[nabs-l] A common-sence legislative idea

[NMPBRAT at aol.com]

Hi to all,
I don't post real often.  In fact, very rarely.  This particular thread 
though caught my attention.  

I would have to respectfully disagree with the post and I'll explain why.  I 
have been legally blind since birth (I have anaridia and developed cataracts 
at the age of 2).  For some of you, I guess I would be considered "high 
partial".   I am now 29.  For most of my life, I understood that I would never drive 
and I accepted that.  Then, a couple years back, my doctor determined that I 
should have my cataracts removed, as he could no longer see to the back of my 
eye, where he needed to, in order to keep track of possible onset of glaucoma.  
 Up to this point, doctors had discouraged removing the cataracts because of 
possible complications and since they (cataracts) were not significantly 
limiting my day to day activities, there was really no need to take the risk.   My 
eye doctor now felt that the benefits outweighed the risks.   So we went for 
it.   After having them removed, my distance vision actually did improve but my 
reading vision was affected.  I hadn't had a low vision evaluation in years, 
so I had one done.   Reading glasses were the main reason for it but I got a 
few other gadgets out of it too.   Another thing posed to me by the doctor 
doing the low vision evaluation was that he wanted to know if I had ever thought 
about driving and whether I had heard of a program called "bioptic driving".  I 
told him that I had heard of it a couple years back but had basically 
dismissed it, as I didn't think my vision was good enough to do it.  He asked if I 
would mind if he did a few preliminary tests since I was there, to which I said 
that was fine.  After the preliminary tests, he stated that he thought there 
was a chance I would qualify but he wouldn't know for sure unless I came back 
and did the full evaluation.   So, when I went back to get my glasses when they 
were ready, I also completed the full evaluation.   I essentially passed that 
part with flying colors and was asked if I wanted to pursue the "bioptic 
driving program".   Now, I was excited because I had the opportunity to do 
something that I believed would maybe never happen in my lifetime.  Anyway, to make a 
long story short, I went through a year-long intensive program with multiple 
steps and processes, including training by various professionals and had to 
take the typical drivers test but with an additional portion to it that the 
typical driver doesn't have to do.   The bioptic device provides me with the 
visual acuity of a normal driver, even though I am technically legally blind 
without the device.   I am proud to say that I did pass the program and am now a 
licensed Ohio driver.    I do have restrictions at this time, although I do have 
the option to go back and get some of those restrictions removed with some 
further training and testing if I so choose to do so.   I feel so thankful and 
blessed to be given the extra independence that driving and a car can provide.   
Keep in mind, I still do use public transportation as well.   I know that 
this option is only available in a few states .  

Here is my concern with your proposal.   You are saying that because I am by 
law "legally blind", that in order to receive services I must surrender my 
license which I earned through this program and am blessed to have?!  Even though 
with this special bioptic device, which makes my vision equal to that of any 
driver on the road, that suddenly just because I am legally blind I should not 
be allowed to drive?!   Although I understand where your proposal is coming 
from, and I share some of the same concerns, I don't see how you can make it a 
"one size fits all" approach.  I don't disagree that maybe there shouldn't be 
further restrictions but even with those further restrictions, I think you'll 
still miss some of the people who are going to be the ones who try to defy the 
odds and end up hurting someone else.   As many restrictions that you want to 
put on people, there are always going to be people who still decide to do 
what they want, legal or not, find the loopholes and those are the people who are 
most likely to hurt others.   In my opinion, I also think that every person 
who gets a DUI should also have their license permanently taken from them, as 
people who have one are more likely to have another DUI and maybe the next 
time, someone will get seriously hurt.   However, others might argue that there 
are people that after getting one DUI, they straighten up their life and don't 
ever do it again, so should they be punished for making one mistake?!   
Basically, my point being, there are so many if's, and's, and but's and to try and 
group everyone together is just not fair.  It's really not cut and dry.    Like 
I said, with the device, my vision is equal to that of any other driver, maybe 
better than some, but without it, I'm legally blind.   I went through the 
process, which not all make it through, and I earned my license.  I don't think I 
should be punished for accomplishing something most never thought possible, 
including me.   

Thanks to all for hearing my side of the story!
Have a great one!!
Respectfully,
Nicole Poston
Canton, OH


**************
Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest 
jobs in a recession. 
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)