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
