[blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign

Arielle Silverman arielle71 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 23:09:18 UTC 2013


I agree with Albert that advocating for all-inclusive "child at play"
signs is an appropriate option for concerned parents that allows them
to seek an extra measure of protection without implying anything
offensive about blindness.
Arielle

On 2/25/13, Albert J Rizzi <albert at myblindspot.org> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> The can is open, it has been opened to air out the stink from ignoring
> things and concerns that some people have.
>
> In your particular example you stated that no one in the community asked
> for
> such signage to be put up. in the discussions going on here, some people
> are
> inclined to want to see a pedestrian sign alerting drivers to be extra
> cautious as they travel through a neighborhood.
>
> So, if the can is better left undisturbed, then practice what you preach.
> Again, we can just agree to disagree. To intimate that we should abdicate
> to
> your feelings on this matter and leave the can alone, is a little insulting
> in my opinion.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Donahue
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:45 PM
> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>
> Good afternoon again everyone,
>
>     There have been a few instances where cities installed "Blind Child" or
>
> "Blind Pedestrian Crossing" signs when they weren't wanted or desired. The
> Colorado Center for the Blind is one such case. It took the CCB lodging a
> protest against the city in which it was located at the time to get the
> signs removed. It's a classic case of having an "Accommodation" shoved down
>
> your throat when it wasn't requested. . As said previously this is a can of
>
> worms best left sealed.
>
>
> Peter Donahue
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rene Harrell" <rjharrell at gmail.com>
> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)"
> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>
>
> Out town tried to give us a "blind child" sign, and there are several signs
> around areas that I frequently drive that caution about a deaf child, one
> about a wheelchair user.
>
> Honestly, I think that amount of information is distractingly specific. How
> am I goings know how to spot if the kid on the sidewalk is the deaf one?
> And should I be any less cautious about passing a young child on the road
> if I know he is not deaf? How can I figure out which one might have autism?
> I can for sure tell a wheelchair user, but if I am so busy looking out for
> the person in the wheel chair...who am I in danger of ignoring in my quest
> to search for the obviously disabled one? And what if I never see the
> wheelchair user? (In my 18 months ere, I ever have)....has he moved? Has
> she stopped going out side? Does tat mean I can ignore the sign now?
>
> I do agree that signs can be helpful reminders to simply be more aware of
> our surroundings, I just disagree that all the extra information is at all
> relevant to the perfect strangers speeding by for the 1.2 seconds they are
> going to process the information on the sign.
>
> If you have kids, sighted, blind, deaf, hearing, autistic, neuro typical,
> running or wheeling themselves outside and you would like to issue a gentle
> reminder to the driving universe, I think a "children at play" sign is more
> than enough information to elicit the type of behavioral response you are
> hoping for and it is general enough that people can easily reinforce the
> message by seeing ANY child, not try and pick a needle out of a haystack.
>
> Rene---- mom to six wonder kids, including Miss Clare age 11, (ROP) and
> Seraphina 8 months (ONH)
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2013, Carrie Gilmer wrote:
>
>> Well stated Heather. I agree on every point, and except for being a
>> sighted person myself, my experiences and those of others I know match
>> perfectly. carrie
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:57 AM, "Heather Field" <missheather at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Richard,
>> > Firstly, only ONE person suggested the extreme idea of bringing a
>> resolution on the signing matter before the convention. The Resolutions
>> Committee decides which resolutions get brought to the floor and my guess
>> is that such a resolution would never see the light. this is because the
>> signing issue comes up so rarely. So, no need to defend your rights
>> regarding your blind child. We know your rights as a parent and many of
>> us
>> on this list are out in the trenches fighting for them daily.
>> >
>> > While such a sign does make parents feel better--whatever the stated
>> disability of the child--there really have not been lots of studies to
>> determine effectiveness. While you feel, naturally, that you wish to do
>> everything you can to protect your child, the actual question here is not
>> whether you have a right to do so because, we know you do. The real
>> question is, does posting a sign announcing that a blind child is at play
>> achieve your goal of affording your blind child more protection/safety.
>> Let
>> me share what I've learnt on this subject in an effort to attempt to
>> reach
>> some practical conclusions.
>> >
>> > Over the years, I have had discussions with a number of parents of
>> > blind
>> children and adult blind people whose parents posted such signs. The
>> general consensus from these folks was that these signs did not make a
>> difference in the behaviour of drivers and, therefore, the safety of
>> blind
>> children. Here's the reason we all agreed/thought explained why. Drivers
>> did slow down on the first few passings of the sign and looked for the
>> "blind child" referred to by the sign. However, because of the time they
>> passed, or any number of other variables, they did not see the child or,
>> did not recognise the blind child among those children currently playing.
>> Thus, the original shock value of the sign wore off and the impact was
>> not
>> reinforced by actually sighting the child in question. So, drivers simply
>> ceased to react to the sign; they saw it but it was like so much other
>> visual clutter in the background. Not one parent with whom I have spoken,
>> spread out over the years of my life as a blind person, has been able to
>> assure me that they saw a marked, long-term difference in the way people
>> drive. Add to this the fact that many of these signs get put up and stay
>> up
>> for years. The blind child in question grows up and goes off to college
>> or
>> moves away but the sign remains and there isn't a blind child within
>> miles
>> of the sign. It gets known around the locale that the sign is
>> meaningless.
>> When the drivers who are familiar with the old sign move to new areas, it
>> is very likely, because drivers don't like slowing down, that they
>> dismiss
>> similar "blind child at play" signs, particularly if they don't see the
>> blind child.
>> >
>> > As to your point about IEPs, I actually believe that, in many cases,
>> blind children shouldn't have any. The reason blind children, with no
>> additional disabilities, have IEPs is because of the misconceptions about
>> blindness that are held by the average school teacher. After years and
>> years of sitting in on IEP meetings for blind children in regular
>> schools,
>> I have seen that most of what an IEP does is ensure that the blind child
>> gets the same that the sighted child gets. Blind children just need to
>> learn what their sighted classmates are learning and, if they need a
>> nonvisual technique to accomplish it, the teacher of blind students or
>> parents (and parents friends/mentors who are blind adults) should show
>> the
>> child how to do it. I just don't get why it all needs to be written out.
>> The IEP perpetuates, in the mind of the classroom teacher, that the blind
>> child needs all this incredible amount of additional, special "stuff".
>> >
>> > There are thousands of blind people, of whom I am one, who successfully
>> attended mainstream programmes, who did not have IEPs and who went off to
>> college or to work in their chosen profession. IEPs are considered
>> necessary to ensure that an under informed, underfunded public school
>> monolith doesn't under-educate blind children. However, it is possible to
>> argue that it would be simpler to say "do whatever you have to do to
>> ensure
>> that this blind child can do what his same age peers can do". . There are
>> lots of reasons, I'd be happy to chat about them when we next catch up,
>> why
>> IEPs for blind children are so often not the helpful documents we wish
>> they
>> were, and can, in the hands of some professionals, actually be a
>> hindrance
>> to some blind children. Sounds controversial, I know, but thousands of
>> blind children in the developed world have IEPs that are not being
>> followed, so no guarantees.
>> > I know I've strayed from the topic of signs but it's somewhat related
>> > in
>> that, while signs make perfect sense to you, as do IEPs, there are
>> reasons
>> why both do not achieve what you want them to >
>>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/carrie.gilmer%40gmail.
> com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindkid mailing list
>> blindkid at nfbnet.org <javascript:;>
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rjharrell%40gmail.com
>>
>
>
> --
> " I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up
> where I needed to be."
> -- Douglas Adams
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx.rr.co
> m
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.o
> rg
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date: 02/20/13
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6128 - Release Date: 02/24/13
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>




More information about the BlindKid mailing list