Category: Let's talk
I ran a cross an article saying that there's a type of car for the blind to drive. Yep! it's actually out there people test drove it and everything and they say it'll be made from ford (I hope I'm wording this correctly.) I think it's interesting, but at the same time nervous. I'm not even sure as a totally blind person I would touch a part on this car. I do like the fact that we'll be able to drive, but um...
So my thing is, would you drive this? How do you feel about it? Do you think the sighted eye would actually want blindies on the road with this system? Does it feel like some type of science project to you and we're liable to kill ourselves and others in the process of all this?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
My understanting is there's still more work to be done to make it safe. Once it's safe to drive though, as safe as any sighty driving (and more sighties kill themselves driving than any other way of dying I vaguely recall), I'll snap one up and learn to drive it.
Kick ass!
I for sure would go for it!
I'd need to know more about the car, but I can understand both sides of the issue.
I'd need to know more about it, but if it's just as safe as a sighted person driving I'd say we'd get a family car!
i wouldn't do it. to me it is too risky. i wouldn'y want to take the chance.
I'll have to look up the article and post the website here. But it just make me nervous and...
Yeah, I'm sure where I'm coming from.
Okay, I've found the exact report. Didn't know how to copy and paste the whole article and it gives more details then I could:
http://autos.blackvoices.com/2010/03/19/will-blind-people-will-be-able-to-drive-cars-oh-yes/.
For the post before know where I'm coming from, sorry should've looked before I posted...
Miah is absolutely right. Us, in one of these cars, would probably be safer than some of the sighted people who are allowed on the roads. I don't have time to read that link now, but my answer is that whenever this car is completed, tested, and so on, I'd definitely drive it. As someone else on here said, kick ass!
agreed, I'd need to know more, but as soon as the work on the car is done, I'll give it a shot
I to put in:
"kick ass!!!"
my bad for those 2 extra posts.
I have herd about this from the nfb:
It is simply an abomination! I'm sorry but we are blind and must face the facts that we have limitations. Driving is one of them. Besides, if we all had cars it would hurt the survices that blind people use for transport. The regular transportation would be find but still such a car will strip away certain survices. I understand the philosophy that we should be treated just like sighted folks but we must keep in mind that we can't do certain things. Would you fly a blind-friendly airplane? Come on!
An abomination? Wow, strong language. You're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, but the vehemence of your response surprises me. I guess I can see some of your concerns about things like this hurting public transportation. I had not thought of that. However, I don't think it would be as bad as you say. These cars would be astronomically expensive, and therefore not common to most blind people. Therefore, most of us would still have to rely on public transit.
Besides, I think you're going a bit too far. If we went by your logic, we'd be stuck back in the dark ages still. There was a time when it was thought that there was no way blind people could be safe, independent travelers of any kind. Society told us we just had to accept our limitations, to understand that there are just certain things blind people can't do. However, we've clearly proven otherwise. The same thing goes when it comes to many other areas of life, such as blind people attending college, getting jobs, and so on. Why not go above and beyond society's, and apparently some other blind people's, expectations, in this case, too?
I totally agree with Sister dawn on this. Sighted people can be terrible drivers too, so it's not like we would really be any worse than they are. I do agree that the car needs to be carefully tested, and maybe a little extra effort needs to be put in by the blind person in order to obtain a license, because let's face it, we don't know the rules of the road as well as a sighted person does. A sighted kid growing up sees traffic lights and how they work, understands that people can drive like assholes and visually picks up a lot more information than we ever would. Sure, these concepts can be taught to us, but I feel we probably don't get them the same way, and that's OK as long as they can be explained in an alternative way that would make us safe drivers. I think this is a great idea, and I honestly don't care if it hurts public transportation services. A lot of sighted people are opting for public transportation anyway, what with the high gas prices and all, so I don't think it would really be a problem, but regardless, some blind people like me for instance don't even have access to public transportation because of the remote location I live in, or it can be unreliable, in unsafe areas etc. A lot of things can go wrong, and if we could drive, it takes a huge burden off of people who would otherwise feel "obligated" to drive us places. By the way, I would fly a blind friendly airplane, why the hell not?
I also agree with Sister Dawn. Again, I'd need to know more about the car, and would want to do a lot of test driving before buying one, but if it works, and it's no more dangerous than sighted people driving, why not?
More dangerous? Probably a hell of a lot safer. Come on, I have some points for you to think about...If it weren't for Jaws for Dos, ASAP, ETC, we'd never have been aloud on computers. If it weren't for ADA we'd never get hired; (not that it isn't difficult even with it). If it weren't for cooking aids; (some are absolutely dependent on such as stove/microwave markers, talking timers, ETC), we'd never be seen as safe in the kitchen. And, if it weren't for all of this we'd never be allowed to be parents because we wouldn't be able to even half-way meet a child's necessities...Cooking, travel, ETC. So, why the hell not drive if it's possible? I know because I'm married to a completely sighted individual how dangerous and idiotic the sighted are on the road. They drive the wrong way in parking lots like Wal-Mart, they cut in front of one without any warning, they turn on their turn signals at the last moment while they're slamming on the breaks, and the list goes on. Sure, I think if the car is properly equipt I can drive better and safer than damn near all of them. Think about it, all of you know sighted people who cook; who gets burned more often, or cut, or makes more of a mess? All of you surely know people who clean their own houses...Who; if you are indipendent, is neater about cleaning, feeling stuff under your bare feet? My point is we often can manage things better at times because we are more careful, and why shouldn't that extend to driving? Oh, by the way, I have driven...My husband giving directions, and you know what? I stopped cleaner, I thought of turn signals before he did, and many who have seen me drive point out that I'm much more careful about speeds, turning, stopping, giving warning, ETC, than others on the road today...LOL, no worries, I'm no longer engaged in illegal activity. That was when I was young and dumb, and if I did that well under illegal circumstances; (A cop actually once saw me driving...), why the hell shouldn't I think I could do even better today when I'm a lot more responsible, mature, ETC?
While I think it is awesome that there is such a car being worked on for blind people and agree with those who say why not, I personally still wouldn't buy or drive one if they ever became available. I worry enough at times about what would happen if a vehicle being driven by a sighted person were to malfunction or break down, so I know I would definitely be anxious about the blind-friendly car malfuncioning, especially since a blind person would have to depend on information given by the car way more than a sighted person does with their car. Also, we might be more careful, but other drivers can do unpredictable things, and would the car be able to "know", "this other driver is driving crazily."? It would almost have to be perfect and failproof in giving the signals it does at the right times. But then I'd probably be scared to drive whether or not I was sighted anyway so... But Yeah, even if I wouldn't drive these cars myself, I think it's cool for those blind people who would want to drive someday and can be another form of independence for those who would feel comfortable with or want it. I would think of it as another choice of traveling; some of us would rather travel with a cane, some would rather traveling with a guide dog, and others would rather travel by walking, carpooling, public transit, or with their own cars.
Hmm, I can see what your saying about "knowing", but sighted people don't "know" that a driver's screwing up...often not until it's to late and a crash has already occurred. Oh, I'm not trying to persuade; (all are welcome to what they're comfortable with), just playing devils advocate kinda speak and pointing out that other sighted drivers don't know, and even if you say they should notice...Often they're to busy talking on cell phones, shouting at kids, talking to passenger, looking for their own turn, listening to the radio, and the list goes on.
I agree with the last poster completely.
excuse me for being blunt here, but the way to get over your anxiety of anything in life is to take it head on!! just sayin'.
If I can drive a car and pass a driving test like everyone else / earn my license then good. I wouldn't want the standards to change because of me, simple as that.
FloriDuh is an awesome example of lowering standards for drivers, only there it's for the aging. And you know what? There are more accidents there per square mile than anyplace else in the U.S.
So, I repeat, if I can pass a standard driver's test with such a car, I'm in. I'm all for equality, but to me it means being a sport and playing on equal ground, no changes to standards.
To Poster 20, Maybe, but I've never driven a car before, so I honestly don't feel like I'm missing out on anything for not driving. Of course I'd always think what if, (I think it's normal to think that if you chose one thing and not the other), but it's personally not an ambition or goal, for me to one day drive and/or to prove anything to anyone by "getting over" that specific anxiety. I also did mention in my earlier post that the car would be cool for those who would want that experience of driving and owning a car; I just prefer not to and would be fine with how I get around now. Even some sighted people choose not to own or use a personal vehicle for their own reasons, I was just stating mine. *smile*
in my view, you wouldn't be proving anything to anyone but yourself, but I respect your choice not to wanna take advantage of such an opportunity.
Choice is everything, but I'm all for this car coming into existence. If it malfunctions, drive to the side of the road like you would do if any car malfunctioned, and nothing is risk free.
The only other danger I could see is if the car gave you the wrong commands, and I'm sure they won't be releasing the car to us until they get that part perfected.
Agreed both about choice and with the last post about the car. I'm looking forward to this. Where I live public transport is not an option; unless you want to pay a cab $20? But as things stand I either have to wait on my husband to be ready/awake/home or I have to ask someone else, and I'm looking forward to much more freedom!!!
Okay, fine, I'll just say that I would not get such a car. I have no anxiety about driving--I used to stear with direction and shift the gears. My argument is that it is rediculous and we need to accept our limitation. I once again ask about the blind-friendly airplane. Have fun navigating a 747 at 30 thousand. R'r'r'r'r'r'r'r'r'r'r'r'reah'h'h'h'h'h'h'h'h crash!
That's a really negative view to take. Are you saying we shoule accept our limitations just because society says we can't, and we grew up knowing we couldn't drive, so now that something that can make it possible is coming into existence, you just choose to think it won't work because it's something we "can't do?" I really don't understand how this is a limitation we have to accept if it turns out to be proven safe. Of course you don't have to drive, and that's a good point about sighted people choosing not to drive for safety reasons too, but I personally think that for a lot of us it will take the burden off people who drive us around, not to mention give us a sense of independence. And if a system is built into a car that will allow us to navigate, why couldn't it one day be implemented into a plane? I personally wouldn't do it, but that's because I shudder to think about flying anyway...it's the most unsafe method of travel in my opinion. But hey, if it could happen, why try to stop it or deny it could?
No no I guess I said that wrong. What I meant was that if blind people were meant to drive, we would have been driving already. I would have had a car in high school, struggled to find a job (which is hard enough for us) in order to pay off car insurance and all that. Yikes the list goes on. If you want to deal with that that is fine, but I personally pass.
Driving would be an opportunity yes. However, as I mentioned, it would only be a valid one if we could pass all the same tests sighted people did. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege that not all sighted people get and some even get taken away.
If the car and the roads were all updated to support Object-oriented driving, where signs and the like were all self-aware, then it would be potentially feasible. It's not about choice, it's about responsibility if you take the wheel: You would be responsible then for everyone's safety in your vehicle and crossing the road in front of you and the like. Going through this now with a teenage daughter: Driving isn't automatic, and all of us paying for car insurance, maintenance, car payments, even gas know this stuff is really expensive.
What I don't know now is how data would be communicated, via vibration or what, so the driver could react as quickly as a sighted person, and react properly. Kinetic energy, centrifugal force, and inertia combined with several hundred pounds plus of metallic mass, are all immune from diversity advocacy.
I'd be willing to try of course, but would settle for nothing short of competing on the same level as everyone else. One simple reason: on the open road, it's not gonna matter if you're blind, sighted, a one-legged frog or whatever. Physics will dictate a lot of what's required of you.
I would think speech would be way too sluggish a communication mechanism for you the driver to make an intelligent decision and react in time. Vision is just so incredibly fast and general / panoramic in its input capacity. And in order to negotiate at fifty miles per hour and more you absolutely must have such a panoramic viewpoint, simulated or otherwise. Speech is just so one-dimensional you don't get enough data at the same time to know how to react.
If you're at an intersection, how long will it take to alert you that a car is running an illegal red in front of you, across the intersection someone turned on the turn signal and is preparing to turn right in front of you, a car is tailgating you, a pedestrian is tapping the foot waiting to go, a bicyclist is attempting to pass you and there's no bike lane?
I'm not going to say this is impossible: engineers rarely say 'no,' more often it's 'not now.' However, let's deal with the physical universe as it is. With our ears, we could accommodate all this data standing on the street corner because a. we're not potentially moving as fast as a car is, and b. we're standing outside. Things like turn signals don't mean as much to us, we just hear the car across the street go from neutral into first, aka the idel revvs up a notch or two.
However, from inside the vehicle it's going to sound a lot different.
Imagine the difference in sound between Shades of Doom and Tank Commander.
Now in Tank Commander you have to depend on a lot of radio messages to play effectively and you're not negotiating streets in a fully realistic fashion. In fact, audio games are slowed down because audio is a slower medium than vision. If you go to a baseball game, people will see the bat hit the ball before you hear it. That's the sort of thing sighted people live with that we do not: They can see the effects of a gunshot before they hear it. Translate that to the road and you have all sorts of scenarios come into play.
And if we are reliant on technology to a greater extent than a sighted person, who is liable when an accident happens? This is going to be much more complex than brakes going out, tires causing problems, or other scenarios sighted drivers deal with.
I'm not entering the psychology or political debate, because to me we're dealing with the above-mentioned scientific phenomena, which we would need to overcome in such a way that everyone could have confidence in us. It' not going to be confidence in the machine, not in the near future, it's confidence in the driver. Would you put your infant relative in the backseat with you and drive the NFBMobile? We will have to be able to understand this panoramic view and massive amounts of input. To me this does not seem impossible. However, there must be a mechanism by which this is delivered. Rather a multitude of mechanisms, probably a combination of audio and tactile vibrations.
And once we can, we must:
We will be expected like anyone else to run a family member to the hospital, drive home from work through hectic traffic, circumnavigate upcoming road construction and get home another way, circumnavigate roadblocks caused by accidents meaning go find a turnoff someplace else, because we're in the wrong lane.
It's a lot more than just going fast, and 'going where we want'.
The going where one wants is one of the first things the teenage driver has to learn. You and I, except those of you who used to see and drive, have never been subjected to one-way streets, seeing exactly where we want to go but have to drive ten miles just to change lanes, miss a turn-off and drive fifty miles to the next exit, and come back through unknown territory, accidentally find out we were five miles over the limit in a school zone, and get pulled over by a cop. The best of sighted drivers make mistakes, and there's one common denominator: they all pay for it.
I say all this understanding the thrill of the ride, the bad-ass desires, hell I had my fun as a teenager roaring around my grandfather's farm on a three-wheeler and getting screamed at profusely by an otherwise placid and stayed grandmother as a result. However, as much as I maybe got banged up a bit, and could've gotten injured had I decelerated rather than accellerated when the thing started to tip on the hill, I was in open country and was basically not a danger to anyone else. If you've been out on a jet ski or on a boat with a buddy and done this, or even just driven around at slow speeds in a parking lot, none of us have had real road experience, making all the decisions a driver must make. That's probably a reasonably fair assumption to make, though many on here have no doubt had their offroad badass experiences, to varying degrees and using varying vehicles.
However, the road is a whole different ball game and countless livesare in the balance. I just think we ought to be more concerned with addressing the physics and inputs of the situation rather than dealing with the philosophy / politics.
Well, for those of us going to NFB convention, there's going to be a lot of talk about these cars, so we'll likely know a lot more after that point. I'm looking forward to it.
Ever since I was five years old, people told me that someday there would be machines that would let blind people read and cars that blind people could drive. Well, I now have reading equipment, which I spent most of my life dreaming about, but I doubt if I will see a blind-friendly car in my lifetime. If I had the opportunity to have such a car, there would be a lot of questions that I would need answered, such as some of the issues that GemiMoonTwinkleStar and Robozork have raised, but, if my doubts as to feasibility were satisfied, I would give anything to have such a miracle. Not being able to drive is the bane of my existence.
I hope Margorp is being satirical. You are being satirical, aren't you, Margorp?
those of you going to convention, please let us know what they say about the cars. I definitely wanna be as up to date as possible. thanks in advance.
Yes. Definitely let us know what they say.
O yes, I definitely agree that we need to follow all the same rules of the road. We don't get off easy in any other walk of life, and this one should be no exception. I'm just not going to refuse the opportunity just because it's been well known for years that blind people can't drive cars. Why not bust the stereotypes about it if possible?
exactly.
Exactly my point. I'm willing if it's safe, and I'm not going to let anyone tell me I can't just because I'm blind and blind people "just can't drive". If it's proven viable then I'm there, and make no mistake, I'm accustomed to competing with the sighted, and I have no doubts that if the car was designed correctly I could handle it; (with some learning time of course), and everyone requires that learning time.
Well when it is possible, it will be my responsibility, plus a lot of fun, to learn how. Stereotypes are philosophy and live in the nebulous realm of belief, which means I don't know if I can or have affected them one way or another. That would be extremely difficult to prove.
I hope at the convention where some of you all go, they skip the advocacy / talk of blindness / issues / initiatives when it comes to these cars, skip the hype and jump headfirst ass up direct into the engineering requirements. Until said problemms are solved, discussion on stereotypes and who's who in the inspirationosphere mean nothing.
Great example on the reading equipment, and you're right of course. However, there is no risk to anyone else if your reading equipment fails, not like driving. Blind people driving is an interesting and fascinating set of phenomena to resolve, and personally I think it would be kick-ass to be involved in it. But the problems I mentioned in earlier posts will require massive engineering and skip the political / inspirational love fest which basically can't generate anything on its own.
They would need to give us a separate test which is crazy. Obviously the sight portion...that is, the visual test would be out.
No, I don't think Margorp is being satirical. And, as far as the comment about if we were meant to drive we would be doing so by now, I think that's extremely false. Years ago it was probably said that if we were meant to travel independently ,we would have. If we were meant to be employed and/or go to college, we would have by then. If we were meant to use technology, we would have. But, through our own hard work as blind people, and advances in technology, we have done many, many things that the sighted world, and probably blind people themselves, thought were impossible. To say that if we were meant to do something we would be doing it already is to close oneself off from all the opportunities the future holds for us, all the strides we have yet to make, to close off all that we can and will become as blind people.
OK, back on topic. I agree that we need to know rules of the road if we are ever to drive. Heck, I wouldn't mind knowing them anyway. Back in high school, my mobility teacher actually suggested I take driver's ed, so that I could learn the rules of the road, and perhaps become a better traveler, since I would have an idea what rules cars had to follow: right on red, things like that. I just wouldn't take the driving portion, of course. However, she was overruled, and I did not take it, though I wish I could have.
How many of you guys have driven, under the direction of a trusted sighted person? I have several times, and I loved the experiences of it. If I get the opportunity to drive, and independently, that'd be freakin' awesome!
While at the CCB, all of us as students went to a driving school, and got to experience some of the basics.
AS for the license test, I think we should pretty much be have to follow all the same rules as any other driver, including *all the tests. We may have to interpret some of the data differently, but we still will have to interpret it all the same. Though we'll have to have the modification of a different car than the normal driver car.
Sister Dawn, I see your point. I certainly do not wish to close myself off to opportunities. I do however feel that we should try to come back to earth and get in touch with reality. As a kid I did enjoy the driving with directions but I was just a kid and had no idea how dangerous it was.
Ttheer's a aThere's a difference between being cautious and being too scared to consider evolving technology and change. With all respect, it's seeming to me that you're the latter.
But it is not out of fear that I reject this blind car. I simply feel that it is not right...something is wrong with the concept and I can't quite put my finger on it. Just my opinion of course.
I love all the posts above. Like I said I want to drive one of these, but like everyone said I'll need it to be perfect and as safe as possible.
And for all you nfb peeps, keep me up to date on this or could you all start a board about it please?
Anyways...
Nothing is perfect. If we do wait for absolute perfection we will never drive. :) But, as near as possible would be nice.
True, about the nothing is perfect, whenever it's safe enough, then.
Bring it on! This sounds like a potential huge step forward in freedom and independence. Safety concerns are understandable. However those wil likely be thought of and addressed before this car is released to the general public.
Interestingly enough they intend on using a combination of forced air, vibro-feedback and audio. The forced air is supposed to be generated against the face to provide a picture of what's around.
As I said before, so long as we get all the input, and in time to react properly, the rest is moot: we'll just have to have adapted vehicles the same way wheelchairbound folks do.Obviously the adaptations would be different, but from what I saw it looks promising.
Robo, so did you read the link?
I really have to see the car in person enable to understand it.
How would forced air help show us what's around?
Yeah, Margorp, I find it interesting too, can somebody post here on how it would work? I posted this to see what the reaction would be, but how does all the stuff work in the car is what I don't get...
I am curious.
It's like I said in the Seeing Eye Car topic, I don't believe it's going to happen, least of all in our lifetime. I just don't believe that all the necessary feedback for the multitudinous things that need to be kept track of when driving any kind of motor vehicle can be transmitted to a blind person in enough time for them to be able to act on it. About all that might change my views if I were the one who happened to be chosen for that demo that's supposed to happen in Florida next January, and seeing as I'm not and have no plans of becoming a member of the NFB I don't see that happening. And they would have to pay my air fare and everything or I would have no way to get there. Basically what I'm saying is I'll believe it when I drive it, probably not before.
The vibrating gloves or whatever do make a certain amount of sense, but I still don't believe such feedback can be received in time to act on it seeing as when driving you're moving far faster than you ever would when walking. I don't think this is an abomination but I do think it's more or less a pipe dream. And I don't see how forced air will tell us what's around us. I might have attended this convention to hear more about this but I couldn't afford the air fare and I imagine you have to be a member of the NFB. I'm just not willing to do that, and not merely because of my general views of the NFB. I wouldn't be satisfied with just hearing more, although I am undeniably fascinated with this concept and despite my best efforts have found myself fantasizing about driving since I read about it. But my fantasies will likely remain just that so I'm not going to get my hopes up. I would have to actually drive this vehicle for myself before I believe it's either drivable or worth trying to save up for it.
As much as I would like to have a car that I could use independently, I suspect that the only way that could happen would be with artificial intelligence technology beyond anything that exists today, whereby you would enter the desired destination and let the vehicle take you there. As I said in my earlier post, I don't expect to see a blind-accessible car in my lifetime. I just couldn't understand anyone saying that such a thing would be an abomination or that blind people are not "meant" to drive, whatever that means.
I agree. I just don't think it's going to happen within any of our lifetimes so as far as I'm concerned getting excited for something we ourselves will probably never participate in makes no sense. And I agree that AI is probably the closest thing blind people will ever have to driving. Just enter the destination and it takes you there. That's probably as close as we're ever realistically going to get. And even that probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes.
I believe that the putting the destination thing will work. I mean why not? They have computers and all sorts of other stuff that we would've never thought could be possible.
That's exactly what the NFB wants to avoid. That would probably come under the heading of "Relying on others." I agree it's probably the only realistic option though.
The car is a pipe dream.
I couldn't agree more. And even if it is in fact possible I don't for one minute believe it's actually feasible. I don't feel the NFB is taking into account the unpredictable nature of the human element, much less other environmental changes that could interfere with the car. I've been arguing with a girl on YouTube about this over the last few days. She uploaded a video called First Car for the Blind! And she can't understand why I'm not excited.
I can't either. Like many have said here, it's your choice whether you want to take advantage of this or not, but how can you form opinions, or say it's probably not possible before you can find out for sure? Could you imagine if people had this aditude when computers came out? Where would our work lives be if people said things like: "Computers probably won't make our lives easier, because they can glitch up". Well, of course they can glitch. No machine is perfect, but this is why the car is being tested before it goes on the road for the rest of us to use. If it proves to be too risky, they'll try something different. End of story.
There is a possibility in any regular car that the brakes might not work, the gas tank could leak and catch on fire, and that the engine could stall in the middle of the road, causing an accident. Does this mean sighted people should give up all their cars too, because they can, without a doubt, present quite a few safety risks? Everyone I know who appreciates the convenience of a car probably wouldn't think so.
To Post 58 / Margorp: I rather enjoy my pipes thank you ... so let's not be hard on the pipe, now, unless I'm outa tobacco ... lol
Operating a computer is one thing. It poses no real threat to others unless you're sending out viruses. But we're talking about driving here. Driving does pose a threat to others. Hell, there are plenty of supposedly sighted people who shouldn't be on the roads. And I know plenty of blind folks who don't even pay attention when they're walking. Are we sure we want to give them cars? Not only that but I don't believe this car would be affordable for the blind since it's probably going to be more expensive than its non accessible fellows because of the modifications. The only way that could work is if we're allowed to make payments the same as sighted folks. But we'll probably be paying on them longer than they would. And as I've said before I don't see how the feedback could be sent to you in enough time for you to turn or whatever you're supposed to do. I mean if some idiot driver cuts in front of you or a child or animal darts into the road unexpectedly you might not even know it until it was too late. And the last thing the blind community needs is lawsuits because we hit some pedestrian or fellow driver. And while I don't necessarily believe the vast majority of people would sue a blind person I don't doubt there are plenty who would happily do so, and for much less than a car accident.
One more thing I feel I should point out is that even if we're all proven wrong and this car is completely and totally drivable by a blind person, and even if they become affordable enough to become as common as regular cars, if a blind person ever hits a pedestrian or a fellow driver it's likely to cause a major backlash against us despite the fact that sighted drivers hit each other as well as pedestrians all the time. That's not necessarily going to matter if the driver happens to be blind, regardless of whether he or she is in fact at fault. THere will be that portion of the sighted community who will continue to feel that we shouldn't be driving even if this car is proven safe for a blind person to drive. And if one of us happened to get into an accident, regardless of whose fault it is, that would give them reason in their minds to try to keep us off the roads. Not to say they'd necessarily succeed but it would very likely cause us a lot of grief. We've dealt with that before certainly but it may be different since this is something that does have great bearing on the safety of others as well as ourselves.
See, this is what the nfb does. They are so fixated on us acting exactly like sighted people that they refuse to take certain obvious parameters into affect. Most of the hard core members deep down wish to have sight and that makes me sad.
I agree. For a few days I was involved in what at first seemed like at least a relatively civil discussion with Cinderellascene924, a YouTuber who posted a video up there called First Car for the Blind! a discussion which quickly, and for no reason that I could figure out, turned into a heated and rather unfriendly argument. Oh I like to think I conducted myself reasonably well, or at least as well as one can when chatting only via text. But suddenly she's accusing me of being negative about this and that's why I don't have a job. Well as for the job thing people just aren't hiring much at the moment what with the recession and all. As for the car thing I was only being realistic. All I really said was I'm not going to get overexcited just in case this maybe doesn't bear fruit in our lifetime and that even if it did it would likely be far too expensive even to get much in the way of financial asistance.. She thought I was trying to drag her down when all I was really trying to do was to warn her that this might not be practical and that even if it were doable there might be a down side. But of course she was having none of it. Rather than risk getting myself into real trouble I decided to back off. But her response was that the NFB wouldn't propose to hold a demo of this car if it wasn't ready. Well let's look at what happened when Bill Gates first demoed Windows 98 on National TV. As I recall the system more or less crashed on him. If you ask me, not exactly encouraging. I just wanted her to be open to the fact that something could go wrong with this as well, and that even if no one was hurt it would set the project back quite a bit.
Hmm Margorp, interesting take on the NFB types. Doesn't seem like the ones on here are anything but pleasant, but the ones I've met in real life were quite the opposite. Never thought about them wanting sight: They just seemed cranky, pretentious, and the types that were we all ten-year-olds at the same time, we'd all be giving them swirlies.
Oh certainly not every NFB member is like that. THe folks I've spoken to here in Idaho, at least the vast majority of them, are indeed pleasant and reasonable. THey're members of the NFB but don't follow their philosophies to the letter. But they have confirmed some of the more seemingly riddiculous stories such as the one size fits all teaching practices and the frowning on folding canes. Needless to say I wouldn't be surprised if they tried or at least wanted to set stipulations on using these cars they're developing. About all I ever agreed with the NFB on was their outrage over that film Blindness.
Well that film was just sickining but that is off topic. About the car, I feel we should at some point put our views aside and try to look at it from all angles.
I don't mean to sound heartless, and of course, I think the car should be as equipped as possible to deal with unexpected situations, but if a person chooses to run out in front of a car, he/she is presenting their own risk. Even if the driver were sighted, there's always a chance the person on foot wouldn't be seen, or that the sighted person wasn't paying attention. Why I don't, by any means, think blind people should be cleared of all responsibility on the road just because we are blind, the simple saying that most children are taught at an early age applies: "Look both ways and listen before you cross the street". If it's an animal, well, unfortunately, accidents do happen.
If I was involved in the committee, I might propose a sign or sticker on the window of the car warning other drivers and everyone else that this driver is, in fact, blind, so they're aware that quick reactions on the part of the driver rely on the equipment in the car. They do the same for learning and new drivers, so I really don't see the harm. That being the case, consider them warned.
Um, Jessica I totally agree with you...
I will never be responsible for running over a person. No driving for this blind person!
I respect your opinion. I'm just saying I don't think this should be the only deciding factor on the success of this car.
agreed with the last post.
nobody besides me on here mentioned the carbon footprint issues, and how many countries are trying to reduce, not increase, the number of cars on the road. Perhaps the blinkosphere is consumed with the blind aspect of it, but as with so many things there are more sides.
I'm not saying I feel it should be the only deciding factor. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't necessarily matter to a sighted person that the car could be successfully driven by a blind person if that blind person were to accidentally hit something or someone. And probably the vast majority of sighted people might indeed be willing to acknowledge the fact that sighted folks can make the same mistake since as we all know the vast majority of sighted folks do seem fairly decent and sensible with regard to us. I'm just trying to point out the very real potential for legal and other sorts of problems if one of these blind drivers were to get into an accident. I'm not saying that it will happen, particularly if Virginia Tech and the NFB have in fact done their homework, so to speak, and covered all or as many of the bases as possible. I'm still extremely skeptical, more because of the nature of the activity in question, than my general lack of respect for and interest in the NFB. But if I'm actually able to watch this supposed demonstration next January and it's explained to me in a way that actually makes sense I may very well change my views. I won't deny that I would find it convenient to be able to drive but I'm also willling to accept the possibility and even the likelyhood that it won't happen in my lifetime.
This is yet another instance of the nfb having their heads jammed up their own ass. They only think of the blind angle they don't think about the other variables.
I think that's where you all are wrong; I'm sure they're considering other angles as well.
I didn't get that feeling from the article I read. I just think, as I've said many a time before, that there are just too many unpredictabilities that I don't feel they've begun to address. I just feel they're rushing this demo. And they claim it's not going to be automated in any way and that our feedback won't be generated via computer? Well I suppose some sort of computerized component would be needed for these vibrating gloves that I've heard about but apparently everything else is supposed to be provided via forced air. I just don't see how that's going to work in the context of driving. And as I said in the accessible devices version of this topic what happens if something malfunctions during a drive and you can't get anymore feedback? It'll be hard if not impossible to pull over if something like that happens. I'm sorry if I seem negative and skeptical but I'm just not convinced.
Another reason for me not to drive it. I'd need to wear mickey mouse gloves that hum. No thanks.
I'll admit, I think it needs more testing, but I think it could work. Besides, this whole thing is hardly past the infant stages. Give it some time.
If it doesn't end up working out, I won't be too disappointed, because I'm used to relying on public transit, but if it does, I'll definitely support it.
As for the issue of trying to decrease the number of cars on the road, I think that's another issue altogether, and I don't mean to be picky here, but if they're going to do that, I think they really need to improve public transit. Set up more bus stops, have more frequent runs so we don't have to be either really early, or almost late for an appointment, or even better, set up more services like subways and sky trains that don't even need a full time driver. In any event, I digress.
That's what I feel they should actually be focusing on instead of a potentialy fruitless blind drivable car. What's wrong with improving public transportation? Besides, not only is the average blind schmoe unlikely to be able to afford to buy one of these cars even if it does work out, but that same average blind schmoe might find it hard financially to handle the upkeep on such a machine, particularly if the economic problems we've been having continue for any length of time.
I guess I am in the minority. I'm very excited about the prospect. I don't see it being released to the gp until it has been thoroughly tested and safety regulations have been made and met etc. Honestly I cannot believe how many nay-sayers there are about this in our own community.
I'm not denying that I'm intrigued but logic would argue that it's not feasible for a variety of reasons. First of all as I've said before, there are just too many variables involved in driving and I don't understand how the NFB proposes to render them all in a nonvisual form, much less in a way that will make sense to the one driving the car. Especially when you consider the fact that they don't plan to computerize the car, at least no more than it would normally have been since it is a hybrid car from what I've read. And let's face it, even if they were going to do that computers malfunction sometimes, even without any help from viruses. But as it is these vibrating gloves and little grills that force air don't seem to me to be a very effective means of navigating. And what about the traffic lights? And of course let's not forget idiot drivers, pedestrians or animals. As I've said before I see a great deal of potential for serious legal problems if one of tese cars ever gets into an accident while a blind person's driving it. Like it or not but that's going to confirm, at least in the minds of some sighted people, the belief that we shouldn't be driving, and never mind that sighted folks get into accidents all the time. And if these people happen to have the right connections they're going to do everything in their power to get us off the road again. Even forgetting all that though, the price tag on one of these cars is almost certain to be a lot higher than what an ordinary car would cost you. It'd be cheaper in the long run to continue to use public transportation or even hire a driver.
Yes, I'm sure the price on these cars will be outrageous, but it will eventually come down, and it has to be somewhat reasonable, or nobody would ever buy one, and therefore giving them little or no business. What kind of marketing would that be? Also, I don't think being blind has much to do with not being able to afford it, and just about everything to do with the fact that this is brand new technology.
Well the price is going to have to come down fairly quickly if they hope for many blind folks to ever buy and drive one of these cars. And I hope they've really done their research.
I guess what really gets to me about this is that from the article I'm reading a tone that seems to indicate that the NFB thinks they're going to be able not only to develop this car but outfit every last one of us with one of these in our lifetime. I understand they want to make us as independent as possible and I'm all for that, but why not encourage and train more people to use public transportation or whatever options might be available in their area? Well after they ditch their one size fits all teaching policy anyway. But I stand by my statements earlier. Even if the ideas they and Virginia Tech have come up with would indeed make it possible to drive without sight I still think it's much too risky what with the unpredictable nature of driving. Even setting aside mechanical failure or other malfunctions in your own car that would effectively make it impossible for you to pull over if the right components went on the fritz, then you have to consider whatever means they plan to use for you to be aware of traffic lights. If that component or even one of the lights malfunctioned you'd definitely have a problem. And that's not even including the idiots who get behind the wheel these days, folks who for all their sightedness can't or just don't pay attention to what's around them. And then of course there are the drunk drivers and pedestrians. Will this car be able to warn you in time to avoid colliding with a drunk driver or a pedestrian? I'm sorry, but unless and until there's more information I'm going to have to remain a firm naysayer, or at the very least a profound skeptic, even despite my own fantasies about driving. They're really going to have to work to prove themselves and not just to the sighted community and certainly not just to me as a lifelong blind person. They may have had success with a blind drivable dune buggy but a dune buggy is probably much different from a car and not just in its design. The setting is certainly going to be different. They'll have to test this car in every sort of setting a normal driver would be likely to encounter, and not just when there are no other drivers around. If, that being the key word, they prove that it can indeed be done I'll certainly jump on the bandwagon with the other excited blinks, both lifers and recents, who are excited to drive. But like I said they're going to have to have plenty of options for tose of us who aren't going to be able to pay the entire cost of the vehicle up front. If we're allowed the same options sighties have it might be doable as far as the cost goes, but I nevertheless shudder to imagine how long it would take an unemployed or underemployed person to pay off the full cost of the vehicle since as I've said before the price is bound to be a good deal higher than a normal car. It's as I've said before I don't mean to sound like a party pooper but I'd rather do that than get overly excited only to discover it's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Well, like anybody else, if you can't afford the car, you don't get a car, and make due with public transit. If public transit were better, I wouldn't care a bit about cars for the blind, but I didn't really like getting up at 6:30 AM to take a bus to a college just down the road when I didn't have to be there until 8:30. At the end of the day, I had to rush out the door in a serious hurry, thinking to myself all the way to the bus stop that hopefully I wouldn't miss it. Anyway, my point is, I appreciate the service of public transit, but I would take a car ride any day, mostly for convenience sake.
Then we will judge each other:
"Do you have a car? You don't? Oh my you have no skills. Go to the NFB meetings you lazy little..." etc.
That's if you have public transit as an option. Here in Twin Falls we don't currently, but with the way the city is growing we may very well in the next few years. And while I hate planning my day around public transit, in particular the having to leave the house several hours early to be sure you get there on time even though it's not really all that far away. And in Portland I always had the absolute worst luck with the bus system since an apointment would end just as the bus I needed to catch had left and so I had to wait a minimum of fifteen minutes and often even longer at a bus stop where there was no shelter and it was raining. And maybe it's just me but I found the hood on a raincoat or even an umbrella to be extremely distracting since the sound of the rain falling on it was actually louder than without it.
Margorp, you're probably right about the judging thing, but like anything else, you take the advice when it matters, and ignore it when it doesn't, and if you think logically, you'll know that in our case, driving will be more about the accuracy of the computer than skill itself. The only important skill I can think of is the ability to follow directions exactly when they are given, and this applies to travelling on foot as well. If people want to judge you by your transportation method, that's their loss.
I don't think there's going to be a computer in this particular car, or if there is it sounds like it'll have little bearing on how the nonvisual feedback is provided except perhaps in the case of the vibrating gloves. But not only do you have to be good at following directions but you're also going to need extremely fast reflexes if you're going to avoid the obstacles in the road. Even if you're driving the speed limit it's still much faster than you could walk. Then of course if it's a moving obstacle like another car you have to take their speed into account as well as your own. That's why I don't know if this is going to be feasible since I don't see how any feedback could be sent to you quickly enough for you to react in time.
as with anything in life, though, there will always be obstacles; it's our choice whether we wanna allow them to stand in our way or not.
Exactly, and as far as the reflex thing is concerned, that's why I said we need to be able to follow directions *exactly as they are given*. Like sighted people, we need to take the driving test and get the lisence before we get to be on the road. This will hopefully get around the problem of slow reflexes.
But one thing is that we have had less practice at such things as the sighted ones have had their whole lives to observe parents on the road and all that. I know I sound ignorant here but well, I just can't wrap my brain around blind people driving. I mean, what a concept!
well, think of it this way: you didn't learn how to ride a bike till someone taught you. why should learning to drive a car be any different? sure it'll take time and patience, but don't most things in life? I guess it just depends on how independent you truly wanna be, and whether you choose to let fears dictate what you do or don't do.
I do agree that it will probably take us longer to learn to drive than it would take a sighted person because we haven't observed these things as kids like sighted people do. To us this whole thing is kind of an alien concept, as kids we didn't grow up knowing we would have a car someday like Mommy and Daddy do. That was a fantasy we had in our head of a time so far in the distant future that it was about as likely to happen as acquiring magical powers. So we didn't necessarily ask our parents questions that would have gone unnoticed to a blind person, but which sighted kids pick up just by watching. Now as far as this car goes I think it's a great idea, and if it ever gets to a point where it's safe to drive, I'm all for it. Living in the oppressive environment I have for most of my life, just driving away and having that kind of freedom is a hell of a concept. But I'm not getting my hopes up because I too don't understand how vibrating gloves are supposed to work. Wouldn't there have to be some kind of GPS system in place? They already have talking prompts, I don't see why there wouldn't be, but of course they have the potential to malfunction like anything else.
When it does happen, if it does, it's not gonna be about fear and inspiration and independence.
It'll be all about getting trained, tested and approved, then paying for your own insurance, maintaining the vehicle after you get one, paying for traffic tickets, answering dubious questions like you drove to someone's house all right but now you may need to be shown where the kitchen is to put down the dish you brought for the get-together. It's all gonna fall back to practical considerations just like everything else does.
True, and that's one reason I'm not getting my hopes up. But what I'm saying is, if it were to happen, I believe it would be a truly awesome feeling that first time behind the wheel, doing something deemed by society to be impossible, breaking free of a suffocating restriction. Of course it comes with a price, as everything that's worth anything does.
agreed with the last post completely.
Oh if it did come to pass I'd be all for it, but I'm with Margorp in that I just can't wrap my brain around the concept. I didn't pay attention when I was required to take Drivers' Ed as part of Health class in my Junior year of High School because I knew I would more than likely never drive in my lifetime. And that's another important consideration. The NFB may actually have stumbled on something here, but at thirty I'm more or less convinced that the amount of time it's going to take to really research this and make it as safe as possible will more than likely mean that it may not come to pass in our lifetime. And even if it does many of us will likely be too old to care since it's going to require years if not decades to research since we're talking about a vehicle that actually needs to be driven and will not be slef-driving. Then again by the time this vehicle is officially available self-driving land vehicles may be all the rage or at the very least coming into fashion. LOL. I could be all wrong about this, I freely admit it, but I'll need a lot more information before I'll be convinced this is either possible or feasible, in either a financial or a practical sense. If more information comes to light about this and it makes sense I'll allow myself to get as excited as I'd like to.
Well if it came to it, of course I would and probably the net effect would be a great feeling especially the first time, but having a family it would be good to be able to, so we could take shifts on trips and the like, another way to participate fully. And to the doubters around me at the time I wouldn't sell it like a political activist dancing in a t-back on the bar but as the responsible thing for me to learn since it would be available. Pragmatism most often wins.
I don't agree with the philosophy that we have no limitations whatsoever by any means, but how do we know where our limits lie if we don't find out?
exactly.
Well the no limitations philosophy is exactly what the NFB seems to preatch a lot of the time from what I've noticed, or they probably wouldn't be spending money on a project like this. If it turns out to be workable then great, just as long as enough people can actually afford one of these cars to make it worthwhile to have gone through the trouble of designing them. Otherwise they'll have wasted at least ten years' worth of research and who knows how much money along with it.
That would suck, but at least they would have tried.
exactly. if they wouldn't have tried, we'd never know...and some of us might wonder what could've been.
Given the state of the environment, and the fact that cars kill more people than public transport, I think I'd stick with the public transport that has always been fine for me.
If that's your opinion, that's fine. Many sighted people decide to do that too.
well that's just the point. there's too much emphasis on driving these days.
and so many cheap cars coming on the market so that more people can afford it, when what we really need is less cars on the roads and more green methods of transport.
I can see where oneof these cars might be handy in areas like the town where I live which has no real public transit system, only several small, probably privately owned taxi services. But in a major city there's no reason why we can't use public transit, although I will freely admit that I hate public transportation with a passion, or rather I hate planning my day around it. Even when I know exactly when a given bus is supposed to leave from a given location I always seemed to have the worst luck with it since my appointment, class or whatever always seemed to end at just the right time that I'd always get down to the bus stop just after the bus left. But I agree that given the state of our environment the NFB's just making an already big problem even bigger if they do put us on the road in cars, even though this is supposedly going to be a hybrid car.
I've actually heard that hybrid cars are just a gimic. Even though they're less reliant on gas on the roads, making it requires a lot of shipping of batteries, parts, ETC., so technically, the making of them is worse for the environment than making and driving regular cars. Public transportation isn't exactly green either, but they're working on that. Also, if you can walk, there's no reason not to. I just mean for long distances. Would you rather pay a $200 grayhound ticket to drive somewhere far away, or drive it yourself?
my thoughts exactly.
Actually, I personally would rather go by train or bus and not have the hassle of having to drive anywhere. I could go to sleep, read, listen to music or catch up on work.
not only that, with the price of petrol these days, in most cases, you're saving money if you fly or bus it.
That's opening up a new debate altogether. It's not really about blind people driving, but driving in general. My words relating to the two are very different.
well in a way it is the same debate, because if this car is finalised, it's going to put more people on the roads in the world.
a few years ago, an indian company brought out a car that costs a very low amount and they called it the future for families who are low income earners, which simply means it's putting more people on the roads when what we need is to put less people on the roads.
My concern is, how would this car work exactly? Would tell us when to stop at traffic lights? Would it prevent us from crashing in to other cars? How would we know if we were doing the speed limit? If we were allowed to drive one day, how would we go about it? Would we have to take the test to get a license or a permit? Take driving classes? I'd love to drive myself, but i need all these questions answered first.
I'm sure we all do. I'm just saying, if they were all answered, and the car "passed the test", so to speak, I wouldn't have anything against it.
As for putting less people on the road, they're really going to have to improve public transit in general before it'll actually work. In the meantime, I don't think it's fair to deny us, as blind people, the right to drive just because they're trying to decrease the number of cars on the road. That would be almost as bad as if someone said: "Okay, the world population is getting dangerously high, so nobody who has a genetic disorder is allowed to reproduce". A very different example, but my point remains.
I agree with those who say it's just going to make a major problem all the more serious. My sighted girlfriend and I have done a lot of driving over the last week or so travelling back and forth between my house and my folks' since we were house sitting, and it seems that the rules of the road have been tossed away by the wayside judging by the number of idiots who almost hit us, supposedly sighted people I need hardly point out. I just think that even if everyone of us blind people gets one of these cars and does their best to obey traffic laws and whatnot it's still going to be far too risky for my since people who actually obey the rules of the road are a distinct minority and tend to get honked at and given the finger by the rest of the population. And as I've said before there's likely to be mountains of legal trouble if a blind driver ever gets into an accident, particularly if anyone gets hurt as a result. And believe me when I say that to the sighted community at large it may not matter who was actually at fault for the accident. At that point at least some of them will do their absolute best to get us back off the road.
They'll try, sure, just like they've tried to keep women out of a so-called "men's" job. Unless they have solid evidence, they'll be no more successful than any other failed lawsute.
I feel that the n f b should hold off on this issue as they made major judgement errors (see abuv)
We'd just have to see. If Greedom Science Fiction could actually win their law suit against Serotek it MIGHT be possible for someone to successfully make it illegal for us to drive if one of us ever gets into a car accident. And I agree with Margorp in that the NFB needs to hold off on this issue until they've really done their homework, not just about whether this can be done but whether it's actually practical. I for one don't feel it is.
It's called critical thinking.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but why rule it out until you know for sure?
my thoughts exactly.
Well so far I've neither read nor heard anything about this ccar that would convince me either that it's doable or practical.
And I haven't read anything to make me assume it won't be, either. Both sides need to do their homework, not just the NFB. Anything, including the human brain, has the potential to glitch. The brakes, the engine, the gass gauge, and all other car parts have the possibility of malfunctioning. They say you're more likely to get in a car crash on the way to the airport then you are to get in a plane crash, and that estimate was made before these accessible cars were even thought about. Yes, I do agree that all bugs in the system must be thuroughly examined and fixed before the car could possibly be ready for the road, but I'm sure someone is thinking about those close moments when you have to slam on the brakes really quickly. After all, they happen almost every day.
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. I jst don't think it's practical and nor do I feel it's financially feasible. And unless or until I hear something that convinces me otherwise I'll view this project with the same skepticism with which I've generally viewed the NFB's activities.
what a shame; that's all I can say.
I am more worried about the bugs in the "human system." The concept has not fully been realized yet.
What I'd love to find out, and it's hard to believe it couldn't be simulated, is what needs to happen for us to react fast enough.
I've been on here long enough now to know what I'm gonna say is probably offensive to people who are more emotional about their blindness rather than just taking it as a hardware issue, this is not what I mean:
The problem with high speeds and vision, is that the human camera - the eye brain combination, can process thousands of frames per second. It's not that the driving experience is largely visual, it's the *amount* of data that the driver must process. I have no doubts any of us could process said data, the processor ain't the problem it's the inputs.
The encouraging thing on the NFB car is the use of a combination of factors: audio and the forced air.
Games that are strictly audio, for example, are slowed way down in order to perform for us, rather in order for us to play them.
Sound travels more slowly than does light, and modern devices have this annoying tendency to use speech as a primary modicum of audio output for the blind. Speech by definition is one-dimensional. By way of example, walk into the other room, you'll immediately know all your surroundings's sounds and of course the feel of the floor and such. Now turn around and try describing that.
The other side to this is that to drive correctly one must have a panoramic view: front, side and rear (via an artificial visual augmentation - the rearview mirror). Most of what we experience isn't panoramic in nature. Not being blind. In other words, we often start with the specific and work our way up to the general, while anyone or anything using reflected light as a resource starts general and works to specific. That means in the general stage there is a little bit about a lot more, before they decide what to focus in upon.
These are physics challenges, not "We blind can do anything" challenges. And that's not to say we can't. Really the fun starts when you solve a problem like this, not just convince people that blind people can do it.
If we solved this for us, military people and robots underground would be able to function in total darkness just like us, dealing with any number of obstacles the average motorist doesn't deal with. I personally think it's a quantum leap in regards to inputs and creating relationship between how information is gathered by photon-receptor devices and whatever mechanisms are used by us or any robot built without the capacity to use photons.
I am certainly interested in seeing how the technology works out. Will it ever be cheap enough for us? That I don't know unless it's used in many other places beyond just the blind. But I still say the quantum leap here is separating what we call a physical sense - sight - into its parts, figuring out what's used in the situation, and patching it to different inputs for the road. I did hear the interview, and it did sound encouraging as a incubus / vaporware prototype but I definitely think a one-for-one analysis of the physical problems encountered is what's in order.
the other thing I'm interested to know, is just how much this is going to be worth.
considering that this isn't going to sell like a normal car, and also the fact that a lot of the blind population is actually unemployed, who's going to do the buying, and is it going to be much more expenseve than normal cars?
because I have a feeling it will be.
That's precisely one of the things I've been trying to get across. And Robo has put my other concerns into words far better than I could have done. Can we do it? Perhaps, assuming they've done their homework. But can we do it fast enough given the sheer volume of data we'll have to process at high speeds. It's one thing to do it while walking but when you drive you move at a much faster speed even if you obey the speed limit. And ro people who've been blind their whole lives it could take some of them years to get comfortable with this new thing. I just don't see this as catching on for this and other reasons. For one thing as Swiss Griff pointed out it's bound to be frightfully more expensive than a normal car. And anyone who has worked with Voc Rehab at least in the US knows how hard it can sometimes be to deal with them even for everyday assistive tech since even if your own counselor is amenable he or she has to go to the higher-ups. And they're understandably wary when it comes to the little green pieces of paper. And while it might ease an employer's mind to find out that the blind person would be able to get to the job on time assuming of course that traffic cooperated, I stil think it's less expensive in the long run just to keep using public transit and to work on improving that instead of a blind drivable car, at least at this particular stage of the game.
I do agree with you about the price. I'm sure it will be more expensive than a regular car, and while I'm sure payment plans will be available, that would of course, work only if the people are employed. As for the other aspects, I'll agree with you that we'll just agree to disagree. Lol.
A realistic perspective for anybody who hasn't owned a car before:
You pay monthly insurance costs, depending on the driver's record age and other issues.
You pay for an oil change every 3000 miles (or pay later in worse costs).
You pay for the incidental damages that occur over time, especially with used vehicles. Right now we're going to have to pay for a coolant tank replacement and I'm the only income in a household of three.
To buy a new car:
This is much like any other large investment: your income, credit score and many other factors are taken into account, including how long you've been with your current employer, previous employment history, whether or not you own a home, all sorts of things.
This is not the dealership, it's the bet the financing company is taking on you fulfilling your financial obligation.
Know why? Because as soon as you drive that shiny new thing off the lot, it loses half its value.
Welcome to the automotive universe, that's just how it is, inspirational stuff or blind/blindism/blink whatever doesn't matter these are numbers you crunch if you buy something with wheels, an engine and lights on it.
I can tell by many posts on here, many haven't ever paid for a vehicle, and many haven't paid for the inevitable problems that happen when you least want them to, all sorts of things.
trust me, there are times I wish we lived in a country with a unified transit system like Japan because for as expensive as those tickets get, believe me, it's much much cheaper and you don't encounter all the inevitables that happen when you can least afford them.
And, speaking of things easily forgotten, there's gas. That's gonna go up and down (usually more up than down) throughout the year, different driving excursions do miles per gallon differently. So you have a big day in the downtown traffic, you burn up a lotta fuel. And what do you do when there's too much month at the end of the money, you use this vehicle, but you need to get gas. What funny names will some of you all come up with for auto manufacturers?
The physics of it all still excites me, but I admit I'm weird like that: I'm all for adventure. However, an automotive device like that can't help but need more maintenance than a regular car. How about after it's all been rained on awhile? When the air or fuel filter gets clogged? Any special filters needed to run the hydraulic or piezzo systems that grant us vibro / tactile feedback? Or the speaker dies like it would in your stereo there went speech.
I'm not a spoil sport, just hopelessly pragmatic.
Exactly. I personally just have a really strong feeling for the reasons Robo listed as well as others that this is going to turn out to be far more trouble than it's worth. If I'm proven wrong someday then so be it. I'll jump on the band wagon with everyone else. But until then I'd much rather treat it like the pipe dream I believe it to be rather than get my hopes up and then be disappointed later.
Look, I get it. People get all up an high horses because someone dared to ask the question:
"Can blind people do this?"
Of course, that question is always met with militants and yelling and screaming. Stop, think, and listen. Emotions play no part in this equation. Okay, now, we are not invalids...yes, I'm sure we "can" drive. I ask you, however, is it logical? Is it sound? Based on the data given here I say no. Now, we can see the problems from economics down to physics. This simply is not realiastic.
I agree. And I have a feeling that unless there's a lot the NFB isn't telling us they're going to be in for a rather rude awakening if and when this car comes on the market.
It is nothing short of insanity.
That's pretty much my thought as well. After all, just because we can do a thing doesn't necessarily mean we would be well to do it. Even if it's proven that blind people can drive these cars there are a large number of reasons why I think it's highly impractical. Financial concerns are high up on the list of course since as has already been pointed out these vehicles are bound to be far spendier than an ordinary car. And like I've said there are plenty of supposedly sighted people who shouldn't be out on the roads given how little attention they pay to their surroundings. Are we really sure we want to try to compete with them on their own ground? I just don't see this as at all realistic.
I vote we write the nfb on the matter.
I've thought about it from time to time. But the last time I wrote I didn't get a response.
No respnse needed, we just need to get the word out.
I may still do it since I do have very real concerns not just about the possibility of this but the feasibility as well. Even if it's prove that it can in fact be done I strongly feel it's a mistake. I might just hop on over and drop in my two cents.
I will do that as well.
Well today's the day it's supposed to go live for the first public demonstration. Cringe...
yes, and I can't wait!!
I'll admit I'm ever so slightly intrigued but the apprehension far outways that. I can't help thinking it's a recipe for disaster. And even if this demonstration somehow proves beyond all doubt that we can drive safely and independently as blind folks, I still don't beieve it's going to catch on simply because of the cost. Ordinary assistive tech is hard enough to get sometimes even with financial assistance. I shudder to imagine this car. If i'm proven wrong someday then so be it, but until then...
As insane as this might sound, I somewhat still have trouble grasping the fact that such a thing was even invented; I know technology is far more advanced than I might think these days, but even being told about this type of transportation when I was like, Five? I still seem to think of this as being somewhat unrealistic; on the other hand, I pretty much agree with poster 116 about having those concerns... As for whether or not I might consider driving one of those? Well, first of all, I would definitely need to overcome my anxiety and fear of accidents while driving, and then of course the features of the car, for the safety of me, and possibly any potential passengers...And...what else was I gonna mention? Oh yeah, if the NFB calls such an envention an "abomination", exactly why is it being shown at convention? Excuse me if you think that's a stupid question...
I don't know. But it's going to take me actually diving one of these things for myself before I actually believe it's possible. But even then I may not become convinced that it's actually feasible for the reasons I mentioned. It's bound to be far too expensive for the average blind schmoe to afford even with financial assistance. And what happens if a key component malfunctions or goes out compleely in the middle of a drive? Then you won't be able to tell where you are. I just don't feel the NFB has done allits homework andnothing I've heard has convinced me otherwise. I think they're overreaching. I just hope nobody gets hurt during this demonstration. Or maybe it should be I hope nobody got hurt.
I completely agree with you on that one...
You could argue that computers were once extremely expensive because there wasn't much demand for them. Now they're almost pocket change because most people have them. But these cars are going to be a different story since let's face it folks, we're a minority whether we like it or not. I don't think there are ever going to be enough of those cars to bring the price down to anything remotely affordable to the average blind schmoe. And if, as I said before and in another topic, a blind person is ever involved in an accident in one of these cars, and regardless of whether or not said blind person is actually at fault, that's going to provide backing to those who feel we shouldn't be driving and have the power to make that happen. It wouldn't matter if the vibrating motors went out so you couldn't tell when to turn or break or whatever, or if some supposedly sighted driver cut in front of you too fast for you to be able to react in time. The vast majority of people might perhaps understand but enough of them are going to assume that it was the blind person's fault and they're going to push to make it illegal for us to be on the road. And it goes to show how little faith I actually have in the government that I think such laws could have a more than fair chance of passing if the right people were behind them. I just think the NFB is opening a can of worms best left alone. Oh maybe it's feasible in a small town where public transportation isn't an option and if you don't have people who can drive you where you need to go, but in big cities public transportation's pretty much a given. We ought to spend the money on improving existing public transportation rather than on something as farfetched as this.
Someone drove this car around Daytona Speedway this weekend.
I'm not even entirely convinced that it was indeed a blind guy. So far I've heard nothing to convince me that nonvisual feedback could be delivered in enough time to react when you're driving at fifty miles per hour or whatever. And even if it was a blind guy, the speedway only had one van and they threw obstacles into his path. A speedway with only one other vehicle is one thing. I shudder to imagine what'll happen if this car ever winds up on a busy highway. What the NFB doesn't realize is that there are already blind drivers on the road. They may not be blind in the literal sense but they may as well be given how little attention they pay to their surroundings. And people die because of them. Just because something might be doable doesn't mean we should. I just happen to feel this is one of those things that we shouldn't try to mess with. And that's not even including the cost of one of these cars, which I shudder to imagine. That's just one more reason why I don't expect this to catch on and therefore consider it to be little more than a pipe deam. There are safer and cheaper methods of getting where we need to go, methods that have been around for years. We should stick to those. Because like I said before I don't want to imagine the mountains of legal trouble we're likely to encounter if a blind person's ever in an accident while driving. And of course that's assuming these cars aren't so expensive that only the lucky few can afford them. Tere are few enough of us out there that I don't see the price of these cars dropping appreciably.
I can confirm that it was, indeed, a blind guy; I know him personally.
I don't agree at all with what you're saying, Bryan. however, that has already been established, so I won't be repetitive.
I know that. But it's as I said. I'm in no way going to get my hopes up for something that probably won't happen. Nor do I think the rest of us should. I'm not just talking about whether this CAN be done but whether or not it SHOULD. And I don't think anybody's considered the possible risks of this.
Let's be clear on several counts:
First, robotics demonstrations have driven cars around tracks like the Speedway for thirty years.
Second, there is no way that simple haptic and auditory feedback can communicate enough information fast enough. For as much information as vision communicates, even that isn't enough, really.
The value add is going to be automation of many of these processes, and those who do it well will do it for all citizens, not just the blind. Automated systems may break down, as some on here have said, but they're not emotionally weak. And we give emotional weakness an incredible amount of leeway in our society: Having a bad day? Let it all out, on anyone and anything, a particularly toxic combination for motorists.
Nobody on the planet has evolved with the necessary hardware to drive, though sighted people do do an amazing job of compensating. You weren't built to react in tine while moving at 50+ miles per hour.
What does this all mean? Automation, automation, automation. Artificial intelligence is better than you at this, whether you have 20/20 vision / the ability to see in infrared, or whether you're stone blind like me.
For all those claiming the mechanical breakdowns are a safety hazard need reconsider the level of weakness we elevate, not just tolerate, in our society. And this weakness is responsible for 500+ pounds of hurtling metal racing down the highway.
If we automate, I'm convinced we'll save lives. If we automate, there's no reason a blind person couldn't be as close to the driver's seat as any human will be at that time.However, rather than blind-ghetto-ify the whole thing and run with idealism, it's bound to be solved society-wide.
Basically, you didn't evolve with the necessary equipment to drive. My daughter said "Dad, you're so mean!" when I told her that before Driver's ed, but it's the truth. Vision just helps compensate, and people who unlearn a lot of instinctive behaviors, aka take Driver's Ed and similar, do an amazing job of surmounting the obstacle of inadequate hardware.
However, automation will drastically reduce the number of fatalities whether it's run by a blind bat or a one-legged frog.
Make you a little study of industrial robotics, find out the accident reduction ratios, not caused by removing humans from danger, but adding systems who danger detection is far far better than theirs. Bio-hardware is amazingly sloppy and sluggish when it comes to signal processing and relays, compared to the most primitive signal processors / relays of even the 1960s. Digital pathways are a lot more exact, a lot more direct, and the risk-to-benefit calculations happen one heck of a lot faster. That' not anti-biology or pro-industrialization it's just simple math.
Your automated vehicle won't be run by "a computer", but by a series of bots assessing and collaborating (without the in-office bickering and emotions / power struggles) and the result, you, the blind, sighted, or one-legged frog driver, will either have the optimal information to make a decision (slow) or the vehicle will respond in time (fast). We can already build sensors into step motors to know how fast something is moving, how much weight is pulling on it, all this sort of data, and cause machines to react in time to avoid collisions.
Let's see this automated vehicle do what military automated drones in Afghanistan already do: travel through mountains, crawl in and out of caves, not just drive around a speedway for a press conference about the blind.
Personally I want to see every driver have an automated machine, because no matter how well they've overcome the hardware obstacle of not being evolved / designed to react in time at 50 miles per hour, there are still a ton of accidents caused by nothing else but that hardware limitation.
It'll get here. My opinion, commercially applied Nanotechnology will lead us on, McDuff.
Kick ass! I'm game! I've always wanted to drive a car. I HATE depending on others and having to move just because I don't have access to things my family needs and then the bitch of it all is that because of my cerebral palsy, I can't walk long distance and I can't use a wheelchair independently because of my being a total. Mo, a blind-friendly car would be my ticket to freedom.
I wouldn't get my hopes up. It's like Leo said. Non visual feedback can't be transmitted fast enough for the blind person to act. On a speeday withonly one van occasionally throwing boxes is one thing. Drunk or idiot drivers who are more blind than the blind person are quite another matter. As much as I hate using it I'd feel safer with public transportation.
sorry to rain on the parade here, but you guys don't know for a fact that the info isn't being transfered fast enough. however, you're free to stay in your cloud of negativity, and those of us who're for the car progressing will continue to watch with excitement.
I prefer to think of it as a cloud of realism. Besides, even if it's proven to be possible I still don't think it's feasible for reasons I've already outlined. I'll get excited if and when I drive one of these things. But until then I'll expect the worst so as not to be disappointed.
haptic feedback travels slower than the speed of light. Idealism crashing into physics.
However, no matter how fast the speed of light is, human hardware, and I mean someone fully sighted, isn't even equipped to drive vehicles as they are. Automation, where risk analysis and assessment are computerized, that's the name of the game.
The military and its vehicles know it.
There is one reason, for example, that you hear a baseball bat hit a ball at least a second after you saw it fly: the difference between the speed of sound and the speed of light.
And the vision a driver, be it robot or otherwise, must use, must be in 360: hence human motorists now using rear and sideview mirrors, drones and other robots are now using proximity and light sensors.
To accurately convey haptic feedback, you would literally need a full-body suit / experience, and then the time to learn to interpret the signals.
Not saying it's not doable, but when physics and idealism meet, physics always wins.
The challenge is to engage a system that is sensory-agnostic entirely: blind, sighted, one-legged frog or whatever, and deploy said system on you and everybody else. When it comes to risk assessment and not being emotionally weak, aka exhibiting road rage / having a bad day / yell at the kids and swerve all over the road, computers are, simply put, better than you. Precisely because they don't have the benefits and drawbacks of being human.
Precisely.
Besides it's like I've said before. There are already blind drivers on the road. People die or get hurt every day because of them. We don't need to add to that.
first of all, no! I don't want one, I don't want a robotic computer to drive me around and be incharge of my safety. I simply don't trust it. First of all, you can't stop in prevention to an acccident, and you won't be able to control whento stop when there's a person crossing illegally. and, I don't want to get hit by a drunken car in the back I can't see and can't control getting out of the way. also, it's a computer how would it know red or green light? simply put, it wouldn't, and it doesn't think, I rather be incharge of my own driving, and since I can't. no, I don't trust it the least bit. that car is stupid as a computer is and I won't let that get me around. I rather take the bus or walk. Yes, it takes longer, but safer and more responsibel in the long run.
First of all, I highly recommend you do your research before posting here. the car is not robotic. You still drive it, but with tactile feedback instead of visual cues.
Second, yes, I have considered cost, and I have come to the conclusion that it puts us on a level playing field with the sighted. I used to joke around all the time about how the one cool thing about being blind was that we didn't have to worry about automotive related expenses. Well guess what? Now we will, and I'm happy about that because with freedom comes responsibility, whether you're blind, sighted, young, old, ETC.
Finally, for those of you who are using the "There are already blind people on the road..." logic, if we shouldn't be on the road, neither should sightted people. There's risk everywhere. Life itself is a risk. Get used to it. and if you don't want one, fine, but like it or not, as long as the project is being continued, you cannot, and will not stop the rest of us from actually stepping out of our comfort zones. thank you and have a great day.
What you seem to overlook is that just because we CAN do a thing does not always mean that we SHOULD do that thing. The cost of these modified cars alone is sure to prevent this from taking off enough to make it worth the time and money that's been blown. I mean if we tae te bus or walk to our destinations when we can, we're not really endangering the lives of others the way we would be if we drove. I mean even if every one of us was a responsible driver, if the computer or whatever it is that controls the tactile feedback were to malfunction, and yes, that much at least would have to be computerized, we would be, as the saying goes, up shit creek with a turd for a paddle. How the hell would we pull over to the side of the road to get out of oncoming traffic? The answer? You wouldn't because you wouldn't know where to go. And as Rachel said, what if a drunk driver came barrelling down the road? What about an animal? Even sighted people who pay close attention to their surroundings can't always manage to react in time. So no, I am not convinced this is a good idea even if it's proven that it can be done, and I still haven't been convinced of that much. And anyway, the very first time a blind driver gets into an accident in one of these cars, regardless of who was actually at fault, you can bet there will be backlash against us. And if the NFB would back out of legislation to make paper money accessible, legislation that THEY set in motion I need hardly point out, I have little faith that they'd be able to stop the majjority from getting us right back off the road again. We already have much safer if somewhat more time-consuming means of getting where we need to go. We've used them for years so why shouldn't we continue to do so? It's probably far less expensive in the long run than these cars are going to be. If, and only if I'm proven wrong someday I'll jump on the bandwagon. And I would have to actually drive one of these cars, not just a simulator, to be convinced. And the likelyhood of that is extremely low. But I like to think I'm a reasonably courteous fellow. So if, by some chance, I should happen to be proven right I'll spare all the rest of you the I told you so that's been hovering on my lips since I heard about this, to put it bluntly, ridiculous project.
exactly, thank you! I don't even want to talk about cost. Yes it would be expensive and, if you could save up to buy a car I think you should save up to buy your own version of jaws first. but that's not the issue I am most concerned about, I think nor the most important, though it is relevant. its a smaller issue.
yes, I might be wrong but yes the tactile features are as dangerous, it's a computer how can you be so sure it's accurate every time and knows what it is doing?? If it's our fault for seeing wrong that's another story but we're irrational enough to let a computer drive us? seriously? this is not a joke, we need to get a hand on this and stop it. and if it malfunctions, the horror! and even with it not malfunctioning how do we prevent a crash from an oncomming car that is too fast for the tactile to work correctly? If we could see that's another story again. We could look and get out of the way quickly our eyes work right away, the computer, doesn't. We need to be more careful. and it would be great fun and too much drama when we bump in to some poor person because our sensors failed because it's a computer and it wasn't able to detect them and operated with the consistent signal. what if it had another signal to detect people, but even so what if it didn't work right and the thing delayed, is it okay that we ran someone over. so now we're going to say it's not our fault it's my cars? you made the decision to drive the damn thing.
And, that's true. Why give angry people more amunition by inventing it ourselves? It would be a helth risk and they would be right. We don't need a backlash. do we need to move forth to new things? definitely! but that doesn't give you the green light to do whatever you wish and create problems at the expense of others. You can't sacrifice others just because you want something, independence is fine, but you can't run over others to get there. I absolutely agree with brian. Just because you can do it does not automatically mean you should do it, and especially not without examining the true facts, exact science, careful analysis, and thorough thinking first. Yes it's possible, and we're all excited to some degree, but please be rational and think before you support something and jump on the bandwagon. Now, I don't agree with that and I can't respect that. lets gain our freedom yes, but please lets do this civilly, politely, and without tredding on others. Lets not go for an eye for an eye, we need to be fairer and better than these people who don't understand us is to us.
Traditions have worked, they have proven to work so if they are better, safer, more rational, and moral, why not stay with them?
I may not agree with a lot of the things Rachel's said but I agree with her on this issue. They ought to be using that money they've blown on this project to make our existing transportation options better. Because when we walk to our destination or take a bus or a cab we personally are not taking the lives of others into our hands the way we would be if we drove. Yeah there's a risk of getting into an accident on a bus or in a taxi, but then it's because of the driver, the weather or any number of other variables. But if we drive one of these cars and get into an accident we ourselves would have played some part in it, even if we weren't actually at fault for it. And believe you me, even if nobody actually gets hurt and it can be proven beyond all doubt that the other driver was at fault the sighted community at large is not going to take that into account, nor the fact that they get into accidents all the time. At best they'll regard us with more wariness than they already do. At worst they'll try to introduce legislation making it illegal for us to drive. And if an idiot woman can win hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from a MacDonald's restaurant after spilling hot coffee between her legs we could just as easily lose a battle in court over whether we should be allowed to drive. I just hope the NFB realizes what a potential can of worms they're messing with here.
Okay I was in a simulator for this and it is odd however I will say this and now this is what I am hearing so don't all attack:
The so called blind car is really more about the technology inside it. If blind people drive in the future, so be it, but the technology advancements...well...that is the goal. It seems to me that the n f b knows damn well that blind people won't be driving. So why do this? I will never understand that one. As someone who is envolved in the nfb I can only guess it is for political reasons. I.E, "we are the nfb and look what we have done! We built a car...we worked with all these companys. See what the blind can do?" That's my thoughts on the subject.
That's pretty much my thought as well, which would mean all that talk about driving being mistakenly assumed to be only for the sighted was just that. And if that's true it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
It's a shame that the nfb got people all worked up about possibly driving.
That's pretty much how they work from all I've observed. The ones I feel sorry for are the ones who only recently lost their sight and now are clinging to false hopes. Because I seriously doubt that blind people will be driving within five to ten years, which is a possibility that at least one article I've read has hinted at. And if you want my honest opinion I'm not even sure I believe the car was actually driven in January, leastways by Mark Ricobono. The two possibilities I see are 1. He did drive but he's not blind. Or 2. He is actually blind and maybe he was indeed actually in the driver's seat, but the car was actually controlled remotely from some lab or other in such a way as to make it look as though a blind man was driving. Now I have said that if I am someday proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be completely wrong I'll be jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of those who are already on it, and I still stand by that. But until something happens to convince me otherwise I'm going to remain firmly skeptical and treat my driving fantasies as just that.
Oh he did drive but it was in a simi-controlled environment. No real danger, no traffic, nothing like that.
He's either not blind, or the car was being remotely controled from some unknown source? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? See...you can't resort to actual evidence to prove your so-called point, so you're going for the maybies and the probablies, in your mind. The only other people I know who do that are the religious nuts.
Not to mention, you seem to be forgetting this was the first, the first demo of the car. Could you imagine if, back when computers first came out, somebody saw the computer and said, O, that's not going to work. Something will go wrong. Could you imagine all the things we wouldn't have today? Do you like Email? Messenger? Skype? This site? Well, all that wouldn't be possible if someone hadn't been open minded enough to consider the thought that computers might one day be useful. O, and by the way, if you're rebuttal to that statement is that there's no way computers could cause the damage cars do, might I remind you of the Y2K incident? People thought the world would end because of computers, and many of them did a little more than worry about it. But if you want to continue using your precious public transportation where you have to schedule your life around someone else's set schedule, then you just go right ahead. Don't get me wrong; I'm aware that I, along with most other people aren't going to be driving away from the launch with one of these cars, but if we keep putting risks before benefits, we'll never make advances. anybody who appreciates the way they're allowed to live in this country today has benefited from open-mindedness. It's time we started displaying a little of that ourselves.
To quote the biography of Steve Jobs, "The ones who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do".
It's time we accepted the fact htat this is more than likely going to be a waste of time and money, seeing as even if, heaven forbid, it's proven to be possible it's impractical in the extreme. And please, don't mention the Y2K scam. They're not remotely the same. If anything had happened in 2000 it would have been because everybody panicked, pulled all their money out of the banks, sold all their stocks and caused a market crash or something. That's hardly the same as running someone over with a car. So no, I'm afraid your argument still doesn't fly with me.
As for whether the car was or wasn't remotely controlled, that's the only way I can see for what happened in January aside from Ricobono not being blind. Since there's doubtless plenty of evidence to support his being blind, and since no form of nonvisual feedback could possibly be transmitted fast enough to allow safe driving I'm forced to conclude that it was indeed being controlled from some lab somewhere, either that or it was a robotic car that controlled itself in such a way that it would still feel as though you were driving.
And even if this does prove to be everyting you're hoping it will, the cost to buy one of these vehicles, even forgetting the cost of maintaining it, is going to insure that they never sell well enough to justify the time and expense wasted on them. We're better off with public transportation, however inconvenient it may be. It's safer and I have no doubt way cheaper in the long run.
Besides, the religious nuts would probably say god restored his sight or somesuch nonsense.
If the car truly is about the technology, then good for them. Now I am sorry, from a purely scientific standpoint, such a car will never be road ready. Not for the blind at least.
I agree, and certainly not in any of our lifetimes. It's like the old saying goes. Just because something might be possible doesn't make it practical. And this strikes me as just about as impractical as you can get, for reasons I've already outlined and will continue to do so for as long as necessary.I'd much rater trust myself to our tried and true methods of transportation, however inconvenient they may be sometimes, than to this car, always assuming of course that it's not so expensive as to make the time and money spent developing it a complete and total waste.
I was at my state's convention and I was listening to how much we made verses how much we spent and I must say that it is sick. Has most of the money been supporting this car?
It sure sounds like it LOL. Here's a tip, how about instead of a blind friendly car that more than likely won't take off, we use that money to improve our existing transportation options?
A sound idea.
That was pretty much my thought. But it seems the general reaction is I hate planning my day around others. So do I, granted, but I'd rather trust myself to something I know to be at least relatively safe and that, as I've said before, is probably far far cheaper in the long run than one of these cars would be if they ever became available to the blind public. It's like people are refusing to see the very possible down side to this, a down side that could very well outweigh the possible convenience of it. Myself, I'd hate to drive with a passenger in the car with me because I'd have to tell them to shut up so I could concentrate. And again let's not get started on the possible legal risks to us regarding accidents and things. The fuel and general maintenance costs alone, even if we're somehow able to pay for the buying fee, would make it financially impractical to own one of these cars unless you were actually employed at a level appropriate to whatever skills and qualifications you had. Because even if, as sighted people do, we were able to make payments, the price is likely to be so high that we'd still be paying on the damn thing, and just the cost to buy the car outright, years after the average sighted person would have finished paying off a normal car. Because so many of us are at best underemployed and at worst unemployed, SSI would be our only means of paying for it ourselves and avoiding the need to abide by any stipulations from a voc rehab agency. And SSI goes quicly enough in a given month without car insurance and things.
There's another thing to consider. If these cars do turn out to be wat the NFB is claiming they will, well then we have another possible way for employers and others to discriminate against us. They favor guide dog handlers over cane users, add a car to that and we'll probably see similar things happen. The blind person with the car would be more likely to get the job because they can just drive rather than risk being made late by public transport or an unreliable friend or taxi. I can almost see it now...
People are so emotional about blindness to the point where many of the extreemists want sight. So they want to drive.
I've noticed that myself.
Boy it is such a shame.
It is indeed. Would I love to be able to drive? Certainly. It would save me, not to mention friends and family, a lot of trouble if I needed to go somewhere, particularly on short notice. But I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that I probably never will drive. Because even if these carswere to turn out to be everyting people are hoping for and even if, as the NFB has hinted, we do start seeing them becoming available within five to ten years or even twenty. Even leaving aside the legal risks and things, the financial considerations alone are likely to be enough to derail this project. Because the vast majority of us aren't likely to be able to afford to buy these cars even on time payments. Because we would spend not just years but decades paying them off. As far as I'm concerned it's not worth it.
Yes, it is so unrealistic.
Besides, how is it supposed to detect traffic signals and alert us to their status? Besides one major concern I have is with the vibrating gloves and seats. Because even if they worked properly and you could indeed use them as accurate judges of when to stop or turn or what have you, let's say you're driving on a rough country road. I can say from personal experience that they make your car vibrate like crazy. In those instances I could totally see someone missing the cue from the glove or the seat simply because it was masked by the vibrations from the road. And I've gotten no responses to my various inquiries about this project, and yes I did write directly to the NFB about it several times.
I never thought I'd ever say this but I'm actually considering attempting to save up to try to attend this year's NFB convention in Texas simply so that if it's there again I can try the car simulator just to see how well I'd do. Granted a simulation is one thing and it in no way can be a reliable guide for if the real thing ever hits the roads, but it's still sort of intriguing, and I want to see for myself how they propose to make driving possible. All this is assuming of course that I can first manage to save up for the bus or air fare since I already had someone offer to be my roommate if I was to go. Of course my mind isn't made up on whether I'd even go yet, I might change my mind between now and then. LOL.
Besides, it's like a fun computer game!
@Rachel92: You are a psychology major, so I can understand your lack of understanding on electronic systems.
Knowing when a given light is green or red is quite possibly one of the easier things for a robot to do. It doesn't emotionally "see" the green or red the way a human does, it separates that light at that frequency coming from that device it knows to be a traffic light, by pattern recognition. Many Taliban were chased down and killed in rocky, boulder-infested mountains full of caves, using automated machines. I definitely think it will be difficult at first, when roads are full of emotional, electronically inefficient/slow biological drivers. However, once all, or nearly all, automobiles are automated, they will be able to alert one another of their presence, arrival, etc. the way task and goal management is done on all sorts of robotics-controlled systems from server farms to the New York Stock Exchange.
It need not be charming, like the old rental car commercials portrayed: a narrowly-constructed AI will be a better driver than the most capable human being ever has been. But let science drive its innovation, not idealists.
Very well said, Leo. Brian and Kevin, I'll admit you both bring up very valid points, all of which are probably contributing to why the car hasn't taken off yet. But every possible idea presents risks along the way, some bigger than others. If you always let those risks dictate the decision and never take that leap of faith, we will never evolve. As I've said earlier, there once was a time when most people couldn't possibly see how modern technology would be a good thing, but a few people who saw its potential kept pushing for it, and, well, the result is what you're using to read this post right now, directly or indirectly.
Ah, but "what I'm using to read this post" is not endangering the lives or health of others the way cars and more importantly their drivers do every day. I've already outlined why I don't see this as being feasible even if it's proven completely possible, as well as what's likely to happen if a blind person is ever involved in an accident in one of these cars. And that's always assuming of course that the exorbitant costs of these things don't make all the time and money spent on them a complete and utter waste. Because I know how Voc Rehab works at least in the US, so I don't imagine many blind people would have an easy time getting financial assistance to buy one of these things. Getting it for ordinary assistive tech is hard enough. And I for one would not be keen on spending decades just to pay off my car even if we were allowed to buy them on time as sighted drivers do. Even if these cars do hit the road and become a success I have a strong feeling the rest of the world will already have moved on to hovercraft or things like that, so we'll spend another bunch of decades waiting til someone makes those accessible. And that's assuming the human race doesn't destroy itself between now and then what with nuclear weapons and things. Do I necessarily buy into that? No, but nor would I be surprised if it turned out to be right.
I am in full agreement with BrianP.
Inovation is one thing, risking the lives of others is another. I won't rehash what has been kicked to death, but I do have two comments:
1) With most of the western world in debt for thigns that are (let's face it) wants, not needs, what is the likelihood any of us would get financing for such a car? Would you rather have a car or a house? If you had to choose, which would it be, and why? Because if you are renting a house, you are at the mercy of the landlord to whom you pay a certain amount a month without anything to show for it; if you own a house, you pay it off and it becomes yours, and you can remodel, fix it up, bulldoze it, sell it, paint your front door canary yellow, and still not be forced to leave. Homes generally increase in value (or at the very least the money you put in to paying them off actually goes into the purchase of the home itself); cars depreciate, always. I had a friend tell me once that there are only two reasons to go into debt: a home or education; they will both pay off in the long run. While I don't necessarily always agree with this, it's a good rule to live by. My husband is sighted, and being a car owner is sometimes more of a hassle than it's worth. We've had to plunk hundreds of dollars into repairing it while simultaneously paying a plumber to fix our sink, buying Christmas gifts, and still being able to eat. Owning a car, while sometimes more convenient, is honestly barely worth it if you can avoid it.
2) The statement has been made about money being used to improve public transportation. To be blunt, this is not the job of the blindness organizations, such as the NFB. SUre, if a particular area has more NFB members, for example, they could pressure the city to make changes, but ultimately (at least in Canada) public transportation is the direct responsibility of the city/region for which it is responsible. If you don't like public transit, complain to your city and NOT to your blindness organization!
Kate
But ocean dream/jess, the concerns we post are verry real design flaws. Something that will certainly hold us back. I mean as a technology person and general science person I can tell you that driving such a car would not be remotely possible.
The NFB from what I read, dismissed the technology used by the U.S. military because they *feel* that they want to provide the blind person with the experience of controlling the vehicle. That it is us controlling the vehicle which is important.
So while the U.S. military, backed by science, is developing automated vehicles, the NFB, backed by religion / idealism, wants to talk about the blind controlling the vehicle and responding to their surroundings.
So there you have it: For some really off-the-wall reason, the NFB seems to know more about automation, enough to discount it in fact, than the U.S. military. Who successfully used it on numerous campaigns in Afghanistan. Fascinating.
Oh, and as to the Google car? It is automated, drove the streets of San Francisco (not an oval like robots have done for 30 years), and the only mistake that caused a mishap was when the human being took the controls.
So Google recognizes what the U.S. Military recognizes about automation and robotics. And the NFB counters the U.S. military's position on this? I daresay you cannot use the term counterintelligence when describing this perspective of theirs.
Wow. I did not know this. I guess as they say, food for thought.
someone thought that the technology that we currently use in our every day lives could endanger the lives of people. why? Because many were scared that they would take jobs away, that people would become too dependent on it and less so on their own brains. Granted, those ideas are pretty far fetched while yours are quite valid, but, and I'm sure you're going to disagree with me on this, but I think what it really boils down to is a fear of the unknown. Such a thought has really never been put to the test before, and for the most part, people have pretty much deamed it impossible. so now here comes someone that says, Screw what you've all thought in the past. It's possible. and just like a kid saying they're going to fly to the moon, of course most people are going to brush it off as someone trying to grab the media's attention or something. and maybe that's all it will ever be, but unless the supreme court steps in before its official release and puts a stop to it, why not?
I have made plausible, physics-based arguments on this thread. Granted, I have not given exact figures on the speed of light vs. sound vs. material vibration, and the formulas to determine reaction time from inertia and friction ... all sorts of data I have not included, I concede that.
However, I have mentioned nothing about fear.
I just want them to tell me how the U.S. Military's methodologies are wrong, which enable a vehicle to even travel sightlessly through dark caverns. None of what I have said has anything to do with fear.
In fact, if you explore the innovations of aircraft during World War I, you will find stories of courage and guts that the rag mags that sell inspiration should be ashamed of themselves for not including. But the difference is all their gutsy efforts were backed by science, and nowhere at all do you find idealism anyplace in the picture. It flat out don't belong in the area of science and engineering.
In fact, the people supposedly supporting this venture clearly deny and counter physics claims with emotion or ideal arguments. Someone who asks the tough questions gets met with the walled response that they are fear-based or not positive enough. But it's people who ask the tough questions who get things done: not just believers. Believers are useless without the mechanization and technologies that feed them and keep them alive. I'll be honest: anyone who talks turkey with me and explains how the system works, I'd be game to be a badass tester and give it a go / learn to use it. But when we have a car that runs on an oval track as they have for 30 years, and we have another vehicle running on the streets of a major city based on technologies used by drones navigating cave systems in Afghanistan, I'm afraid the former has a long road ahead of 'em to compete, even if we got all special and graded 'em on a curve. Which I hope we do not.
Well put. Besides, if people were worried about people becoming too dependent on technology, it's already happened. But it still does not, I say again, directly endanger the lives of others, well except when some idiot's talking on their phone while driving. Personally Ido hope that ban gets passed.
Nobody can cohesively make a too-dependent-on-technology argument, and I have some Ludites in my family who try.
Basically, since we left the Sevannahs and before actually, we've been using all sorts of technology to complement our onboard tools. That argument is stupid. Chimpanzees have innovated a particularly primitive set of technologies that differ between populations to manage the harvesting of termites and other insects that live in mounds. To argue against technology use would be to argue that chimps should not continue to develop new ways to forage in their changing habitats, which they are doing and have been for the 40 years they have been closely observed.
This is not do to fear it is do to hard core, real world science. It simply cannot work. And the technology used is the nfb's design. Special gps.
when I see that this idea simply will not work, I'll believe you, and I'll even publicly come out on this thread and admit I've been wrong this whole time. Until then, I'm going to enjoy watching this idea unfold. It wouldn't be the first time I've had a dream crushed, and it certainly won't be the last.
The research is right at your finger tips. How can you argue with the science?
Very happilly apparently. Smile. But I'll do te reverse of Ocean Dream and, if I'm someday proven wrong, come out on the boards and admit it. But until I see a reason to believe I will be I'll sta on tis side of te fece since there's far more compelling reasons for that than there are to get excited over someting that probably won't happen or, even if it does, will be far too expensive for the average blind schmoe to afford. And that's really what has me more concerned, not so much the possibility as the feasibility of it, again for reasons I've already stated.
So will the U.S. military, for that matter.
Dreamers on one side, the U.S. Military and Google on the other. None of the NFB crowd have countered us on either of those two fronts, but have posed religious-style nonfalsifiable straw-man arguments the way the 6-day creationists do. Someone of that religion / persuasion tell us how a car driving on an oval with piezzo-electric air pressure systems can beat out an automobile driving on the streets of San Francisco, using full automation. We'll grade on a curve by not adding in the automatons that run around in the mountains of Afghanistan using no sighted assistant ... How, just how, is the NFB's technology better? Safer? Superior?
And since it's so much better, what were they doing driving on an oval track, the way robots have done for 30 years? Why wasn't this machine on the streets, like Google's? Seems we have one more place where faith meets sciene, where faith doesn't belong. Some of us have said, you probably will drive something in the future. Just not the hackware the NFB is putting out with total disregard for other existing and better technologies.
Seems all it amounts to is they want some of the action. Sorry kiddos, you get some of the action when you invent something *BETTER* than the competition, not just differently-abled somehow. *cough* I'd be completely different on this issue if they were using Google's and / or the U.S. Military's technologies, or at least the principles behind them. This is precisely why we should never ever allow the mixing of faith / ideals / Reader's Digest and real science / engineering in schools. Ever.
I'll take that. If we do end up driving, it probably won't be the NFB's car. I'll accept that statement before I'll give money to the public transit systems out there, because a lot of their problem is their aditude, especially in the case of special transit services. I find a lot of them to be very condescending, and giving them more money won't change that. This isn't the case everywhere. In fact, there are places where the public transportation is so good that even sighted people choose it over owning a car. And even if the car does take off, there will still be some places where some people will prefer the cheaper, though slightly less convenient method. I'm just saying, that shouldn't be enough to stop us from moving forward with the idea.
Public transit is less convenient certainly but it's a lot more certain than this hackware car. I agree with Leo. If this technology is so much better than what the military uses as the NFB seems to feel, they should have put ol' Ricobono on a busy street. After all, it's there, not on some oval track, that average non racing type people tend to drive their cars. Show me that it is, in fact, possible for a flawed human being who also happens to have no sight to react in time to the conditions of the road and I'll be convinced. My guess is that when the rest of the world is relying on automated vehicles, then maybe we'll be able to take our own selves to our destination since we can just program the address into the vehicle's computer and not have to rely on another person to take us there. I'd be a lot more comfortable with that, as unlikely as it is, than I feel about what the NFB is touting.
exactly.
Besides, gas prices are probably going to go up, not down as time passes. So evenif by some miracle these cars prove feasible in every way and are not so expensive as to make it not worth bying them, gas prices alone are likely to get in the way.
I personally think they need to do away with the combustion engine and come up with some other way of powering cars altogether, but...that's another topic entirely.
The challenges on that one have everything to do with distance, and charging stations. Fuel cells like batteries seem the most reliable option right now - think Chevy Volt - but you run that vehicle 40 miles and it's fuel cell is dead.
Consider that with gasoline, as you burn it it goes away e.g. less weight on the vehicle, plus it's just a glorified piston-action steam engine, if you will, fire indirectly makes tork.
With your battery sources, you get to lug around the entirety of your fuel cell, even as the fuel depletes. Fifteen gallons of gas weighs a surprising amount.
You're right, we need to think this through somehow, and I personally think the changes in urban planning, modifications to existing engine hardware, are a lot more likely and realistic than drastic modifications to infrastructure. Moving the masses back into cities where the work is, that is one experiment being tried. Yesterday's American Pie suburbs with lots of wated land and badly-allocated resources are going to be tomorrow's shooting galleys and slums, you may count upon that. It's just far too expensive to maintain the infrastructure we have currently had.
Unfortunately, you have elitists on both sides, fancifully imagining their own reality, which has little bearing on the real world.
But fuel cell modification is definitely going to be an interdisciplinary effort. There's not gonna be a free lunch, though, even though some are hoping for that hydrogen vehicle. A combustion chamber that does hydrogen will be far too heavy to drive down the road.
The engine could be powered by the president of the nfb running his ass off on a tred mill which is connected to a generator. lol.
I like it. LOL.