[nabs-l] A common-sence legislative idea

[Linda Stover]

Jim,

This is a legislation which is too broad.  What you are essentially
saying is that even young legally blind individuals who have passed
the driving test, and who may already have restrictions on their
driving such as being unable to drive in inclement weather, must
immediately surrender their licenses to recieve government services.
I do believe however, that perhaps a better alternative is that any
legally blind driver should be required to come for a driving test
once a year to see if their abilities/skills have dimminished and if
new restrictions should be placed upon them or old ones lifted.  I
believe that this proposal is fairer, and does not trap individuals in
a corner between continuing to have the independence driving oneself
affords and recieving needed government services.

In respectful disagreement,
Courtney

On 3/31/09, Jim Reed <jim275_2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> The following is not going to sit well with some of you so let me preface it
> with some personal background to set the context:
> 1. By 2005 I was legaly blind with RP.
> 2. In the summer of 2007 I bought a car.
> 3. In summer of 2008, I wrecked said car, with a passenger, because I did
> not see the sharp turn ahead. Fortunatly, the accident was injury-free, but
> could have just as easily been a fatal roll-over.
>
> That said, my idea:
> Blind people, contingent upon recieving any government services which they
> qualify for,(in part, or in whole) as a result of being blind, must
> permanatly surrender their drivers license.
>
> I know some will say this is cohersive, and it is.
>
> Some will say it prevents blind people from recieving essential services, it
> does; but, no one has the right to endanger the life of another, and, if a
> person chooses to do so, that person does not deserve the support of society
> or it's government.
>
> And lastly, some will make a free-choice arguement. To them I would say
> blindness isnt a choice, its a fact.
>
> This is one of those "father knows best" type situations where what is
> truely best for the individual is percieved by that individual as negitive.
>
> As it seems likely that it is the younger blind people who are most inclined
> to make choices similar to mine, what we are really talking about here is
> saving the next generation of blind people from injury, death, or legal
> troubles.
>
> As negitive as this may seem to some blind people, if it saves even one
> life, blind or sighted, then it was worth it.
>
> Thoughts?
> Jim
>
> "Ability is of little account without opportunity."
>
>       |
>           -Napoleon Bonaparte
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/liamskitten%40gmail.com
>