[blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars

Thu Aug 22 16:17:57 UTC 2013

Hi Bill and Ross,

I just wanted to jump in on this conversation because the topic is so
exciting.  I predict that self-driving car technology will greatly impact
society.  One's imagination could stretch very far when considering how
this technology could free up a drivers time.  I read a Stanford
professors' thoughts on the subject.  He predicts autonomous vehicles that
have an exercise bike or treadmill, shower, desk, and bed.  If there is no
need to worry about driving or an accident then these are things that a
person could use during a long commute to work from the suburbs.  The
Economist magazine predicted that business men would rent motorhome
autonomous vehicles to traverse the country instead of flying because the
motorhome would be so much more convenient and cheaper than flying.  Along
those lines, one could imagine small fully autonomous passenger planes
(like a flying motorhome - not like Spaceballs - but like a autonomous
passenger leer jet) for longer trips.  If there is no need to worry about
pilots or air traffic control then the biggest expense in renting such a
plane could be the cost of fuel.  This is not even to mention, that the
number of truck stops and interstate hotels may shrink since truck drivers,
there biggest customers, will no longer be needed because they will be
replaced by autonomous tractor trailers.

This is a prediction of a somewhat distant future.  It is built on many
iterations of autonomous vehicle technology.  Consider that the modern car
is the end result of a long path of technological iterations.  Currently,
autonomous vehicle technology is at a pre-Model T stage.

Autonomous vehicle technology needs to start a journey down a path of
technological iterations.  The first step is an autonomous vehicle that can
be sold to the public.  Will the first autonomous vehicles sold to the
public be absolutely perfect?  No.  That would be impossible.  Compared to
a 2013 car is a Model T perfect?  No.  Nevertheless, it is obviously very
good that Model T's were sold despite their deficiencies compared to later
model cars.

So, why isn't there an autonomous car that can be sold to the public?  The
answer is government regulators demanding perfection from the first
iteration.  Regulators are applying the precautionary principal (better
safe than sorry).  If, a hundred years ago, government regulators applied
the precautionary principal to car manufactures, right now our car
technology would be in a sorry state compared to where it currently is
at.

I guess my point is that, the precautionary principal is ruining my life in
many ways because I have a disability and I'm counting on some big
technological advancements that aren't happening in part because of overly
cautious government regulators that have no incentive to consider how these
technologies could impact a disabled persons life.  Whether it be with the
FDA and retinal gene therapy or with the Department of Transportation and
autonomous vehicles, things are advancing way slower than they should be
and it's because we have government literally standing awkwardly in the
way.

Oh yea, Bill, in my opinion, if the car is autonomous then there could not
be any 'driver' liability because there is no actus reus.

Mike

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Ross Doerr <rumpole at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Bill, do you have any suggestions as to who should be contacted to be
> involved in the automated car issue, whether it is this one or the google
> car.
> Where is our "starting point" with them, instead of us.
> Ross
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:54 AM
> To: Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars
>
> 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%40ameri
> > tech.net
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>