Mike,

I'm less sceptical than i was when i read the initial story as posted 
here. The issue of cutting down carbon emissions will loom ever more 
largely, and petrol/gasoline prices will increase sizeably in the medium 
term, regardless of people's ability to pay. There always will be 
accidents, no matter the technology used, because of breakdowns or 
faults in functionality at the time. Increased road safety isn't just an 
issue to play around with. For various reasons, there will be continued 
scepticism on the part of Mary and joe Public (and lawyers) over the 
idea of blind regular drivers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Pietruk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Fwd: Fw: [acb-l] Google tests cars that can steer 
without drivers


> Flor
> Thanks for posting this story.
>
> While I don't wish to burst anyone's buble or hopes, I seriously doubt
> that this approach to driving, if it proves implementable in the near
> term, will mean little to the blind.  The goals of the developers have
> nothing to do with this hope; and the cost of such equipped vehicles 
> will
> prove insurmountable for the typical blind consumer.
>
> Right now, the U.S. and much of the rest of the world have far more
> critical issues to deal with and resolve than automated driving cars.
>
> And even if the technology can be proven viable, there are a set of 
> issues
> that go far beyond viability when it comes to actually having these 
> cars
> travel roadways with drivers behind the wheel, say nothing of drivers 
> not
> qualified or able to handle these cars in an instance when things 
> fail.
>
> Dan cites his concerns about typical drivers; well, I'd be even more
> worried by non-attentioning paying drivers who will tangentially have 
> to
> take responsibility in the event of failure.
> And even if we can get beyond this based on years of actual road
> experience of these cars, I doubt that allowing just anyone to operate 
> an
> automated vehicle is in the realm of expectation at least in this time 
> and
> place.
> The story Flor posts should serve us as a reminder that technology, in 
> all
> its wonders, still can require human oversight and intervention upon
> occasion.
> Eliminating that oversight will not happen until years, and perhaps
> decades, have passed showing that humans are not necessary in the
> equation.
>
> And with our current economic situation, there are not going to be 
> funds
> available for this kind of playing around.  Those days may well be 
> over
> given the deficit
> the President and Congress have saddled us with.
> While Harry seems to dismiss the insurance comapny issues, I cannot 
> see,
> in the short-term, them allowing just anyone to purchase coverage. 
> The
> responsibility for operating the vehicle must remain with the 
> individual
> in the driver's seat; and they are hardly going to insure someone
> incapable of instantaneously overriding the automated systems when 
> things
> will go awry.
>
> I see a place for such vehicles potentially; but that place, at least 
> for
> the near term, is not with blind "drivers."
>
> That may ultimately come, but that is a long way off.
>
> Sorry but that just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The real measure of our wealth is how much we should be worth if we 
> lost our money.
> John Henry Jowett - (1864-1923), English Congregational pastor
>
>
>    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
>    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
>    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
>    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
> 


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]