[blindkid] Signs for Susan

Arielle Silverman arielle71 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 22:47:20 UTC 2013


Richard, by your analogy to the signs about roller coasters and
ladders, the warnings about height or weight requirements aren't
what's stigmatizing. What would be stigmatizing is if a short child
came into the amusement park and a sign was posted alerting everyone
in  the park that there was a short child  present. There's nothing
wrong with being short, but a sign would imply that maybe there is
something wrong with it or that the short child needed remedial
treatment in some way. That is what we're talking about.
Arielle

On 2/27/13, Steve Jacobson <steve.jacobson at visi.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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