[blindkid] Signs for Susan

Steve Jacobson steve.jacobson at visi.com
Wed Feb 27 21:58:43 UTC 2013


Richard,

You have made a particularly thoughtful attempt in the note below to present some issues that relate to this that can, if we are 
all careful, lead to some good discussion.  For me, there have been some aspects of your responses that have really pushed hot 
buttons so I've really tried hard not to join the emotional battle over this but to try to keep these issues in perspective.  
There are points you raise in this note that I feel need further exploration.  Please view what I say and ask in the spirit they 
are offered, to increase understanding.

I do not know if you and I have met, so I want to let you know that I was blind since birth and therefore grew up as a blind child 
of sighted parents.  In addition, I am a parent of two kids with significant visual impairments but who have some remaining 
vision.  While the issues I faced with them are not the exact issues you have faced, I have had to think hard and long about 
safety, so that is not a new issue for me.  I say all of this not to claim I am an expert, just to lay out my background and 
experience.  I think parents who feel they are experts are fooling themselves.  Parenting involves a lot of balancing of numerous 
factors and it is hard to get it all right.

In several instances in your note below and in other notes, it seems to me that you are picturing blindness as it would exist for 
you with your eyes closed.  In addition, it feels to me that you are really focusing upon the blindness of a child and not on the 
child as a whole with blindness being one part.  I cannot be certain of what your daughter experiences because our experiences as 
human beings are not all the same.  However, there are experiences I have had as a blind child that differ significantly from some 
of the pictures you are painting, and I would be surprised if the experiences of your daughter are not at least somewhat similar 
to mine.

Let's start with safety.  Certainly we want to try to lower the risks our kids take.  Whether kids are blind or sighted, safety is 
something we have to balance as parents for all kids.  .  If we consider safety to be a dominant factor, we would not allow 
sighted children to ride bicycles nor would we let them walk to school alone.  While sighted kids may be able to make judgements 
about street crossing sooner than blind kids in some cases, the possibility of being intercepted by strangers when they are alone 
is very real.  Still, rather than forbidding sighted kids from walking to school, we do our best to educate them, not to eliminate 
risk but to lower it.  In some ways, blind kids may run higher risks than sighted kids.  However, in some areas the risks are 
lower.  Blind kids are less likely to be riding bicycles alone around the neighborhood for example, and they are probably less 
likely to chase a ball into the street.  

I mention this because of your position with respect to the blind two-year-old.  You seem to feel that the blind two-year-old 
should only be allowed to play with the sighted two-year-olds if there was a "blind child" sign.  To me, this completely ignores 
the risks that exist for the sighted two-year-olds playing near the street.  One could not count on any of those kids staying out 
of the street so why is there an extra consideration needed for the blind child in this case.  It would be truly unfortunate if a 
parent felt their blind child could not play with other sighted kids without the presence of a "blind child" sign.  

So do we just leave our blind kids in harm's way until they get training as you more or less stated in another note?  Well, of 
course not, but O&M training is just one of the tools that blind kids used.  In my day, it was not felt that blind kids could use 
canes responsibly.  That was wrong and it has changed, but it meant I depended greatly upon my hearing as a child.  We lived in a 
quiet neighborhood with no sidewalks.  There were times when I rode my tricycle on the street although it wasn't something I did 
all the time, and I suspect my parents were watching.  They were not within arm's length, though.  What I remember is being very 
aware of the fact that while our street was quiet, streets are where cars drive and cars go faster than trikes.  I was very aware 
of the sound of cars and that I needed to get to the edge of a street if a car was coming.  I knew from which direction a car was 
coming by my hearing, and while I didn't know the term "perpendicular," I knew I needed to get out of the way, not run toward or 
away from the car..  There were a lot of kids in our neighborhood so drivers knew to watch out for kids, but from what I remember, 
I seriously question whether I was any more likely to stand in the middle of the street and wait for a car to hit me than would 
the other sighted kids.  I do remember being in the middle of a street once and running to the side to be out of the way and 
crashing into a mailbox.  That was not a pleasant thing to happen but I learned from it, and I lived through it.  The pictures you 
paint of blind kids being totally unaware of their surroundings are just not accurate and are entirely too bleak, unless, of 
course, there are additional disabilities.  In that case, though, we're no longer talking about blindness only and complexities 
are introduced.  Earlier in my life in another neighborhood, I remember being four years old driving around our block which had 
sidewalks on my riding tractor.  I was very aware of sidewalks versus streets, where the cars were and where they were not.  
Ironically, I also remember from that time how my sighted younger sister and her friend decided to make the three block walk 
without permission to the grocery store and how they were brought home by the police.  I shutter to this day to think about how 
they crossed streets.  I'm guessing that at that point, my parents saw me as being at a lower risk than my younger sister.  
<smile>  I give my parents who didn't have this list a lot of credit for recognizing when I was within my capabilities even if 
they didn't always understand how I perceived things.  They knew that what I perceived of the world was not what they perceived by 
closing their eyes, but they took the time to recognize what I perceived.  

When I was older, I did cross streets occasionally without a cane.  I shouldn't have done that and I should have had cane travel 
sooner, but I was very aware of whether or not there were cars and believe that even though my actions should not be recommended, 
I was not a sitting duck for any passing motorist who hadn't been warned of my presence by a sign.  On a long straight street, a 
sighted person would see a car approaching before I would hear it, but I would hear it in plenty of time to take appropriate 
action.  In addition, I have experienced the situation where a street had a gentle curve where I was aware of an approaching car 
before the sighted person with whom I was walking.

In your note you say "The fact that my child has no light perception and therefore sees no real difference in going for a 
walkabout at high noon vs. 4 am makes the folly of a "child at play" sign even greater for us."  This is an example of a number of 
your statements that illustrate to me that your perception of what a blind child is aware of is based solely on vision and closing 
your eyes.  In another note you said that the blind don't see cars and the deaf dont hear them and those are facts.  While 
factually true on the surface, these are very narrow views.  I was pretty young when I was aware of the fact that 4:00 AM was dark 
while noon was light.  To say that a blind person cannot grasp the concept that it is dark at 4:00 AM without having light 
perception sells all of us very short indeed.  To put this together with the inference that the blind child in question would be 
playing in the street at 4:00 AM would indicate to me that there are other issues involved here than blindness, and they need to 
be addressed beyond a "blind child" sign.  My point here is that relying on a "blind child" sign to make much of a difference to a 
driver at 4:00 AM who expects to see no children on the street is a very questionable safety net, and I believe the confidence 
placed in it is misplaced.  It simply is not a great idea for blind or sighted kids to be out crossing streets at 4:00 in the 
morning.

As you surely must know, we all agree that hybrid cars are an issue.  They do present a challenge and a threat.  Many of us have 
worked hard over the past decade to get a minimum noise standard implemented and it appears that is happening.  Many of us here 
have spoken with our representatives and senators on this matter.  As was mentioned in another note, the only known accident 
involving a hybrid car here in Minnesota's Twin Cities involved a sighted child on a bicycle who did not hear the car coming up 
behind him.  They pose some risk for all pedestrians or bicycle riders.  What is the solution in the meantime?  Even if a sign 
warning a driver of the possible presence of a blind child helps, and I still think that is open for debate, what will that sign 
do for the blind child or adult crossing one or two blocks away.  The sensible approach is not to try to put a sign where blind 
kids are known to travel, but to step up efforts to increase knowledge of what the white cane means while teaching our blind kids 
to stay out of the street before they are ready to travel.  In minnesota, we've worked over the years to distribute information to 
driver's education classes and such to make certain that as many people as possible know the purpose of a cane.  This approach 
isn't perfect either, but it has the advantage of offering some protection anywhere a blind person travels, not just in the 
vicinity of a sign.

I entertain no illusion that I will change your mind about "blind child" signs, but I hope that you are willing to accept that 
some of the assumptions you are making about what blind people perceive are not correct.  Obviously, if I have misinterpreted 
something you have said here, by all means let me know.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:06:48 -0500, Richard Holloway wrote:

>Rene,

>I wonder what the risk may be if an unfamiliar driver treats every child in a small area as if he or she may be blind... 

>However, if you've followed recent posts, you've already seen emails from at least three of us (myself included) with direct 
experience of people telling list members they either weren't aware of what a white cane indicated, or else they have asked us why 
our children are carrying canes. I think that even many of the people who DO know what a cane is supposed to indicate just don't 
realize there are blind children too, or if they do, they don't know that many of those kids carry canes.

>I have no doubt that YOU would know what a white cane in a child's hand indicated. I have no doubt that every member of this list 
is very aware of the meaning. In the advertising business, they would explain that we are not the "target demographic" of these 
proposed signs. (Not even close....)

>I personally have had literally scores of people over the years ask why Kendra has "that stick" in her hand, or words to that 
effect. I would wager a vast sum regarding nearly every adult  who has asked about my daughter's cane-- (I say adults, because 
some of our curious "stick askers" have been children.) If each of these people had just read a sign about blind children moments 
before they encountered my child, nearly all would have put 2 and 2 together.

>Think of this situation:  A driver sees a "Blind Child Zone" sign (etc.), then sees a kid with a "stick". In a cartoon of this 
situation, the next frame would show a lightbulb over the driver's head. 

>Honestly, I think the best sign would have a stick person (like many general signs do) only holding a cane and say something 
about blind children. That plus a kid with a cane in (or near) the street would be a giant clue for drivers. I know some here want 
to pretend blind kids aren't at greater risk in these situations, but my personal belief is that many are. We can only focus on so 
much at a time. My daughter spends her days at school and then several hours a night, many nights, on school work. Then there are 
activities too. O&M focus is primarily around her school, learning indoor routes and techniques. Outside for now, she's trying to 
learn to cross driveways when on a sidewalk and not to veer off onto the driveway itself. This is hard for her. Mastering street 
crossings comes later.

>As to my daughter going around without her cane? I absolutely expect my daughter to have her white cane in her hand when she goes 
anywhere outside of a familiar building, like our home, or a classroom. She uses her cane in school halls, the cafeteria, etc., 
and in unfamiliar buildings. She can use it wherever she wants-- we never prevent her. Once she knows a room though, she generally 
wants both hands free. 

>99+ times out of 100, Kendra would have her cane in hand at the street. Once in a while, she does get mad (kids do this 
sometimes, I suspect you're quite aware of it, LOL) and now and then she throws down her cane and announces she's "out of here!" 
and storms off. I'd like to know where she came up with that little tantrum move, and personally I think it is a really bad idea. 
(This is something else we're working on.) In theory, she could do that and walk into the street alone sometime. Hopefully we 
would stop her before she got there (so far, so good), but if she manages her way into the street, it is possible that a passing 
motorist, having read the sign and then seeing a child in the street who looked perhaps upset, confused, or disoriented might 
realize that maybe she is a blind child who cannot see his car coming and therefore be at least a little bit more careful. 
"Maybe" beats the motorist having no idea what's going at all. The fact that my child has no light perception and therefore sees 
no real difference in going for a walkabout at high noon vs. 4 am makes the folly of a "child at play" sign even greater for us. 
Who would take a sign seriously about "children at play" in the middle of the night? But "Blind Child" + a child in the road in 
the middle of the night? (Insert light bulb cartoon here as well.) And assuming she had her cane in hand? So much the better...

>Of all the specialized signs we have discussed, I suspect the "Blind Child" signs combined with a child actually walking in/near 
the street (hopefully) with a cane are the most likely signs to be effective of any mentioned. Still, where is the HARM if this 
doesn't work? I get that people won't see kids who "look deaf" (or autistic, etc.) but still, knowing why a child doesn't react to 
sounds could be potentially useful. Maybe they just help the police when they show up to deal with a confused child the one time 
the child found their way into the street. We think these things will never happen, but sometimes they do. Maybe you do a perfect 
job every time with your kid, but your babysitter messes up and your child goes where he doesn't belong one night. Again, I see no 
down side to the sign.

>There's one more part of this argument that seems to keep evaporating: Alternative skills for detecting cars rely rather heavily 
on cars being heard. Cars are getting quieter and quieter. Hybrids and electric cars are somewhere between hard to hear and 
impossible to detect by sound, depending on a number of factors. Sighted kids can be taught to adapt to these cars by looking more 
carefully. Someone please tell me what we can do to make blind children aware of silent cars driving towards them. (Adults too, 
for that matter.) Wouldn't it be a grand thing if drivers of these cars were somehow aware that some people might neither be able 
to hear or SEE them approaching? Maybe that ultimately falls to the car makers to solve (by adding some noise back), but until 
they do, what do WE do? And this is not some theoretical discussion. We have hybrid cars all over the place. Some of these cars 
run at times in a full electric mode and are super-quiet. And of corse there are growing numbers of totally electric cars on the 
roads as well. We can sit and say we're all the same as much as we want, but when a car comes and it can neither be seen nor 
heard, I don't think that ANY blind person is as safe as the sighted general-public.

>Maybe part of my issue is I'm a bit old fashioned about some things. If my kids are out of line, I don't see a problem with other 
adults **reasonably** assisting, especially adults I know already. I'm certainly not going to sit by and watch another's child 
come to harm if I can help prevent it. I do believe it "takes a village to raise a child" but for some reason I get the impression 
that some people on the list think we need to keep the fact that our child is blind to ourselves and far away from the rest of the 
village's knowledge. Why is that? Am I misreading something? Don't post signs? Maybe a wish to turn the occasional white cane 
black so it will blend in better?

>If there is a problem having a blind kid in the village, teach the village it is respectable to be blind. That, to me, is a much 
better approach. And maybe teach the village what not to do because it may put our kids (and blind adults) at risk as well. (Re: 
Dangerously quiet cars.) People may think blind kids aren't smart or capable, but when they talk with my daughter they quickly 
realize she's smart as a whip, and no doubt there are many blind children whose parents are on this list which are academically 
outstanding, or athletic, or super creative, or just plan charming. All these are the kinds of kids who can educate our respective 
villages.

>I find it amusing in a way-- they're always so careful at our school (as officially required) not to let anyone "know" that 
Kendra is blind because it is a matter of privacy. Really? Seriously?... Because none of her classmates or their parents would 
EVER figure this out on their own, right? But the problem there is actually the county's requirement to protect our privacy. I 
just don't want Kendra to hear that people don't need to know she's blind and go to the next step and decide they aren't 
**supposed** to know. THAT would make me worry that she might be ashamed, or embarrassed. In general, in every way that we can 
monitor, our child sees herself as a regular kid who just happens to be blind.

>One thing I would say to you about Clare, if I may-- you mention the responsibility falling on drivers. Legally, that may be 
true, but the RISK to life and limb remains your daughter's. And that risk will keep increasing as cars get closer and closer to 
silent. I could care less whose **fault** it is that your child-- or mine-- gets run over by a car. What I care about is 
preventing that from happening by any means possible, Yet I also want to let our kids go out and about freely. Quite the 
conundrum.

>Defensive driving 101 is all about looking out for the other guy-- that's how we avoid accidents. Same thing with pedestrians 
really-- both from the driver's standpoint, and for pedestrians themselves. How many times have we heard and as kids, and told our 
own [sighted] kids: Before you cross, look left, right, then left again... Well, some of our blind kids simply aren't ready to 
fully deal with an adapted version of that with alternative skills yet. I know my daughter will get there (silent cars 
notwithstanding), but she isn't there at this time. That's reality. For some, these signs may offer a slightly greater chance of 
avoiding a problem. 

>Honestly, (and I offer this broadly, not in response to Rene's reply) I think harsh public reactions to matters like these by 
blind people make blind people stand out (in undesirable ways) a LOT more than a few signs to protect certain children. If you 
truly think we parents are doing the wrong thing, offer some calm rational proof. Site some studies. Telling me the way I choose 
to raise my child may reflect poorly on yourself as an adult is certainly not persuasive. Neither is the threat of some sort of 
formal resolution. 

>In all candor, I honestly doubt these signs are all that effective. I believe they probably help a little bit, at least in some 
cases. For me, that's enough of a reason to use them when parents want to give them a try. That, and my hope that drivers of 
quieter cars will learn to look for such signs and be extra careful when it is more likely that they cannot be seen by 
pedestrians. If you want guarantees for massive protection? Keep your child in the house. Problem is there are down sides there 
too.

>This is a complex issue. I don't suggest the signs are for everyone. I do suggest that nobody has yet demonstrated to me how 
these signs put our kids at risk in any physical way. A few have suggested emotional trauma could be caused. I'm sorry, but I 
don't believe that is very likely-- not for my child. My daughter knows she's blind. It is part of who she is. It is a physical 
attribute that effects her life. It is why she reads braille and listens to audio described movies (when she so chooses). I don't 
know how else to explain my take on this, and maybe I'm misguided. Somethings in life are a nuisance. Blindness is a really big 
one. So would be deafness. Some people are too short to ride roller coasters at amusement parks. Should they resent signs which 
announce this? Should they sue Six Flags? I'm too heavy to climb safely on a standard duty ladder. Should I be offended if a 
ladder says that I'm too heavy to climb it? Should I find a stronger ladder? Or should I resent the signs on ladders and never 
climb a ladder? Better still, should I ignore the sticker and see of I fall and get hurt? Maybe these stickers make me feel like 
I'm overweight. That would be sort of bad for my sense of self-worth. Should I make the stickers be stopped somehow? How exactly 
are these stickers going to effect my life if I don't let them? I know these are nowhere near direct parallels, but they are a 
couple of the many, many examples of labels and limitations everywhere in life.

>In a slower-paced calmer society little of this would matter. Split-second decisions in congested roads are what really make me 
worry about these things. As to your situation with your own kids Rene, I agree, it sounds to me like you are far better served by 
broader signage for all your children collectively. You have more kids in your house than we have on our entire street. You're 
also probably right that none of these signs do a great deal to help but isn't any potential help better than no chance of any 
improvement?

>	-RH


>On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Rene Harrell wrote:

>> Richard,
>> 
>> I think you did an excellent job of outlining risks and concerns. :) I
>> simply struggle with understanding how it translates in the practical
>> reality of a sign. Unless your child is carrying a cane, her disability is
>> INVISIBLE to the drivers coming down the road. They have no way to discern
>> if your child is the Blind one that the sign refers to, or whether or not
>> to treat every child walking down the road as if they might be the blind
>> one. All they know is that there might be a blind child in the area but
>> without a way of identifying a blind child, there is no way for them to see
>> a 10 year old walking down the street and prepare themselves for the chance
>> they might veer off into the road unexpectedly. As a driver then, I am not
>> looking at your 10 year old and being any more careful about them than I
>> would for any other ten year old, even with the "Blind Child" sign.
>> 
>> If your child is carrying a cane, then I don't need a Blind Child sign to
>> recognize that your child is blind and to be extra vigilant about her
>> crossing the road. Everywhere Clare goes with her cane, and when we are
>> crossing roads, when drivers see that she is carrying a cane they assume
>> the responsibility of being more aware of themselves and their driving.
>> Most of them probably have no idea that white cane laws exist. This is how
>> we safely navigate areas with no such sign in sight.
>> 
>> Same thing with "deaf child" and "autistic child" signs. When there is no
>> way to actually differentiate the child who is the reason for the sign, you
>> have no way discernible way to know for whom to be vigilant *for*. The sign
>> then actually provides no benefit if you can't figure out *who* it is that
>> is requiring this caution. If I see a 10 year old walking by the "deaf
>> child sign" but he doesn't "appear" deaf to me, then I am not going to
>> presume he's deaf.
>> 
>> I am not meaning to insult any one for choosing to use such a sign, and I
>> don't think any one needs to feel guilty, shamed, or browbeaten for
>> choosing to something they believe protects their child's safety,  nor
>> needs to apologize for it. That was in no way the intent of my original
>> post on this topic, and I apologize if my words came across in that manner.
>> When determining this for ourselves, I ultimately concluded that people may
>> not be able to identify my blind child if she were outside without her
>> cane, but people CAN readily identify children. As I happen to have six
>> young children, it is far more practical that people know to keep aware for
>> little ones in general than my blind child in specific, and with her cane
>> she would require no extra explanation that she is blind. Therefore, when
>> the town wanted to put up a "BLIND CHILD" sign we declined, but my when
>> across the street neighbor told me that he shifted a couple of signs he put
>> up around my next door neighbor's house back when they had four small kids
>> so that they encompassed my house, I smiled and said "thank you". As it is,
>> we live on the corner of a half-forgotten street that dead ends into an
>> even smaller and more forgotten street with only four additional houses.
>> The road is so narrow that only one car can be on it at a time and if there
>> are two cars going in opposite directions, one needs to pull off in a
>> neighbor's yard for the other one to pass by. We have a couple of teenagers
>> in the back who like to hot-rod their way down the road and have friends
>> who like to do the same, but they know us personally because the
>> neighborhood is incredibly small, and they keep a watchful eye for my kids
>> in our yard. I think in reality, even the "Children at Play" sign does
>> nothing practical, but as they were already there, I saw no harm in keeping
>> them.
>> 
>> Rene--- mom to six amazing kids, including Miss Clare age 11 (ROP) and
>> Seraphina, 8 months (ONH)
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Albert J Rizzi <albert at myblindspot.org>wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>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/steve.jacobson%40visi.com








More information about the BlindKid mailing list