[nabs-l] A common-since legislative idea

[Nathan Clark]

anybody who is blind should not be driving.


On 3/31/09, Jason Mandarino <blind.subscriber at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have had a few friends that are legally blind, but were not in a position
> of degenerative eye sight. Of course they were of the large print category,
> but never the less unattractive glasses and additional equipment as they
> would put it.
>
> My only issue with this is that it is yet another thing based on
> generalizations. I understand the point, but I thin that statements like
> these am what corner us into our own issues. We are easily caught up into
> what works for one or a few, and forget that blindness is just as
> individualized as personality. I am completely for the safety of others, but
> even when it comes to elderly people and their driver's license, perhaps it
> would be more appropriate to have them do something more than a written test
> and a brief eye exam.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no expectation to even have driver's education in
> Georgia, so in my opinion the established safety nets are the true issue not
> more policies.
>
> Mandarino
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> of Jim Reed
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:02 PM
> To: MAB List
> Subject: [nabs-l] a common-sence legislative idea
>
> 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/blind.subscriber%40g
> mail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/troubleclark%40gmail.com
>