Speaking of traffic intersections, here is something else that needs
some thought to be given to it. It is those curb cuts for the wheelchair
people. Okay, I know that people in wheelchairs need them and I would
not want them to be deprived of them, but there needs to be some kind of
compromise. Edges of sidewalks can be detected with a white cane. Curb
cuts are not so easy to detect. I have actually taken to jay walking in
order to avoid curb cuts. Once I was walking along with my cane
wondering why it was taking so long for me to reach the intersection. I
finally came to a halt and explored my surroundings with my cane looking
for the edge of the side walk. I turned around and retraced my steps
slowly looking for the corner of the building thinking that from there I
could find the edge of the sidewalk. That didn't work so I turned around
again and slowly moved forward carefully using my cane to detect the
edge of the sidewalk or the corner of a building. Then my cane hit the
street side of the sidewalk and I stepped up on it. The traffic suddenly
zoomed past me letting me know that I had been in the middle of the
street holding up traffic because I had stepped right out into the
street and didn't know it because of that curb cut.
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some
tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes,
whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical,
then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now
and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on
the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being
skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and
either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and
progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility
and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot
distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl Sagan
On 4/27/2021 2:33 PM, Maurice Peret wrote:
Hi All,
I am all to familiar with cancel culture and wokeness and it is
definitely a dangerous rehashed form of McCarthyism perpetuated by
elitists from the left. I also have no use for it. I would say,
Miriam, that engaging in these discussions is a healthy example of
what needs to and indeed does occur all the time among thinking
people. Even as we find points of disagreement on this or that issue,
nonetheless, in almost everything that you have shared I find
important matters upon which we agree. I was trained in the art of
argument and debate and I relish in it. The problem is that most of
society, at least as represented by the capitalist media which is
nearly the only form available on any mass scale, knows nothing of
this time honored form of human engagement without resorting to
personal jabs or worse. There is certainly also a tendency to overly
simplify everything and package them into brightly colored this way or
that way bite-size morsels that resemble the endless variety of
sugar-coded breakfast serials that exemplify the true attitudes of the
business tycoons of our day. That is to say they think we are all
infantile idiots who jump at the next shiny object that they dangle in
front of our noses. This is exemplified in the endless dibble that we
are such a racially divided country. They are merely projecting their
prejudices onto our backs when they use state power to inflict
insufferable harm to the lot of us. With due respect, your
characterization of the NFB seems rather monolithic and time
suspended. For instance, the NFB did take a position against audible
traffic signals on the basis that they were designed with very little
understanding of how blind people travel and use the sounds of traffic
to orient ourselves. The earliest models such as the ones with
chirping bird sounds, tended to mask the sounds of traffic and in some
cases, created a more hazardous crossing situation. Over the past few
decades, however, as the complexity of intersection configurations and
signal behavior such as those that are actuated, meaning they do not
cycle until and unless triggered by approaching vehicles via a sensor
underneath the roadway, the Federation's position on audible traffic
signals has evolved quite substantially. The bottom line is that we
insist on being part of the conversation from design to implementation
of devices that presume to be installed for our benefit. I am
intimately familiar with this issue as I was in the thick of it for
these twenty years as a National Orientation & Mobility Certified
instructor. There were audible signals in Richmond VA where I worked
that caused me to avoid those intersections altogether because the
loud rattling sound of two signals on a single poll not only masked
the traffic sound but did not make it clear which street it was
alerting me that it was safe to cross. The models of signals that are
out there nowadays have improved measurably and the position of the
NFB has aligned with our collaboration with traffic engineers and
public officials. I have no bone to pick with anyone who decides to be
part of either the ACB or NFB or none of the above. I believe there
have been issues in which the ACB took a more rational position on a
given topic, for example, on their lawsuit against the Treasury
Department for lack of accessibility of currency. You may also be
aware that there have been notable instances of collaboration between
ACB and NFB on a number of matters that impact the blind, particularly
on Braille literacy. Give me credit, therefore, Miriam, for presenting
my own views whether they happen to align with NFB, ACB, Brother Karl,
Vladimir, Fidel, Che, Malcolm, Mother Jones, Angela Davis, Leonard
Peltier, or whomever else. I do not represent myself on this or any
other private list as anyone but myself.
On 4/27/21, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
For that matter, I remember telling someone from the SWP about a certain
anarchist of my acquaintance. He happened to go on to become a professor
at a state university. The person I was talking to said that it was a
bit hypocritical of him to work for the government if he was an
anarchist. As much as the anarchists may deserve criticism I had to
point out that that particular criticism was a bit unfair. After all,
just how many members of the SWP work for profit making corporations?
Just how many of them seek out employment by profit making corporations.
I would say that it is perfectly legitimate for an anarchist to work for
the government. Putting that aside, though, I have noticed something
about both the NFB and the ACB. For the most part the NFB ignores the
ACB. I say for the most part because I know about the many jabs against
the ACB I have seen in the Braille Monitor, but they still remain pretty
minor. On the other hand, the ACB and most anyone who supports it seem
to feel obligated to oppose anything that the NFB is for. I remember on
the BARD Talk list, for example, when mention of the NFB teaming up with
the Hathi Trust to make tens of millions of books available to blind
people came up the discussion immediately turned into a sniping session
against the NFB. It was more important to them to denigrate the NFB than
to celebrate the possibility of gaining access to an almost unimaginable
number of books. So remember that this list was originally founded as a
list for and about ACB members. It does not have that character now, but
you can still expect that the bare mention of the NFB will bring forth
some hostility toward the NFB no matter in what context the mention was
made. As for the sniping being made in the context of your being a
socialist, I think you can also expect that Miriam will just as
automatically react in the same way about Marxism. She has spent a lot
of time criticizing my personal distaste for the phrase middle class as
Marxist theory, for example. What that has to do with Marxist theory she
has never explained. But I suppose that can be expected because every
time Marxist theory really does come up she resorts to straw man
arguments. I don't think, though, that she really intends them to be
straw man arguments. She simply does not understand what Marxist theory
actually is no matter how much I try to explain it.
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some
tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes,
whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical,
then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now
and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on
the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being
skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and
either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and
progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility
and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot
distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl Sagan
On 4/27/2021 10:46 AM, Maurice Peret wrote:
Wow, Miriam! That's pretty harsh and I would say rather utopian, to
boot. I would not seek to disabuse you of your opinion based upon your
lived experience with leaders of the NFB in the past, noting that it
is quite a bit in the past. What I would ask, in defense of your
criticism of me as an outspoken Marxist, is what do you honestly
expect? Can you name a single revolutionary civil rights organization
in the context of a solidly bourgeois society as ours? Is the NAACP,
BLM, NOW, NARAL, JDF, ACLU, or any other recognized movement claiming
to defend the oppressed any less bourgeois? Furthermore, as a working
person, where would you point me to seek bread from that does not
function as a corporate entity interested in profit? There is no
argument to your assessment of the NFB as looking to policy makers,
industry, and other capitalist entities to carve out influence in a
society that routinely discards the very personhood of people with
disabilities. Is that any less true of anywhere you found yourself
employed? To be sure, the NFB is a bourgeois civil rights organization
that engages in a number of worthwhile endeavors that have
unquestionably improved the lives of blind people, yourself included,
whether it is to be acknowledged or not. The example in my previous
post is a case in point. If not for passage into law of the Pedestrian
Enhancement Safety Act, how would we deal with nearly silent hybrid
and electric cars? Let's come back down to earth a moment, Miriam. ON
the other hand, if you happen to be aware of a compensated opportunity
where the kind of revolutionary change can be seriously engaged in,
I'm open and grateful for any leads. The most committed
revolutionaries that I know personally are those who work for
Wal-Mart. Would you question their motivations to work among their
co-workers to agitate to build a union in every workplace while
defending conditions on the job and in the community? If you know of a
better path towards our objective of establishing a workers and
farmers government in the United States, let's hear it! As witness to
your prior posts on this thread, however, I have no confidence that
you share this worthy and historically necessary goal. I respect your
honest disagreements with the NFB or any other blindness consumer
group, for that matter, and also your characterization of it as
bourgeois, though not your words. Inasmuch as one must work somewhere,
however, and as I work for the NFB, I take exception to your jab
insinuating that I compromise my working-class values simply by my
choice of employer where my skills and my labor happen to be
purchased. Hasten the day, my dear Miriam, when different choices can
be made!
On 4/27/21, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The one response that I'll make to you on line is that for decades, the
NFB
has always aligned itself on the side of industry, of corporate power. It
is
interesting that someone who considers himself a Marxist, is so
comfortable
with the way in which NFB functions. It has been hierarchical and and
authoritarian with a leader, always being the symbol of its power to its
members. In the early 70's, I had some very direct experience with
Kenneth
Jernigan and one of its chapters. Maurice, I respect your right to think
as
you do and I am not going to have a debate, but what you have written,
sounds like a perfect repetition of a party line or a religious
position.
NFB is partnering with corporations to sell a capitalist dream.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Maurice Peret
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:15 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: [Announce] American Council of the
Blind
Letter Supporting S. 1260
Greetings All,
Well, I'll weigh in. The National Federation of the Blind has situated
itself strategically to be on the ground floor as autonomous vehicle
innovation propels ever forward. The NFB established credibility in this
field when it partnered with Virginia Tech University to develop the
first
vehicle equipped with nonvisual accessibility features which was
dramatically demonstrated ten years ago when Mark Riccobono, current NFB
President, independently drove a Ford Escape around the Daytona Speedway
before a cheering audience of hundreds. To demonstratively illustrate
the
point, there was a pace vehicle that periodically tossed out boxes that
Riccobono had to navigate around as well as avoid collision. This ground
breaking event forever settled the one question that always plagued
blind
people, namely, is it possible for a blind person to independently and
safely operate a motor vehicle? As autonomous vehicle technology
continues
to rapidly develop, leaders of the NFB are working closely with
automobile
manufacturers and regulators to insure that whatever ultimately results
from
this inevitable technological march forward, the blind will not be left
behind. Given the necessity to move away from fossil pollutants,
increased
electrification and battery miniaturization, and drastically changing
pedestrian environments, we absolutely must keep up and influence
developers
of these innovations in order that we not be disenfranchised and our
independence be unnecessarily infringed upon or outright curtailed.
Autonomous vehicles will be with us and they will be much safer, almost
by
definition. It is not to say that unintended consequences can be
altogether
avoided, to be sure, but if roadway injuries and fatalities can be
reduced
by tens of thousands per year, personally, I am all in. Furthermore, I
look
forward to the day when I will be able to sit in the driver's seat,
myself.
Granted, Miriam's point is well taken that this is likely quite a ways
off
in terms of affordability and licensure policy, but I am confident that
the
right people are tracking these developments to make it happen.
One immediate factor that impacts us directly is the noise reduction of
electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. I chair the NFB Committee on
Automobile and Pedestrian Safety which, among other things, championed
legislation signed into law that mandates that these vehicles emit a
specific and detectable sound in order that we can safely make decisions
about crossing streets. It is an ever changing world that will
incorporate
increasing automation of all sorts but we mustn't burry our heads in the
sand or believe there is much we can do to stop it. Furthermore, I am not
at
all sure that this would even be desirable. I imagine a future society
that
will genuinely put technology and resources at the service of humanity
and
the living environment instead of profit. Science is neither inherently
good
nor evil but is still dependent upon the motivations of those in the
labs.
More precisely, those who control the funding of scientific advancement.
On 4/26/21, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: [Announce] American Council of the Blind--
Letter Supporting S. 1260
Bypassing human judgement is exactly one of the greatest advantages of
self-driving cars. There has been a big deal made in the news about
accidents with two of these cars. A woman was killed when she, a
pedestrian, was run down by one. Then it turned out that the
autonomous functions were turned off at the time and so she was
actually run down by a human driver. The second one was just very
recently. It seems that one crashed into a tree killing two passengers
and it appears that no one was in the driver's seat at the time.
Depending on how the investigation turns out this looks like the
result of some malfunction.
However, self-driving cars are on the whole turning out to be much
safer than human driven cars. You don't need a human judging how much
distance it is to the next car. The self-driving car measures it
precisely and adjusts speed and other parameters automatically. You
don't need a human judging if there is enough room to parallel park in
a certain parking space. The self-driving car measures it precisely
and either parks or moves to the next space. When it does park it can
get into much smaller spaces because it does not rely on human
judgement. As I have pointed out in other contexts, you can't know
every parameter that effects what you are trying to do because there
are just too many variables and robots can't know all the variables
either. So vehicle mishaps will most likely not be completely
eliminated. But self-driving cars sure do seem to be reducing the
accident rate a lot. That is, per miles traveled in similar conditions
the accident rate for self-driving cars is very significantly lower
than for human driven cars. This is almost entirely due to not relying
on human judgement. I expect that they will eventually become even
more safe too. That is because when an accident does happen we can
look at the exact circumstances of the accident and the exact failures
committed by the vehicle and design future vehicles to compensate for
that kind of conditions when they come along again. I think it's great
that human judgement can be replaced by something that does not use
judgement at all, but, instead, uses precise measurements.
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas.
Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you
are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is,
you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas
make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a
crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world.
(There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and
then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the
mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being
skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and
either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and
progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of
gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you
cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl
Sagan On 4/26/2021 9:19 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
block quote
Well, I've read stuff in the past which leads me to believe that these
are not vehicles in which one is a passive passenger. So I guess we'd
need someone who is an expert on the subject to tell us precisely what
the experience is like. Second: I have some very specific
philosophical reasons for objecting to a world in which we turn over
so much activity which involves human judgment to artificial
intelligence. I doubt that you're interested in a whole essay about
the subject, but if I had the energy and patience and you had the
interest, I'd write one. Suffice it to say, some of the most negative
changes that I've observed in our society are related to an increase
in human dependence on computer technology.
Miriam
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for
DMARC)
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:36 PM
To: blind-democracy
<blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: FW: [Announce] American Council of the
Blind Letter Supporting S. 1260
Miriam, I know that the word driving is often used to describe what
people riding in an autonomous vehicle are doing, but I am not sure
that it should be framed like that. The vehicles are also called
self-driving and that better describes what is going on. A person who
is being transported by it is not driving. He or she is a passenger.
As for whether such vehicles are accessible to blind drivers, again,
the word should be passengers, not drivers. Because all the passenger
has to do is to tell the car where to go and then just sit there they
are already accessible to blind passengers. As for whether any
governmental authority will permit blind people to be passengers,
well, governmental authorities can come up with a lot of regulations
that just do not make sense, but if a blind person can be a passenger
in a human driven vehicle then I see no reason why not. It would be
necessary to pass new rules or regulations especially to exclude blind
people and it strikes me as something that would be hard to justify.
As to whether any blind person would be able to afford to ride in one,
first, most any new technology is very expensive in the first place,
but once it catches on and can go into mass production the price tends
to come down, but do not assume that ownership would be necessary. I
would expect that self-driving taxicabs will be very popular among the
blind. At least, if they were available right now and the cost of the
fare was within reason, I would venture about considerably more than I
do now. I wouldn't mind riding a self-driving bus either. As for your
questioning whether anyone should be allowed to take advantage of
self-driving cars, why in the name of whatever higher powers you look
to would you ask that? It sounds as if you are asking if anyone should
be allowed to use an egg beater.
___
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas.
Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you
are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is,
you’re in deep trouble. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas
make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a
crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world.
(There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and
then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the
mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being
skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and
either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and
progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of
gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you
cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl
Sagan
On 4/26/2021 5:11 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
block quote
I'm a bit taken aback by this letter. Does ACB really think that these
vehicles will be designed in such a way that they'll be accessible to
blind drivers or that any governmental authority would ever permit a
blind person to use one, even if they were? I'm not even sure that
these things should be developed for anyone to use. And would they be
affordable for the average blind person?
Miriam
From:
Announce@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<Announce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Kelly Gasque
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:10 PM
To:
announce@xxxxxxxxxxxx
;
leadership@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Announce] American Council of the Blind Letter Supporting S.
1260
April 26, 2021
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Chairman U.S. Senate Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee 420-A Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Roger Wicker, Ranking Member U.S. Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee 420-A Hart Senate Office
Building Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Cantwell, and Ranking Member Wicker:
My name is Clark Rachfal, and I am the Director of Advocacy and
Governmental Affairs for the American Council of the Blind (ACB). ACB
is a nationwide member-driven advocacy organization that strives to
increase the security, independence, economic opportunity, and quality
of life for people who are blind and experiencing vision loss.
Eliminating barriers to transportation and enhancing independent
travel are critical to ensuring people with disabilities are
integrated in our communities and have equal opportunities to move
freely. For these reasons, ACB strongly supports the inclusion and
passage of S. 1260 as an amendment to the Endless Frontier Act as
offered by Sens. Peters and Thune, which would incentivize American
companies to test and develop accessible autonomous vehicles.
People with disabilities, including our members who are experiencing
vision loss, routinely encounter limited transportation options for
independent travel.
For those living in an urban environment, people with disabilities are
subject to long wait times and unreliable service from public
transportation, para transit services, and discrimination due to their
disability or service animals from human drivers. Conversely,
Americans with disabilities living in suburban and rural parts of the
nation remain physically and mentally isolated with few transportation
options. Autonomous vehicles hold the promise of truly on-demand and
independent travel for people who are blind. Allowing tis technology
to flourish under a national testing framework will enhance the
transportation options, quality of life, and economic opportunity for
people who are blind and experiencing vision loss.
The two most significant measures of this amendment for our members
and all Americans living with vision loss are granting the Department
of Transportation the authority to provide regulatory exemptions for
manufacturers who are promoting transportation access in accordance
with Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the
prohibition of requiring a driver’s license to operate an autonomous
vehicle. These provisions will incentivize U.S. manufacturers of
autonomous vehicles to include accessibility for people with
disabilities at the forefront of their design, testing, and
development process; ensuring that access for people with disabilities
is a foregone conclusion and not an afterthought. Additionally, if
driver’s licenses are required to own or operate an autonomous
vehicle, millions of Americans with disabilities will be prevented
from gaining equal access to this transformational technology.
For these
reasons, ACB urges the Commerce Committee to adopt S. 1260 as an
amendment and secure independent travel for all Americans regardless
of disability or where they live.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this letter supporting S.
1260 as an amendment to the Endless Frontier Act. If the Committee has
any questions, please contact Clark Rachfal, ACB’s Director of
Advocacy and Governmental Affairs:
crachfal@xxxxxxx.
Sincerely,
Clark Rachfal
Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs
CC: Members of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee
_._,_._,_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1713)
|
Reply To Group
|
Reply To Sender
|
Mute This Topic
|
New Topic
Your Subscription
|
Contact Group Owner
|
Unsubscribe
[miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
_._,_._,_
block quote end
block quote end
--
Carl Sagan “It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance
between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all
hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great
openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in
some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes,
whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble. If you are only
skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn
anything new.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling
the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every
now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to
be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit
of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent
it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding
and progress. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of
gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you
cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones.” ― Carl
Sagan
Precisely at the point when you begin to develop a conscience, you must
find
yourself at war with your society.
-James Baldwin
Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed
until it is faced.
-James Baldwin
********************
Maurice Peret
MOBILE/TEXT: 804.928.4015
********************
