Category: accessible Devices
Seeing-eye car enables blind people to drive
High-tech dirt buggy has lasers, haptics and voice control
By Mark Harris in Seattle
July 15th 2009 |
Tell us what you think [ 1 comments ]
wesley-majerus-finishes-driving-the-virginia-tech-blind-driver-challenge-vehicle
Wesley Majerus finishes driving the Virginia Tech Blind Driver Challenge vehicle
A revolutionary car designed by Virginia Tech allows blind people to get behind the steering wheel for the first
time.
The retrofitted four-wheel dirt buggy uses laser range finders, a voice command interface and a host of other innovative, cutting-edge
technologies.
For the first time, blind drivers can steer, brake and accelerate without any help from human passengers.
Blind ambition
Back in 2004, the US National Federation of the Blind challenged university research teams to develop a vehicle that would one day allow the blind to drive.
Virginia Tech was the only institution to accept.
"I thought it would be a very rewarding project," said Dennis Hong, director of Virginia Tech's Robotics and Mechanisms Laboratory. "We are not only excited
about the vehicle itself but also about the potential of the many spin-off technologies from this project that can be used for helping the blind in so
many ways."
Sitting inside the vehicle, a blind driver can turn the steering wheel, stop and accelerate by following data from an on-board
computer
that uses sensory information from the laser range finder to serve as the 'eyes' of the driver.
Front seat drivers
The team also developed non-visual interface technologies, including a vibrating vest for feedback on speed, a click counter steering wheel with audio cues,
spoken commands for directional feedback, and a unique tactile map interface that uses compressed air to provide information about the road and obstacles
surrounding the vehicle.
"It was great!" said Wes Majerus, the first blind person to drive the buggy on a closed course at the Virginia Tech campus. "The car's instructions are
very precise. You use the technology to act on the environment - the driving course - in a very orderly manner."
The Virginia Tech research team is already planning major changes to the technology, including replacing the dirt buggy with a fully electric car, in order
to reduce vibrations that can interfere with the laser sensor.
However, even once the technology is perfected, laws now barring the blind from driving and public perception must be changed. "This is the piece that will
be the most difficult," said Mark Riccobono of the National Federation of the Blind, adding that the car must be near-perfected before his charity can
push the car to law-makers and the general public. He said this effort will take millions of dollars in development.
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/seeing-eye-car-enables-blind-people-to-drive-616674
Wow! This is totally incredible! As they said, this could spin off into many new technologies, maybe even for mobility when walking. I hope the press follows Virginia Tech so that we can learn about their progress. I think it will be awhile before we're actually able to drive, but this is still a wonderful promise for the future and really shows how far we've all come in technology.
I am not that impressed with a car that drives itself, will not catch me stepping into one of those any time soon.
This really only works if the roads are full of similar cars, the difficult part is interacting with other drivers, weaving in and out of traffic, communicating clues about intentions and understanding others, dealing with someone who does not drive rationally, dealing with snow etc.
It is a cool concept goal though, from which new ideas can be focused on and some cool technology solutions could certainly come from it.
I hope America will get back to public transport and trains rather than putting more drivers, blind or not, on the roads, and I would be more excited about improved public transportation and blind friendly infrastructure than some crazy driver challenge.
I have to agree with you about public transportation. Some areas don't even have busses or trains. Some do but only to the city, whichever one is closest, and not to local areas. I also fully understand what you mean about irrational drivers, interacting with people etc. The idea might work on roads that aren't traveled that much but not in big cities. But I think it's a great first step.
it's nice to listen. but I don't think I can spend that much for a car. I'd rather lead a luxurious life with that money. hence they will definitely gona make it with a higher price.
Raaj.
I concur with Wildebrew here, the environment would need to be replete with object-oriented signs, roads, and other cars. I read another story close to the time in 2009 that said the blind driver still had audio assistance from another sighted person, not onboard the vehicle but still.
Much as those of us who've been blinks forever dream about it, much as we've many of us done it drunk and otherwise in various environments, it's not at all ready for prime time. We can't even get buses to automatically announce their stops in all areas, for the simple reason that data delivery is spotty, and the data often absent.
I'm for spending the money to upgrade public transportation systems and thus allow blind travelers to do more more often, alongside their sighted peers. That and the adaptive signal controls which no matter how vehement some NFB types are about opposing them, they are really useful in some cases, not just for the blind but for other groups like the elderly.
Ironic isn't it? Here's the group that opposes both adaptive signal controls (audio walk signals) which could save lives, and opposed the rails set up in the New York subway system which could have saved the life of an elderly woman who fell to her death off one of those. Suffice it to say, if that older woman had been a relative of mine, I'd be in prison now most likely.
Public transportation benefits the environment, tons of groups of people who don't have the stress of driving through traffic, and on and on. Splintering ourselves into these splintery groups, the nfb over here, elderly over there (falling off subway platforms because the blind were offended), you get really bad results. I have high respect for RFB&D, the NLS, and Bookshare because while what they do helps the blind and many of their users are blind, they assist many many others in the population. If we spent millions of grant and government dollars to give a blind guy the ability and hence the 'right' to drive, then everyone else will resent us, and I'm not sure I'd blame them. Oh, and as I have told my daughter, driving isn't a right, it's an earned privilege.
The NFB have never made sense to me. They'd rather spend tons of money on unrealistic and far-off goals and stop truly helpful things like the ones in your example and braille on money instead of actually helping people. They tell the blind to never accept help from the sighted, even when they need it, then, they go on about how the blind are discriminated against and so on. It's like they're telling us we can fly when we're just learning how to walk and when flying, with our bodies, is totally impossible to do anyway since we're only human.
The best description I've ever heard of the NFB is John Grisham's book A Time To Kill, only in that book it was the NAACP. These organizations do this sort of stuff.
I've never read the book so can't relate. But yeah, certain organisations only serve to divide us, both from the general community at learge and from ourselves.
Why I'm trying to get rich so I can hire a driver. When the blind start driving I've really got to stop walking the streets of my fair city. The tech is great and hopefully will spin off on more useful and safe projects as suggested here, but putting the blind on the roads? It's a hazard that has already happened not waiting to. hahaha.
Florida continues to lower the standard for wht it takes to get on the road, to accomodate its large senior citizen population and mile for mile per capita has far more accidents than does LA, Boston or New York.
No way in hell is this going to work. What insurance company's going to cover the person's ass if they gget into an accident? that car's cool if you're driving it in a closed lot for a demonstration or something, but let's just leave the driving to sighted folks please? And the likelihood of that car malfunctioning ... What would happen if something went wrong while you were behind the wheel? no, it's not a good idea. The NFB is a great organization, but the idea of putting that car on the road one day is just ... scary.
I like the concept of being able to drive, but the time is not now. Maybe never. The thought re relying on any technology for this purpose is downright scary, knowing that technology can crap out at any time. Still, I applaudthe efforts being made and hope there will be other more realistic offshoot advantages as a result of this effort. Too many variavles for this to be reality, but maybe someday in the distant future.
hmm cool idea but as for "nfb" or "The national Fuck-up for the Bloind" gur!!.
haha Awesome. I usually call them the National Federation of Blockheads. That said, they've got some great tech, if only they'd keep their mouthes shut until they had something intelligent and helpful to say.
I agree. I saw something like this on BLinknation before the site was hacked. I thought it was crazy and riddiculous then and I think it's crazy and riddiculous now. And even if, by some miracle a car is someday developed that a blind person can drive totally safely and without any assistance whatsoever, the chances are very high that A. it'll be so expensive that no average blind person will be able to afford it. And we all know how difficult it generally is to get assistance to pay for even everyday assistive tech. So I shudder at the thought of asking, say, the Commission for the Blind here in Idaho to even help pay part of the cost of such a vehicle. And B. the chances are also very high that most of us who aren't already there will be so old and stuck in their ways by the time this car is available to the general public, much less at an even remotely affordable price, that it probably won't sell well because people just won't want to change. And I totally agree with Robozork about audible traffic signals. There are some streets, yes even here in Truck Stop Twin Falls, which is small enough not to have a real public transit system, that I absolutely refuse to try to cross on foot, much less without someone else present. And quite frankly I don't think I'd feel comfortable crossing these streets with a guide dog. Now if they would put in audible walk signals I might feel comfortable trying it, but with the way some people drive these days I might not feel comfortable even then. And the thing about the subway rails is absolutely riddiculous. I'm surprised the family of that woman didn't sue the NFB after she was killed.
Here's an interesting thought. I recently heard on the news about a flying car that is being or has already been developed (yes folks, an actual flying car), and I had the same thought about that that I had about this supposed seeing eye car. First of all we already have flying vehicles (they're called airplanes), and second this is yet another vehicle that's going to be so expensive that only the very richest will be able to afford it. And i wonder if they'll try to modify some of these flying cars with the same technology that's in this supposed seeing eye car. Now there's a rather disturbing thought.
Ok, here's the thing. Think positively about this. It's only 2010, not 2025. They're barely just beginning the breakthrough on this technology. If you don't want to drive that car, that's fine, but don't you think that blind people would just love to drive themselves to work every day? I mean, I know we have the buses and trains, but come on. The NFB is spending money on Braille and literacy and things like that, but we're also raising money for this type of technology. It's not enough to just throw it away and say you don't like it when you haven't even tried it. Give it a chance to come along with its development. As I said, this is only 2010, and technology is barely starting to make its move. And as far as object-oriented roads go, I'm sure that will be improved as well when that time comes for that car to be released to the public.
Yeah, if you want to drive the prototype that's supposedly going to be at the next convention, you have to be part of the effort and raise money for building it.
I'm not saying blind people don't want to drive. Even I feel that way sometimes. But let's face it people. Chances are very high that if and when this car does come out it's going to be so expensive that most of us won't be able to afford it without some sort of financial assistance. That's the way of all our technology, or at least a very great deal of it. True we might be able to get help from a rehab agency like a Commission for the Blind or similar concern, particularly if as you say it was for a job or school, but it's been my experience that that can be extremely difficult to arrange sometimes, even if you can prove how the product would benefit you and in what areas. I suppose if I ever had the chance to drive one of these things for myself my views might change. But I've always been extremely skeptical when it comes to things like this. Will we graduate to airplanes next? Space shuttles? I'm not denying the fact that i'm curious about this (who wouldn't be?) but over the years I've learned to be extremely skeptical about things like this...not that I've heard many reports about a blind person's car in my life but still. I'd rather not get my hopes up. FOr instance how are you supposed to know when the light's in your favor? The address and stuff might be another matter since you could probably use some sort of GPS technology, but knowing what's around you and when it's safe to go? It's one thing to do it on foot since you can listen to the traffic but in a car?
Another thing I see about NFB is their KNFB reader Mobile. I know some people who say it's awesome, but I'ts just plain iritating having to twist and turn the phone around so it could read all the text on the page. I'd rather just use a scanner, that's why I returned. Why can't they just make the camera on the phone bigger, or make some kind of indicator to when the camera is posisioned right and not after you snap the picture. I mean Realy the NFB doesn't make much sence to me either.
Yeah. And they seem pretty sure of themselves about this car business. I just think it's too risky.
Okay so 15 years I'll still be walking the streets and hopeful rish enough to hire a driver. We are blind and their are limitations that is nature, a fact, and tech goes out sometimes. Supose the thing reboots as your computer does, or freezes in drive or whatever, or forgets to go left when it should? Never mind. Spend money are more inportant things like eye implants, then you can drive a regular car. Lol
My thoughts exactly. And that would probably be less expensive in the long run...at least until your implants malfunction.
Here's a non-blind aspect to this, much as I would just love the engineering challenges skip the practicalities the gearhead part would be a last for us geeks.
But, are we not as a society trying to limit our carbon footprint? We really as a society (not blind people, but a society) should be investing in better transit systems for all of us, young and old, sighted and blind. You or I could learn to use the technology if we could buy it. But someone 65 or older, someone like my mother who is in her seventies, could never learn this. Much as the technology would be a blast to be part of innovating, I am concerned on the carbon footprint front. And I know many NFB types are typically more politically conservative, so oil is probably the side of the debate they'll land on, but at some point they're just gonna have to deal. My brother is a marine biologist and is constantly having to assist the USDA on issues related to the very thing so many Americans and middle-east muslims claim doesn't exist: the carbon footprint problem. That's a side of the issue nobody in this debate is discussing, as much fun as it probably is to claim there's no problems related to climate change, there's a lot of people who are having to pick up a lot of slack now for this. We need more public transport systems, so we can compete with the rest of the first world.
Well, of course it's too risky for right now because the technology hasn't even been well-developed yet. Now airplanes, on the other hand, can pretty much fly by themselves already, so I don't think we should have a problem implementing technology for the blind on that front.
I think what most don't realize is this isn't just a blind ness issue, car makers like ford are consistantly investing in r&d for technologies for the automated car that drives it self for the general public. Go familiarize yourselves with the ford vehicles that have sync and can park them selves if you don't believe me. And they are sitting on alot more of that technology than what in those cars cuz quite frankly the majority of people are reacting to a completely automated car most are in the forum thread. being that this is something that different companies are working on for the general public and not just the blind that should help combat some of the pricing issues we will face. Also to answer the question about stop lights and croos walks that someone asked. by the time these vehicles would be street legal (if that day were to ever come) the roads would have to be adapted for this street lights,, cross walks, and other places along roadways would have all sorts of sensors comunicating with passing cars. Also the sensors and cameras that are on the cars now that can park themselves would be cost effective by then that just about every square inch of the car would be covered in them so all cars on the road would be able to sense each other and thus in the end could actually make the roads safer and reduce accidents greatly, which means they may not be all that expensive to insure in the end. Lets be honest majority of accidents are caused by human error and people who shouldn't be driving and or were doing something they shouldn't of, not to say that accidents don't happen. However i do see everyones point about how computers can fail and well quite frankly these things better be designed with security as a top priority with top security experts and hackers having access to it every step of the development process banging away at it to ensure that is actually safe and as unhackable as can be. So as someone above said this is only 2010 and we are thinking of this in terms of 2010 technology. think about how much tecch improoved from 1990 to 2000 and how it even more so leap frogged that between 2000 and 2010 now imagine what the differencce could be between now and 2025 it's a long ways off and in technology years a ton of time to improove things. Hey i am not saying i will be first on line to buy one but the technology is entriging and even if we never fully have automated cars some of the technology that will come out of this will definately be beneficial.
Oh I believe that. But the point is that this supposed Seeing Eye Car, Blind Car or whatever the hell you want to call it, isn't going to be a self-driving vehicle, at least not according to the article on the NFB's web site. Maybe it'll have self-parking capability (or at least some of them may), but it's apparently not going to be fully automated. And that's where I'm confused. Like I said you could probably use some sort of GPS software (whether built into the car or separate), to find the address you want to go to and make sure you're headed in the right direction. That's not where I'm skeptical or at least, that's not the greater part of my skepticism. My beef with this is there'd have to be some sensors that could tell you not only when the light was in your favor but to warn you of upcoming cars or other objects so you didn't hit anything. And then of course you'd need to have extremely fast reflexes even with that kind of built-in aid unless it was designed to actively prevent you from hitting anything. And the only way I could see for doing that at this point would be to have the car automatically change direction. I'll freely admit that I could be completely and totally wrong and that the NFB might actually have stumbled on something here, but unless I'm actually able to test one of these vehicles out for myself I'm probably never going to understand how they propose to make it possible for us to drive without vision. And then of course we have to consider car insurance, fuel prices and whatnot, which are going to make having said car not worth it unless you're successfully and gainfully employed. And we all know how hard it can be sometimes for us blind folks to find meaningful work. I've been working on that for almost eight years now.
I agree i 'd like to get behind the wheel of one of these cars to see how it handles. and whose to say the technology or tenique the NFB is pushing is the one that will make it in the mainstream. Though the car not being fully automated .. sounds just like the nfb tonot want things done for us cuz then we would be dependant lol
Well, by the time those cars become street legal, I'm sure they'll work just fine for us blind people to use and not have to worry about faulty directions. And of course technology fails sometimes, but it takes time to improve it, and that's an obvios reason as to why these cars are not on the road yet.
Even if that's true I have a sneaking suspicion that by the time these cars are well and truly street legal a lot of us probably aren't even going to be around anymore. If I'm gonna drive one of these things I'd rather do it while I'm still young enough to really enjoy it. Not to say this isn't possible but somehow I don't think it terribly likely.
I still don't want anyone blind, or sighted having a completely automated anything. People are already having issues with all the tech that's on cars now, such as the stereo. I've had a friend hit in a cross walk, because the driver was adjusting her tunes, so if the care mis functioned I'd like to be sure the person in side would be able to correct it. Just like airplanes someone is always in control either by controls on the plane, or remote, but it is in someone persons control. A blind person can't even travel well on their feet many, and widely, so how are we going to put them behind the wheel? Even some sighted people need to be banned from the car. Lol. As I said it's a problem that's already happened, so lets leave it in the lab setting please.
Didn't I already post a board on this?
Different views on this one, though.
damn, such negativity!! You'll never get anywhere in life with those attitudes.
If you remember history, cars were only for the rich in the beginning and very expensive. Then along came Henry Ford and his Model T. He made cars for the common man.
Wh's to say that this won't happen in the same fashion.
This car is similar to the race to the moon. It'll take a lot of work, but a lot of good technologies will spin off from it. It will also help the sighted world look at blind ppl in a different light and realize we have more potential than most give us credit for.
You know what? That is sooooo! true on the last post. I never looked at it that way.
I was initially willing to dismiss this out of hand and join the croud of "this will never work" people. I believe it's immpossible to create a car that can be completely automated as long as there are human drivers on the road who will find new stupid and unexpected things to do. Assuming you can react fast enough by touch which is a big if and the car can provide information to you in an efficient way about your surroundings I could see this possibly working at some point. While I'm sceptical I'm not completely aposed to this. As for the cost look at it as extra modivatian to go and get a good paying job.
That's the point though. According to the article this car isn't going to be automated. In fact that's what they're trying to avoid. I agree that the idea behind it is nice but I don't believe it's in any way practical. There's too much you have to keep track of when driving, things which even sighted people don't always pay attention to, hence we have incidents like what happened to Forereel's friend. How on earth do they think we, as blind folks, can avoid causing more such incidents? I know plenty of blind folks who don't bother to pay attention when they're walking or riding a bus. Are we really sure we want to put them behind the steering wheel of any kind of motor vehicle? Not only that but the Henry FOrd analogy doesn't really aply here since we're still a minority, which means the car is still more than likely going to be quite beyond the financial means of most blind folks, even if it does turn out to be a success...unless of course the government decides to provide them to every blind person in the country. And I don't know about the rest of you but I'd find that highly insulting. THe notion of being dependent on SSI, even if only temporarily, is one that galls me to no end. But of course that's a whole nother topic entirely. Suffice it to say that I'll believe this supposed seeing eye car business if and when I'm able to drive one and see if it really does work and, more to the point, own one.
I have to agree with post 34. There are many technologies that we use today that started out as to damn expensive for us to afford; (or at least the majority of us), but, we have them, we use them. IE, when I was first introduced to scanning software it was something for my convenience...Rarely did you find a common person in the 80's worrying about being able to scan, but you know what? Sighted people started seeing the benifits, and now my Mom at almost 60 has a scanner, and damn it she even knows how to use it! This isn't the only thing, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head; (and I appologize if my memory over scanners is faulty, I was just a kid). Hell, there was a time when the commoner didn't think about even having a computer. Computers were for research, universities, government and developers, and you know what? You can now get one for $300 if not less if you look. Damn, and you know what else? Damn near every home in America has one, and it's almost become a requirement. Give it a few more years longer and if you have a kid you'll have to have one. For someone who has seen the computer evolution from near the beginning; (and studied on it even more), it's amazing to think that in 86 when I got my first computer no one I knew had a computer. I was special, rare, different for having one, and now those who don't have a computer are the rare, different, odd individuals. Here's another thing I have with this whole "blind people aren't meant to drive" attitude. 100 years ago blind "handicapped" people weren't to have children, and you know what? Now, we can if we want. I hate this attitude when I get it from the sighted. When someone tells me that because I'm blind I can't: be a parent, take care of a child, use a computer, take care of my own home, pay my own bills, dress myself, (do I really need to go on?), I absolutely hate it!!! And, when I hear it from other blind individuals it absolutely sickens me. Are all of you afraid to succeed on a level with the sighted? Really, I'm curious. Sure, given the current technology we have limitations, and it's responsible and intelegent to acknowledge such, but to believe because you've never done it (legally?) you never will. That's an attitude of giving up, accepting what the rest of the world wishes to think of us because of their own fears, and giving in to what society wants us to believe because it's easier for society to deal with us if they don't have to see that even though we're different we can succeed. Really, why is it so hard seeing the advancements over the past 20 years to believe that it isn't possible in the next fifteen? Is it that you don't want it to come to pass because your afraid of something new? Afraid of messing up when the time comes? Afraid to take a chance? I do sincerely appologize if I offend anyone, but I really am curious. Oh, I'm not holding my breath on the topic, and I'm not saying that everyone needs to drive; (leave it up to each individual), but why not hope for those who would like the freedom? Why not see it as a possible mirical for the future, and why the negativity?
It's common sense. I honestly can't see how this supposed car, or at least the gloves you wear while driving it, will be able to give you this feedback in enough time for you to act on it, whether it be avoiding another car on the road or making that turn when you're supposed to. And traffic lights? How's that supposed to work. Living on our own and having decent jobs is one thing. But the only way I'll believe we can ever drive is when I'm able to. And I don't see these cars becoming common enough in my lifetime that everybody's going to own one. We're still a minority after all, which is why our tech has always been so expensive. And it's probably going to remain so for as long as we continue to use money.
Cattleya, I couldn't agree with you more than I do right now. You guys, this is only 2010. Common sense would tell me that in the next 15 or 20 years, technology will be even more stable and responsive than what it is now. Common sense also tells me that blindness isn't something that should hinder us from being able to drive. How can you guys just throw this stuff away and say you don't like it when you haven't even tried it for yourself yet? The car hasn't even come out, for Pete's sake. This is what testing and developing is all about. And sure, the elder folk probably wouldn't be able to drive those cars because they aren't familiar with all this new technology. But I'm not an elder person; I'm only 20. I can honestly se those cars out on the roads and having those roads adapted for such cars. This isn't in any way meant to be mean, but all this negativity won't get anyone anywhere in life. The NFB is investing in these cars for a very good reason, and of course it's fine if you don't like the NFB. I, however, support the NFB with the money they are raising to move this forward. None of us knows what technology will be like in 15 years, so we need to be patient and not try to throw away when it hasn't even come out yet.
Well you will see how I feel and how byest I am to the national fuck up for the blind. If you ask me they fucked up making the KNF Reader. I believe they should have made it multy platform. So with this said, a car that can drive us cool but I will weight until the proper avacate group does the research.
Woh woh woh, wait a minute. Multi platform? That's going to become reality pretty soon here with the iPhone's improved camera. And of course it's already on the Nokia. See, this is what I mean about patience. This reader only came out 2 years ago. Nothing's going to be perfect. Besides that, you need a camera with at least a 5 megapixel resolution to run that thing, and not all phones have that. Anyway, post away. lol
I just don't believe it's going to take off since like just about everything else for us it's going to be extremely expensive. For one thing I don't think they should be spending so much money on this type of project during an economic down time. And as I may have said before, what happens if it's raining and the camera or whatever that scans the environment can't get a clear bead on the traffic light or it can't see an obstacle in the road? I'll have to actually drive one of these cars before I believe the National Fuckup isn't just overreaching themselves. I'm sorry but I'd rather be cynical than get my hopes up for something that might not even happen in my lifetime if ever.
I do not have my hopes up. LOL, but I won't be negative either. Both are a waist of energy that I'm unwilling to expend, but negativity only hurts the group as a whole, and the negative person even more.
Oh, and I should have added for those who haven't seen it in other boards...I am not a supporter of any "blind" group, but I am curious to see what will come of this car, and their not the first or only to think of such a thing.
I don't doubt it. I just think they're wasting money. Even if this does turn out to be workable, it's as I said in the other topic about this. It's entirely possible, I'd even say likely, that if a blind person ever hits another car, a pedestrian or even a light pole while driving one of these vehicles we'll be right back where we are now since in the sighted community's minds that's going to reaffirm the belief that blind people shouldn't be driving, and never mind either the fact that progress has indeed been made with this or the fact that sighted people get into accidents all the time. Whether successful or not that particular sector of the population would definitely work towards getting us off the roads again if that were to happen.
u know waht though the days of assistive technology being expensive are slowily fading away. When u have things like the iPhone that lets us play on a level playing field not just cuz it has voice over built in but also cuz there is tons of free and or really inexpensive apps made for the average person that we can also take advantage of. As i said above this something that car companies like ford is doing R&D into not just for blind drivers but for all the cars on the road for the average person. So just like how now we have the choice of getting an unlocked n86 for $350 + another $999 for KNFB reader or getting an iPhone for $300 and SayText for free, in the future we'll probably have the choice of whatever the nfb is backing now and whatever the other car companies come up with, and much like now some people choose to pay more money cuz they are convinced they couldn't use a phone that doesn't have any buttons some ppl may like the nfb cars way of allowing us to drive, some people will like the others companies way, but we'll have choice and that will help drive the prices down. And some of us will still not want to drive, just like how some of us don't want to leave the house on our own or attempt crossing certain streets on our own while others will. Buttom line is this technology isn't only to benefit us the blind but is intended to make the road a safer place overall especially considering that the roads will be adapted for this stuff. So when the blind and sighted are using the same car (just like how now we can use the same phone out of the box) i believe the above statement that brian made will be less relevant
Well I couldn't say I wouldn't want to drive if I got the opportunity but at the same time I'm not gonna get overexcited in case it doesn't happen.
It's amazing that we can connect an iPhone to a computer, turn on VoiceOver without sighted help, and we're on our way. No scripts, no tweaks, nothing like that. Just a simple setup anda radio button to turn VoiceOver on. In a sense, I think cars can be the same way, except of course connecting them to a computer, because obviously that's not going to work.
Maybe but somehow I have a feeling we're a long way off from that. But the NFB is te organization that's working on this project in partnership with Virginia Tech. And in the NFB's eyes, judging from all I know about them (and I've spoken with a great many longtime NFB members in person who've confirmed this), the scenario you laid out here would probably come under the unacceptable heading of depending on others, even though there would in fact be no other people. It would be "an autonomou vehicle," which is exactly what they want to avoid.
OK, here is a suggestion. Just work on teleportation; (a machine that can transport matter anywhere in the world), and then we do not need to worry about who can see and who can not.
i second the teleportation notion, however autonomous cars seem more likely unfortunately
I'd feel more comfortable with an autonomous car than teleporting. I watched too many Star Trek episodes and films where te transporter malfunctioned and the would-be user died. True I suppose there's as much risk of death or injury with an autonomous car as there would be with a transporter.
Teleportation of nonliving matter will probably become available before that of living tissue. The problem with Star Trek is not in the concept; the ideas are great but they never intended for people to take the science of it too seriously. Yes, they do try to apply physical laws and such but I don't think the malfunctions would yield the same results as shown in Star Trek.
Frankly, if we could do to matter what we do to data right now, that would be a lot more plausible.
In a nutshell here's how it works:
In the bad old days of yore, you'd dial a phone line to a BBS and get a direct data stream, pc to pc, one bit at a time. If the handshaking (communications common denominator) or speed of transmission was off even by a little bit, you'd get corrupted data. Probably some of you on here have never had a corrupted file that was the result of a corrupted download.
With networks and the Internet, the file is sent in packets. In layman's terms, both sides use a common protocol, or set of digital customs if you will, (usually TCP/IP) to handle the data. But since you don't know who at any one point is handling the packet, each packet is intact, but only the two computers involved in the official transaction actually know what they mean. Exceptions of course are when packets get intercepted but that generally involved decoding.
In short what happens is there's a lot of bouncing around, taking different routes, as data is passed back and forth. You dont connect directly to Google's server farm, even your ISP doesn't. It is far more efficient to deal in these types of packets.
Well, just as data can be broken down to the sum of its parts, so can matter. If you have mollecular composition plus mass plus a few other factors I'm not the best on (I'm not a physicist), you could create a formula and a set of protocols to disassemble a new bed at a furniture store, and beam it (packet by packet) into your bedroom, and have the converter (like your PC does) reassemble the parts. Probably a mixture of digital data and matter. Well, who are we kidding? Digital data *is* matter: it's electrons, at least the positive charge.
So if it went wrong, I think you'd end up with an unrecognizable object. The transporter and the replicator (like they use to make food on Star Trek) would probably be more similar than different in this manner.
For conjecture on mapping neural systems (who you are as a person), read The Age Of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil. Some of you will get bored with the middle chapters on the Law of Diminishing Returns and similar concepts but the timeline is fascinating.
Anyway I probably put some of you all to sleep.
Well that's the point. If the transfer of a file is interrupted before the download or upload is complete the file is corrupted. So who's to say that if we took it to the next level and started transporting matter in the same way a malfunction in the device wouldn't result in damage to the matter? And if we were talking about a living subject a malfunction, particularly if it interrupted the transfer of their molecules, would almost certainly have to result in some form of injury if not death.
But why would you just throw this technology away when it hasn't even been released to the public yet? None of us know how this car is going to turn out, and I think we should be positive about it, because it's going to be another 10 or 15 years before this thing is on the streets. As I said, this is what technology development is all about. It's to make sure that the technology is stable enough to support you when you're driving down the street as a blind person. They're not just going to throw the car out there and say, Hey, here's your car," and not check on how stable this technology is. You have to look at the other side of things as well, not just the negative side. If we get this car out on the streets in about 15 years or so, we've got it made as blind people in terms of getting to work, going to the store, etc. For right now, of course technology would not be stable enough for us to be out on the streets.
I don't know. We're talking about the NFB, and they seem notorious for jumping the gun about a lot of things. I've even heard members tell me this so it's not just my own personal view. Personally I think we need to be realistic and accept that it's just as possible that this is never going to happen and that the NFB is just pipe dreaming. I just think there are too many unknowns and unpredictabilities and I haven't heard anything that would seem to indicate that the folks at the NFB have taken them into account. I think it's going to be a lot longer than ten or fifteen years. And like I said in the other topic about this, even if it does work out, even if this car is proven totally drivable there's a very real chance that it could all go out the window again if a blind person ever gets into an accident, possibly even regardless of who was really at fault. If a blind person ever hits another driver or a pedestrian it's possible, even likely in this sue happy day and age, that not only would the victim's family sue the driver but they might very well try to introduce legislation to make driving illegal to blind folks and have the car pulled off the market. Not to say this will actually happen but it would certainly be a worst case scenario. I just think they've got a lot more explaining to do about how this is going to work. I don't see how forced air is going to provide a map of the surroundings, much less how you'll know when to turn. I'll reserve final judgment until I learn more after this demonstration in Florida next January...assuming of course that I'm able to watch it.
Yeah, but don't the sighted folks get in car accidents as well? I mean, they get sued as well, and in some cases, also get arrested. It's no different.
I think what post57 is referring to is public opinion. And, unfortunately, opinions are like...But, I do see your point; (post57), and as I have said, I am not holding my breath, but I will continue to think it is a possibility until it is proven not to be. And, while I do think public opinion is going to prove interesting if not empossible to change, that does not mean I will quit trying. Most sighted individuals do not understand how we can even be parents. After all, how can you see if your child's color is off? How do you know what the child is getting into? How do you know you have gotten all the messy stuff off of them? These are things I have been asked by people who know I babysit...And some of those who know I desire a child. But, am I going to quit babysitting or wanting a baby just because they do not grasp the concept that your eyes are not under any circumstances the be all and end all? No, because I have the right to a good life, and I will not give it up if I am certain enough of the circumstances and safety. Please, do not say parenting is not the same thing. Most sighted people really think it is for us. I have literally been asked by a government agency that pays for low income parents' daycare: How can we know it is safe for you to have the kids? How do you know if they are doing something dangerous, bad, ETC...That is the way some uneducated sighted act; (uneducated meaning those who have not truly been exposed to blindness or even another handicapped), and while I really do not care what these individuals think of me, i will not let them hold me down.
I agree that this could turn into some very interesting spin off and think that, if for no other reason, they should continue with this invention. But as others have said, it's unrealistic, both for economical and logical reasons. When you dress yourself, pay your bills or use a computer, you aren't taking the lives of other people into your hands. But when you drive, you're doing just that. Sure, we might be more careful than the average sighted driver, if this thing works, but it doesn't mean we'll always succeed. There's always human error and irrationality to consider. And what happens when we get out of the car and all our fancy tech is left behind. We're still the same blind people, in a new environment, with no clue where to go or what's around us. Maybe, one of the more helpful things that could come from this is censors that would better acquaint us with our surroundings. It's not that we're afraid. Driving is a huge responsibility for anyone, and there's just no way that a machine can account for everything. And what if, as was already said, it fails on us? Now, we're left in the middle of the road, with other cars going by, and we can't even safely pull over to the side of the road because our virtual eyes are gone. So what do we say when we get into an accident then? Oops, sorry? How about having them adapt something much easier and safer to opperate, like a bicycle. I'd love to be able to ride a bike by myself!
I also agree that there is too much automation in cars as it is today, from the windows and locks, to the motor, to, well, everything! One time, Joanie needed a simple key replacement in her car, and something that should've taken minutes took almost two hours because they had to reprogram the computer in it. Grandma's car was hit and the cost to fix it was very high because of the computer in the dashboard. If I ever get a car, whether I have my sight restored or whether I have a driver, I'm getting one without a computer in it, unlessI decide to bring along the gps or laptop. If you can't fix your own car, assuming you have the mechanical knowhow, it's not worth buying. As for SSI, I have no problem with it and don't see the issue if someone really needs it and honestly can't find work. LeoGuardian, thanks for the explanation of data transfer. I'm formulating some questions on that and will probably turn it into another topic. As for teleportation, I think it's best to keep that in fiction, at least as far as living matter is concerned. But time travel would be extraordinarily interesting, dangerous as all hell, yes, but fascinating. I'm 26 and have been blind since I was two-months-old and I'd still ask the same questions of blind parents. While I know it's certainly possible for us to be parents, if I ever did choose to have a child, I personally would never intend on doing so as a single mother.
I agree completely with the person who said sighted people get into accidents as well; amen to that!!
maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the negativity, but I'm continually amazed. if people don't wanna drive, fine, but is it too much to ask for you to at least be good sports for those of us who're eager for this to happen? damn.
It's not that we don't want to drive. I'm sure most of us, myself definitely included, would love the chance. Hell, I have driving dreams for goodness sakes. We're just being realistic.
Exactly. And yes, sighted folks get into accidents all the time. Nobody's denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that if a blind person were to get into an accident while driving one of these cars, especially if someone else is injured or killed as a result, the victim's family in particular could very well take that as a sign that blind people can't and shouldn't drive. It may not even matter to them who was actually at fault for the accident, nor that sighted folks get into and cause car accidents all the time. But the first time a blind driver gets into an accident at least some sighted people are going to become immediately and irrevocably convinced that we can't and should not try to drive. And if their belief is passionate enough and they have the right connections they're going to try to make it illegal for us. It won't matter much if at all to them that sighted folks get into accidents all the time and for a variety of reasons. And I definitely agree with what Tiffanitsa said. What happens if the crucial part on this car fails in the middle of the road and we're no longer receiving feedback? It'll be kinda hard to pull over at that point.
Well, that's why there's something called fighting for what you want. Sure, the sighted world will think we're crazy because we're driving out on the street, but that's why you stand up for yourself. I'm being realistic as well by taking my hat off to the NFB for stepping up to the plate and taking this project forward.
They need to focus on the here and now and what we actually need within the next few years, not the next few decades. If they want to do this as a hobby, that's fine. But they're spending money on this car when they could be working on something that might be of benefit to us now and to more of the blind population than that car will in the next few decades, even if it's perfect.
I agree. Like getting more audio walk signals put in at some of this country's more dangerous intersections. Even in a small city like Twin Falls there are some streets I absolutely would not attempt to cross on foot without at least an audible signal. And I definitely don't think the NFB should be spending money on this in the midst of an economic recession which is not, however much some of the big name so-called experts might protest to the contrary, over.
Audible light signals won't really make much of a difference. What if the audible signal tells you to cross and there's some idiot that jumps right in front of you with his car and hits you? And the NFB is working more beneficial stuff, like getting more blind children to learn how to read Braille. That's beneficial, isn't it? That's what the Louis Braille coin was all about. They're also talking to quite a few companies to make their products accessible to the blind. Isn't that beneficial? That's why the iPhone, the iPad, and the iPod touch were all made accessible. So in short, what do you mean by beneficial in this case?
Well by that same logic a blind drivable car wouldn't make any difference. What if some idiot jumps out in the road and hits your car? I just think that there are far too many unpredictable istances that the NFB has given, to me at least, no indication that they've taken into consideration. You could wind up in trouble even if you yourself are driving safely and obeying all the rules of the road. It's one thing perhaps to avoid a stationary object like a light post or stop sign but I've heard nothing that would indicate that they've found a way to alert you to a fast-moving car, much less quickly enough for you to react to it without vision. Not only do you have to consider your own speed but also the speed of the other cars relative to your own. As for the IPod and such, I got the feeling Apple would have done something like that sooner or later anyway since everything I've heard about them suggests that their customer service is much better that a lot of other companies. And while I agree with more blind children needing to learn braille I don't for an instant agree with the NFB's teaching policies which seem to be based on a one size fits all mentality that even a few friends of mine who are NFB members have confirmed, though thankfully they themselves don't share that particular viewpoint. But as for the car thing I believe and will continue to believe that they should not be spending all this money on a project that likely won't bear fruit at least for a few decades yet if ever, in the middle of an economic downtime. And I still don't think it's very realistic the way they're describing it, not thaht any articles that I've read explained adequately enough how this is supposed to work. And they already think they've got an actual car ready to test drive? I confess a shiver...
This is a great debate here. I'm seriously loving it.
I'm not trying to be a party pooper but I really do think they might just be rushing. True they've apparently been at work on this project for about ten years if even that long, but it's like I said earlier. I haven't really ehard anything that satisfactorily explains how they propose to make it possible for a blind person to drive at all, much less how to do it safelyy. If someday I'm proven completely wrong then I may of course look into acquiring one of these vehicles, but that right there brings up another point. It's very possible, I would even say likely, that it's going to be far too expensive for the average blind schmoe to afford, and if that does indeed turn out to be true then it's never going to be all that common. True they didn't think cars period were going to become commonplace when they were first invented but the situations were a bit different. FOr one thing regular cars didn't come with these proposed modifications which are bound to raise the price considerably. About the only way I could see that part working out is if we're permitted to make the same time payments that sighted folks are when they buy cars. But if as I suspect the price of one of these cars is significantly higher than a normal car it's going to take us a lot longer to pay it off. And that's just my financial reason for not believing this is going to be feasible. I've already stated the other practical reasons I have.
I'm very curious as to the one size fits all mentality that you've brought up. Not to go off-topic, but can you explain that a bit? It may even shed some light on their theories on this. Of course, reading is a very important thing, and I commend the NFB and anyone else who wishes to help people with that goal. But on the same token, they were the group who got the ball rolling on accessible money and then pulled out because, for some reason, they felt that accessible money would make us less independent. I fail to see how that's true, when we have to rely either on money identifiers, which aren't cheap and which can't always read the money if it's wrinkled or creased, or the kindness of strangers who could very easily take advantage of us by giving us, say, a $1 and saying it's a $20. It seems they have the same mentality here with the car, since they're trying to avoi it being automated, which is the only logical way for it to truly work for us.
Well the one size fits all thing has to do with their teaching methods. Most organizations will certainly teach you what they've found works for a lot of people, but if you find that that particular method doesn't work for you they're usually open to you coming up with something that does work for you and will often even help you come up with something. The NFB insists that at least in the confines of their training programs you do things their way or no way at all. They are completely against the use of folding canes, believing for some bizarre reason that they're a means of attempting to hide your blindness. As I said I've had a lot of teachers who were members of the NFB and, while they themselves didn't seem to share all those beliefs they did confirm them. I actually had to have them repeat it the first time they explained to me about the folding cane thing, which they thought was as riddiculous as I did. But apparently, and I've had confirmation on a lot of this, they expect youdo do things excatly their way in their training programs and you can actually get into trouble with them if you disobey. And I didn't know that they were the ones who tried to lobby for accessible money, but I did know that they were against it. We'll just have to see if the same thing happens with this car.
Yes. Thankfully, the ACB picked it up and had some victories there. Now I see what you mean. There was a board about this called something like NFB and Structured Discovery. I didn't know that all I have to do is fold my cane to hide being blind. Then again, I also didn't know I was supposed to wear a big neon sign saying "Eleni The Blind Woman". Maybe, if we all fold our canes, they'll give us licenses!
Interesting discussion. I think only time will tell as to whether or not this technology actually comes through or will simply inspire new innovations that we simply have not thought of yet.
In response to post 60, good luck in finding a car that doesn’t have a computer in it because basically all new cars have some kind of computer system built into them. If you look hard enough though, you might be able to find some kind of old clunker. But even if you could still find a good old clunker, they only seem to last for so long before they die on you.
As far as the whole concept of driving is concerned, I think it is a waste of resources to provide each and every member of society with their own car regardless if they are blind or sighted. Personally, I would much rather see our resources be used to fix and improve our public transportation system. Some places can barely afford to keep their roads in good driving condition, and now you want to create a way for more people to be able to drive? It just doesn’t make much sense to me.
I agree on that. As for the folding cane being an attempt to hide blindness I don't see the logic. I mean once the cane comes out and unfolds it's obvious that you're blind. The main reason people use foldables is because they want something they can conveniently put away while they're not using. And as far as I'm concerned those telescopic canes don't work all that well. I've tried lots of them and they have an alarming tendency to collapse on you at inopportune moments.
What's the newest car that I could get without a computer in it? I'm thinking early 90's perhaps or late 80's? But I might be able to go newer, not sure. I totally agree about it being a waste to provide everyone with a car. I think they should focus on improving public transportation and that people who can should look into using bikes and other modes of transport that don't use valuable resources. I actually have a truly wonderful cane that's telescopic but it has an ingenious design so that it doesn't collappse. You twist the parts together after adjusting it and they normally stay that way until you untwist them. It really works too! I got it here.
http://www.maxiaids.com/products/3148/Adjustable-Length-Telescoping-Cane-for-the-Blind.html?utm_source=Froogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Froogle&idAff=15225
I tend to agree with you about the resources thing. But you'll never convince the NFB since in their minds driving has, "wrongly been assumed to be only available to the sighted." or something along those lines.
Ok, I would so like to try this, but I wouldn't ever actually trust my life (or the lives of anybody else in the car with me) to a computer. That's just wayyyyy too creapy for me! lol
That's the thing. They claim that this car isn't even going to be computerized or at least not fully. My beef isn't so much whether or not it can be done as whether we should be messing around in this particular area. Or rather whether it's either feasible or practical. I personally feel it's neither, nor is it realistic. And it's possible, I would even say likely that even if it's someday proven to be completely safe, by that time the rest of the world will have ditched landbound vehicles entirely in favor of hovercrafts or something like that, assuming of course that we don't destroy ourselves before then, in which case we'd be far behind the times.
I'm so sad that some of you guys are thinking so negatively about this. Look at Apple and their technology. I've seen the Mac, I have an iPhone, and I used to have their iPod touch. All of that technology never failed on me once. It was always on top of things. That's exactly how this car's going to be, folks. And yes, this car will be computerized, but it's going to be far more developed than the technology is today.
We're thinking realistically. Even if it's proven that this can be done I don't think they should be blowing all this money, particularly not in the midst of an economic recession, for something that more than likely will only be available, that meaning affordable, to someone who's employed. And a disturbing number of emploers, even the ones who are hiring, still think we can't do more than stuff envelopes or wipe tables. And a job like that isn't even going to begin to pay enough to allow you to get one of these cars. Besides, as I've said before what happens if the key component that supposed to transmit feedback malfunctions during a drive? It'd be kinda hard to pull over to the side of the road at that point wouldn't you say? There are just far too many reasons I can see why this isn't practical and why I don't think it's going to catch on. I'll get excited when I see proof that it's actually feasible, not just that it's doable.
Some of us are thinking carbon footprint as well.
I realize activists are all one-trick ponies and about as efficient as a rubber drive shaft, but still.
I'm thinking realistically as well, which it seems that I'm not getting across to you guys. The NFB is blowing this money for a reason and a very good reason. I don't know about you, but I'd want to be able to do thins all by myself, which does include driving.
I'm not saying I never feel that way but I'm not willing to get my hopes up in case the NFB turns out to be wrong. I'd much rather treat it like the pipe dream I currently feel it to be, then if I'm proven wrong someday then so be it. In the meantime I'm not wasting my time with it.
Turns out to be wrong, eh? That's why they're testing the technology first. So they won't be wrong. I'm sure that's exactly what happened with Apple' accessible iPhone. They put it through its paces to make sure everything was ok before releasing it to us blindlings.
That's a bit different though. An accessible IPhone or IPod Touch doesn't pose any physical risk to others the way driving a car does. The NFB plans to have an actual demo next January and I can't help feeling they're rushing it bigtime. And besides I'm waiting for them to back out of the project the way they did after first trying to set things in motion to make paper money accessible. Like I said if I'm someday proven wrong so be it, but until then I'm not getting my hopes up. Anyway I'm not just concerned with whether or not it can be done but whether it's in any way practical, whether we SHOULD in other words. It's already a given as far as I'm concerned that not many blind people are going to be able to afford these cars even if they are proven safe. And I don't know about other countries but I know how hard it can be sometimes to get financial assistance from Voc Rehab even for everyday assistive tech. There are usually so many stipulations that it's almost not worth it. Understandable in some ways since they do want to be sure they aren't wasting money but it's still frustrating as all get out. And yes I may be synical but that's what experience has taught me. So I'd be extremely wary about asking for help with buying one of these cars, always assuming of course that the NFB actually turns out to have the right idea and of course that these cars become available in my lifetime which I seriously doubt. And even if they did I have a strong feeling that by then I'm likely to be too old and set in my ways to care. And as I said in an earlier post in this topic or in the other topic about this, I wouldn't be surprised if by the time these blind drivable cars become available period, much less become common, the rest of the world will have long since abandoned landbound vehicles entirely in favor of some sort of hovercraft or speeder like in Star Wars, and probably something that's healthier to the environment, so we would be behind the times. And that's assuming we as a species don't destroy ourselves before then. I just don't see what's wrong with using public transit like we always have. ANd while I'll freely admit that I hate public transit with a passion I still think it's far, far less expensive in the long run since you don't have to worry about high gas prices, car insurance and upkeep and whatnot. And even I know that can get quite spendy. So no, even if it is doable I don't think it's in any way feasible for blind people to drive unless we manage to magically convince every employer everywhere that we can do more than stuff envelopes. Then every blind person would be employed and more likely to be able to afford one of these things. Like I said I may be synical, even pecimistic (although the term I would use is realistic), but it's better than wasting my time daydreaming about something that may never come to pass and would more than likely be far out of my league even if it did.
Sure, it doesn't pose any risk to others, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's totally different because before the iPhone 3g s came out, everyone thought that us blinks wouldn't be able to use a touch screen. I believe that it's going to be pretty much the same way with this car when it comes out. And of course, people will be afraid of us driving down the street. That's totally understandable. But I think that when people get used to seeing this car on the streets and we're driving them to McDonald's for a 10-piece nugget, they'll look at us and say, "Wow, these blind people can drive."
The irony is, we'll drive just fine to the friend's house, then have to get out and use the cane to find the door / the rest. Yeah sounds interesting, that irony just hit me.
As I said I'm more concerned with the practicality of this than the possibility. Sure we may find out that blind people can drive, but as I keep pointing out there are very real financial concerns that could very well derail this whole project. This car is bound to be a lot pricier than an ordinary car, and it would be hard enough for the average blind person to afford an ordinary car. So even if this is proven to be possible I still don't expect it to catch on. If I'm proven wrong someday then so be it. I might even look into one of these cars myself. But until then as I said I refuse to be taken in. And Leo made a valid point. We might drive flawlessly to the friend's house or the store only to have trouble in the parking lot getting to the door. Quite an irony if you ask me.
Well, that's why we ask for directions. Then we wouldn't have trouble, But yeah, Robo has a point.
And I wasn't arguing in favor or disfavor, just being random / noticing the irony as usual.
And what about making sure we're at the right spot for the drive-through at a restaurant? I mean yeah there's the speaker but still. But as I said I don't expect this to catch on for the simple reason that it's bound to be far more expensive than it's worth.
it's obvious those of us on either side of the spectrum won't get others to see it our way, so we may as well agree to disagree, and respect each other's opinions.
Well I've definitely heard nothing to convince me that this is in any way practical, whether it tturns out to be doable or not. As I said if I someday do hear something that explains it to my satisfaction I will of course acknowledge it and might even look at getting one of these cars. assuming I'm wrong and they're not more expensive than we can afford.