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
