[Blindtlk] National Federation of the Blind Secures CourtRulingAgainst Cardtronics

[Gary Wunder]

Hi Kelby. Perhaps your mind is already made up about the NFB's position on
audible traffic signals, and perhaps you understand the position very well.
My experience, however, is that most people simply believe that we are
opposed to them, without considering where we think they are appropriate and
what must be incorporated into their design so that they are not a hazard
for blind pedestrians.  There was certainly a time when I was uncomfortable
with our position about audible signals because I considered it so
inflexible that anyone with the least interest in installing them probably
would not talk with us.  I believe this changed in the 1990s, with our
acceptance of the vibro-tactile signals, and a changing environment which
made many streets less pedestrian friendly than they were previously.

When I was growing up, there were two audible traffic signals where I
traveled.  One Was a Block from the Kansas City Association for the Blind
and the second was two blocks from the Missouri school for the blind.  Both
of those audible signals used a shrill buzzer which sounded for
approximately 5 seconds.  Both were so loud that they totally obscured the
sound of traffic.  Even a person who has never studied physics knows that
the most important thing to know before crossing the street is not the color
of the light but the presence or absence of a moving vehicle in one's path.

Perhaps such signals would never have been developed or would quickly have
been replaced by more suitable instruments had we taken a less firm stance,
but I have to tell you that listening to the politicians talk about how
those signals made their cities more blind friendly did not set well with
me, especially when they were more of an impediment than they were a help.
I don't know that such signals still exist, and I've personally been on
committees where we've recommended the installation of a signaling device
that the blind can use.  In those cases where our recommendation has been
accepted, I think the signals are both useful and non-obtrusive.

My apology if you knew most of this already.

Gary

  

-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Kelby Carlson
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 6:27 PM
To: Blind Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] National Federation of the Blind Secures
CourtRulingAgainst Cardtronics

Not to be terribly pedantic--because this is good news--but it 
seems to me that the NFB can be a little selective in its 
campaign for access to mainstream technolog.  I'm thinking here 
of the NFB's well-known and longstanding opposition to audible 
walking signals--signals which the sighted have access to.  I 
could likely as not come up with other examples.


_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthlink.ne
t