
"driverless" shifts liability away from whoever's behind the wheel.

Cordially,
Bill

On 8/19/2013 6:29 PM, Ross Doerr 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/billreif%40ameritech.net
>