[blindlaw] A different view of Driverless cars

[Daniel McBride]

Bill:

Unless specific legislation was passed to exempt manufacturers of a
driverless vehicle from liability in personal injury/wrongful death cases,
products liability issues are going to be a concern of the potential
manufacturers.

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Reif
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:54 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/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net