[nabs-l] Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over run-in with tree
David Andrews
dandrews at visi.com
Sun Aug 15 01:45:06 UTC 2010
Actually, "universal design" is for all people
disabled and non-disabled alike, not just all blind persons.
Dave
At 08:34 PM 8/14/2010, you wrote:
>Jedi, I appreciate your attempt at
>clarification, but I believe there still exists
>a problem. Jedi said, > The way to create a
>universal design honoring all blind people is to
>not > only look at the varying capacities of
>bdifferent blind people, but to > also consider
>the systems into which these capacities are
>imbedded and > from which they are born. Marc
>says, Sure, that's why I included institutions
>in my list, institutions, products, processes,
>services and so on. No disagreement there. Jedi
>said, In so doing, we are more able to piece out
>the difference between a real need versus a
>perceived need. Marc says, The problem is that
>there is no single set of needs that are either
>real or perceived for all blind people. What is
>not a need for me may be a real need for someone
>else. It is not possible to piece out
>differences between real and perceived needs for
>heterogenious groups of people. You may be able
>to do this for an individual, but unless you
>assume that blind people all have the same
>needs, then you are going to have real needs,
>regardless of discourse, that are possessed by
>some, but not all, of the members of the group.
>Jedi said, > Universal design doesn't
>necessarily mean that every piece of (for >
>example) visual information be conveyed
>non-visually. Marc says, Agreed, it's a good
>thing I didn't say that that's what universal
>design meant. Jedi said, What it does mean is
>that blind people, no matter how it's done, have
>access to whatever a sighted person has access
>to in such a way that the access is convenient,
>cost-effective, built in, and meets the needs of
>most people. Marc says, Again, this sounds like
>you're taking the universal out of universal
>design. If instead of limiting it to most
>people, you said meeting the needs of as many
>people as possible, then I think I almost might
>agree with this definition. I also would
>suggest a very high threshhold on convenience
>and cost effectiveness to ensure that these are
>not just excuses not to meet obligations. Jedi
>said, Universal design doesn't have to be
>restricted to how products and services are
>created and maintained. Marc says, I refer you
>to my original illustrative list which included
>institutions and processes. Jedi said,
>Sometimes, it's about changing the surrounding
>systems such that there are no ideologies
>placing beings into some kind of higherarchy. As
>it stands, sighted people still are considered
>more able than us. In order to create a
>universal design system debunking that
>assumption, we have to question why and how
>we've come to believe the inherent inability of
>blind people in comparison to the sighted in the
>first place, as well as how we (the blind and
>the sighted) perpetuate it. Marc says, While I
>agree with the thrust of this statement, I don't
>exactly see how it's relevant. We should be
>looking at institutions and challenging dominant
>discourses, but how does this relate to the
>discussion? Do you believe that if we
>successfully challenge the system, it will turn
>out that all blind people have the same needs?
>If not, then my point still stands: promoting
>universal design will always result in some
>adaptations being made which aren't necessary
>for everyone involved. And even though some
>people will assume that every blind person needs
>the adaptation, when in fact it is only a small
>proportion of blind people that need the
>adaptation, we should still fight for the
>inclusion of everyone and not pay so much
>attention to whether or not the public will
>generalize. Jedi said, I can tell you now that
>universal design is not as simple as creating
>and sustaining certain kinds of accessibility. I
>think the NFB understands that, and that's why
>our philosophy sometimes seems to contradict
>universal design in the first place. Marc says,
>I just don't think this is right. How often do
>NFB leaders talk about making things as
>accessible as possible, accessible even to the
>blind person with little training and not too
>much intelligence? Based on the comments I've
>read on a dozen NFB lists, and based on the
>press releases, presidential reports, and
>banquet addresses, it seems to me that this
>position isn't taken up all that often. If I'm
>wrong about this, please tell me where to look
>to find promotion of universal design
>principles. Regards, Marc ----- Original Message
>----- From: "Jedi" <loneblindjedi at samobile.net>
>To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org> Sent: Saturday, August
>14, 2010 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind man
>sues Wienerschnitzel over run-in with tree >
>Marc, > > The way to create a universal design
>honoring all blind people is to not > only look
>at the varying capacities of bdifferent blind
>people, but to > also consider the systems into
>which these capacities are imbedded and > from
>which they are born. In so doing, we are more
>able to piece out the > difference between a
>real need versus a perceived need. Universal
>design > doesn't necessarily mean that every
>piece of (for example) visual > information be
>conveyed non-visually. What it does mean is that
>blind > people, no matter how it's done, have
>access to whatever a sighted person > has access
>to in such a way that the access is convenient,
>cost-effective, > built in, and meets the needs
>of most people. Universal design doesn't > have
>to be restricted to how products and services
>are created and > maintained. Sometimes, it's
>about changing the surrounding systems such >
>that there are no ideologies placing beings into
>some kind of higherarchy. > As it stands,
>sighted people still are considered more able
>than us. In > order to create a universal design
>system debunking that assumption, we > have to
>question why and how we've come to believe the
>inherent inability > of blind people in
>comparison to the sighted in the first place, as
>well > as how we (the blind and the sighted)
>perpetuate it. > > This is really tough stuff to
>communicate via e-mail, but I can tell you > now
>that universal design is not as simple as
>creating and sustaining > certain kinds of
>accessibility. I think the NFB understands that,
>and > that's why our philosophy sometimes seems
>to contradict universal design > in the first
>place. Am i making any sense at all? Probably
>not, but it was > worth a try. > >
>Respectfully, > Jedi > > -Original Message- >>
>Jedi, > >> I prefaced my comment by saying that
>it was not directed at you. I >> wasn't >>
>objecting to what you said so much as the idea
>contained in the couple of >> sentences I quoted
>from you, and idea that was contained within
>the >> comments >> of many others. > >>
>Regarding what you say about universal design,
>that the NFB is "about >> creating a universal
>design that honors the capacities of blind
>people >> while >> meeting our accessibility
>needs rather than creating a design that >>
>assumes >> that we have more needs than we
>really do", this strikes me as a >>
>problematic >> way of understanding universal
>design. The question I would ask is: >>
>capacities and needs of which blind people? > >>
>The problem is that blind people, like all
>people, have a tremendous >> amount >> of
>variation in the capacities they possess. A
>blind person that is >> otherwise able-bodied,
>who has been blind for a long period of time,
>who >> has >> received a lot of training, who is
>intelligent, confident, and so on is >> going to
>have a different set of capacities than the
>person who is newly >> blind, has had little
>training, has mobility difficulties, and is hard
>of >> hearing on top of it, and considering how
>many lose their vision in old >> age, >> don't
>think this picture is that out of the
>ordinary. > >> So, who do we look at when we are
>fighting for universal design that >> honours >>
>the capacities of blind people without
>exaggerating their needs? Do we >> look >> at
>the capacities of the members of this list, or
>do we look at the >> capacities of blind
>seniors? > >> The problem I see with your
>understanding of universal design is that it >>
>isn't really universal. For it to be universal,
>you can't limit its >> application to a group of
>people that possess a certain set of
>capacities >> and needs. > >> Responding to Joe
>who asked for more specifics on universal
>design, I >> understand it as a guiding
>principle, and ideal towards which we
>struggle >> without actually attaining it,
>something like equality, freedom, or >>
>justice. >> Basically, as I stated, you design
>institutions, products, processes, >> services
>and so on so that they are as accessible as
>possible to the >> greatest number of people
>with the greatest variation in
>abilities. One >> slightly more concrete way of
>thinking about this is that it involves >>
>providing access to information in multiple
>ways. So at a controlled >> intersection, the
>changing of the light is information that is
>only >> presented visually. Universal design
>would promote the inclusion of an >> audible and
>even a tactile signal that conveys the visual
>information in >> alternative ways. We
>obviously will never make everything
>completely >> accessible to everyone, but that
>is what makes it an ideal. It's >> something >>
>towards which we ought to strive. > >> When
>things are universally designed, they include
>features that many >> many >> people will not
>actually make use of. A large number of blind
>people may >> not need an audible signal, but
>some of course will, at the very least, >>
>find >> one very useful. And the concern seems
>to be that people will assume >> that >> because
>some blind people have difficulty getting around
>without adapting >> the environment somewhat,
>then all blind people must need these >>
>adaptations, >> and then this leads to negative
>attitudes, discrimination, unemployment >>
>and >> so on. For my objections to this line of
>argument, see my last post. > >> In closing, I
>want to leave you with a quote from Jacobus
>tenBroek, a >> fellow >> Albertan I might
>add. It suggests to me that tenBroek would
>support the >> fight against unnecessary
>obsticles that prevent us from travelling in >>
>the >> manner in which we choose, including the
>issue that sparked this debate. >> I >> also
>think it's a nod towards universal design, the
>kind that's actually >> universal. > >> tenBroek
>writes: “No courts have held or even darkly
>hinted that a blind >> man >> may rise in the
>morning, help get the children off to school,
>bid his >> wife >> goodbye,and proceed along the
>streets and bus lines to his daily work, >>
>without dog, cane, or guide, if such is his
>habit or preference, now and >> then brushing a
>tree or kicking a curb,but, notwithstanding,
>proceeding >> with >> firm step and sure air,
>knowing that he is part of the public for
>whom >> the >> streets are built and maintained
>in reasonable safety, by the help of his >>
>taxes, and that he shares with others this part
>of the world in which he, >> too,has a right to
>live†(1966, 86768). > >> tenBroek, Jacobus.
>1966.. The right to live in the world: The
>disabled in >> the >> law of torts.California
>Law Review 54: 841919. > >>> Best, > >> Marc >>
>----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jedi"
><loneblindjedi at samobile.net> >> To:
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >> Sent: Saturday, August
>14, 2010 4:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind
>man sues Wienerschnitzel over run-in with >>
>tree > > >>> Marc, > >>> I feel that my comments
>were taken out of context somewhat. I was
>trying >>> to give both sides of the issue a
>fair hearing. It's true that bringing >>>
>attention to the incident in the way it's being
>done might in fact >>> solidify negative
>perceptions of blindness; anyone who has been
>blind a >>> while shouldn't miss that
>possibility unless they've been hiding under
>a >>> rock a while. Whether we like it or not,
>the public tends to view us >>> through their
>own speculations of what their lives might be
>like if they >>> were blinded immediately
>without realizing that they have
>considerable >>> gaps in knowledge regarding
>blindness. What I also said is that the tree >>>
>could have served as a legitimate obstacle for
>this particular blind >>> man. >>> Though I
>didn't say it directly, what I meant is that
>perhaps he does >>> have >>> a cause to seek
>remedy even if a lawsuit may not be the best way
>to >>> handle >>> things. In my opinion, this
>incident is much like the woman who spilled >>>
>hot coffee in her lap and sued
>McDonnald's. > >>> Maybe I'm wrong, but what I
>hear you saying is that NFB philosophy (or >>>
>at >>> least your understanding of it) seems to
>be out of sync with universal >>> design
>principles for the reason of not wanting blind
>people to look >>> incompetent. I don't think
>this is the case. I think the NFB does >>>
>support >>> (and fights for) universal design,
>but we're also about creating a >>> universal
>design that honors the capacities of blind
>people while >>> meeting >>> our accessibility
>needs rather than creating a design that assumes
>that >>> we >>> have more needs than we really
>do. Does that make sense? > >>>
>Respectfully, >>> Jedi > > >>> Original
>message: >>>> I'm not very surprised, but
>nevertheless still disturbed, by a majority >>>>
>of >>>> the responses to this article. Based on
>one reporters account of this >>>> story, we
>have rediculous proposals insisting that blind
>people ought >>>> to >>>> walk around holding
>one arm in the air, we have unjustified
>claims >>>> about >>>> how >>>> fast the person
>must have been walking, we have unfounded
>assumptions >>>> about >>>> what this person may
>have tried to do before escalating to a law
>suit, >>>> and >>>> we have highly speculative
>claims about how this one incident is going >>>>
>to >>>> set every confident, independent blind
>person back 20 years. > >>>> Jedi wrote the
>following, and this is not directed at Jedi; she
>only >>>> said >>>> first, and with brevity and
>clarity, what many others said
>afterwards. > >>>> However, suing could set a
>bad precedent as it > would reaify the >>>>
>notion >>>> that obstacles of any kind are
>hazardous to > blind people because we >>>>
>are >>>> blind; the public may take this
>incident > and generalize it to all >>>>
>obstacles whether they're really an >
>inconvenience to one/all of us or >>>>
>not. > >>>> I would raise three objections to
>this line of thinking. None of them >>>>
>are >>>> devastating, but, taken together, I
>think there is good reason to not >>>> be >>>>
>completely convinced that people who fight these
>sorts of battles are >>>> doing >>>> us all
>harm. > >>>> 1. We shouldn't be so quick to
>think that we can predict how any one >>>>
>individual, let alone the so called public, is
>going to react to these >>>> sorts >>>> of
>stories. Someone reading the story might
>respond more to the fact >>>> that >>>> the
>person was travelling in the community
>independently, she might >>>> focus >>>> on >>>>
>the person's willingness to stand up for what he
>believes, she might >>>> begin >>>> to think
>about her own front yard tree with its low
>hanging branches, >>>> or >>>> most likely in my
>opinion, she won't think twice about it,
>assuming she >>>> reads it at all. The point is
>that there is a lot of speculation >>>>
>involved >>>> here, and we should be cautious in
>the face of so much speculation. > >>>> 2. Let's
>say, for the sake of argument, that there is
>this thing called >>>> the >>>> public, and the
>public generalizes from the experience of one
>person >>>> and >>>> applies it to all of us
>blind people. The public believes that we
>all >>>> need >>>> help getting around all these
>obsticles, and eventually this leads to >>>>
>discrimination and unemployment. Should we base
>our positions on what >>>> we >>>> judge to be
>right, or should we base them on how the public
>will react >>>> to >>>> them? Probably the
>response will be to say that we should base
>our >>>> positions >>>> on both what we think is
>right and how the public will react. Fine, >>>>
>I'm >>>> not >>>> saying we should ignore public
>reaction, but in the face of so much >>>>
>speculation, see objection 1, where public
>reaction is highly >>>> unpredictable, >>>> it
>should play only a very minor role in deciding
>what sort of >>>> activities >>>> we >>>> should
>engage in. > >>>> 3. Even if the public does
>develop negative misconceptions based on >>>>
>these >>>> sorts of stories, this doesn't mean
>that people can't be educated. Why >>>>
>couldn't it be the case that by fighting to
>remove these barriers, we >>>> suffer >>>> a
>short-term increase in negative conceptions for
>a decrease of such >>>> conceptions in the long
>term? Get blind people out in the
>community, >>>> and >>>> that's how you will
>change attitudes. The more people that feel
>they >>>> can >>>> comfortably and independently
>travel throughout the community, without >>>>
>having first spent 8 months intensively studying
>the latest >>>> hand-in-front-of-face technique
>for detecting over-hanging obsticles, >>>>
>the >>>> more people you will have out in the
>community, the more relationships >>>> will >>>>
>be developed, and the more likely you are to
>change attitudes. > >>>> Many of the comments
>thus far in this thread illustrate two of the
>most >>>> fundamental ways in which I think NFB
>policies are misguided. First, >>>> the >>>>
>failure to promote universal design. Universal
>design means creating >>>> institutions,
>products, processes, services, and so on that
>are as >>>> accessible as possible to the widest
>number of people, without the user >>>> having
>to possess special equipment or training. If
>environment A is >>>> only >>>> navigable by
>some blind person who has been blind for ten
>years, who >>>> has >>>> had >>>> training at an
>NFB Center, and who has no other disabling
>physical >>>> variations, and environment B is
>navigable by someone recently blind, >>>>
>with >>>> little training, and with a bad hip,
>then we should adopt stances >>>> towards >>>>
>design that bring us closer to environment
>B. It might be true that, >>>> at >>>> first,
>taking these positions causes that foolish
>public to believe >>>> that >>>> blindness
>equals incompetence, but this leads me to my
>second concern >>>> with >>>> NFB policy: there
>is far too much concern with the variety of ways
>that >>>> the >>>> public might think less of
>us. Of course public perceptions matter, >>>>
>but >>>> they are highly unpredictable,
>changeable over time, and should not >>>>
>make >>>> us >>>> afraid to fight for what is
>right. > >>>> I've been preaching this sort of
>attitude for a while now, and I don't >>>>
>really expect to change anyone's mind, but there
>is another perspective >>>> to >>>> this story
>that hasn't been aired fully. > >>>>
>Best, > >>>> Marc > >>>> ----- Original Message
>----- >>>> From: "Jedi"
><loneblindjedi at samobile.net> >>>> To:
><nabs-l at nfbnet.org> >>>> Sent: Friday, August
>13, 2010 7:30 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l]
>Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over run-in
>with >>>> tree > > >>>>> The tree could be an
>annoying obstacle for anyone, particularly
>tall >>>>> people. And yes, it is true that tall
>blind people who don't use guide >>>>> dogs or
>some sort of hand guide device/echolocation are
>going to miss >>>>> those overhead branches.
>However, suing could set a bad precedent
>as >>>>> it >>>>> would reaify the notion that
>obstacles of any kind are hazardous to >>>>>
>blind >>>>> people because we are blind; the
>public may take this incident and >>>>>
>generalize it to all obstacles whether they're
>really an inconvenience >>>>> to >>>>> one/all
>of us or not. > >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>>
>Jedi > >>>>> Original message: >>>>>> I thought
>this story was interesting. What do you think?
>Is the >>>>>> lawsuit appropriate? > >>>>>>
>Arielle >>>>>> Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel
>over run-in with tree > >>>>>>
>http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50092926-78/tree-reynolds-wienerschnitzel-suit.html.csp
> >>>>>> By bob mims > >>>>>> The Salt Lake
>Tribune > >>>>>> Updated Aug 12, 2010
>10:59PM >>>>>> All Nathan Reynolds wanted was a
>hot dog. Instead, as the blind man >>>>>> walked
>toward a Wienerschnitzel restaurant last year,
>he got a face >>>>>> full of tree — and severe
>neck injuries. > >>>>>> Now, the 36--year-old
>Utah County man has filed a personal
>injury >>>>>> lawsuit against the owners of the
>Wienerschnitzel at the corner of >>>>>> North
>Temple and 800 West in Salt Lake City. > >>>>>>
>The complaint contends that on June 9, 2009,
>Reynolds — who had been >>>>>> on his way to the
>UUtah School for the Deaf and the Blind — got
>off a >>>>>>> bus near the Wienerschnitzel to
>get a meal. As the 6-foot-5 man >>>>>> navigated
>toward the entrance with his cane swinging in
>front of him, >>>>>> he hit the tree, which the
>suit contends had encroached on the >>>>>>
>sidewalk. > >>>>>> “The tree struck him
>squarely in the face and knocked him to
>the >>>>>> ground,†states the suit, filed
>Tuesday. “The tree was allowed to >>>>>>
>grow >>>>>> in such a way that it was impossible
>for Mr. Reynolds to detect its >>>>>> presence
>by use of his cane.†> >>>>>> The suit argues
>that because the tree was “rooted in the
>ground far >>>>>> to >>>>>> one side of the
>sidewalk and [had grown] diagonally across
>the >>>>>> sidewalk,†it had become a “clear
>hazard.†> >>>>>> Reynolds seeks unspecified
>reimbursement for past and future medical >>>>>>
>expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering
>stemming from alleged >>>>>> negligence in the
>maintenance of the tree. > >>>>>> Along with
>Grundmann Enterprises of South Jordan, the owner
>of the >>>>>> eatery, Reynolds’ 3rd District
>Court suit names Salt Lake City Corp. >>>>>> and
>five John Does as defendants. Reynolds seeks a
>jury trial; 3rd >>>>>> District Judge Sandra
>Peuler has been assigned the case. > >>>>>>
>Daniel J. Grundmann of Grundmann Enterprises
>declined to comment >>>>>> Wednesday, noting he
>had not yet been served with the suit. > >>>>>>
>Tom Amberger, vice president of marketing for
>Irvine, Calif.-based >>>>>> Galaradi Group Inc.,
>which runs Wienerschnitzel, also declined
>to >>>>>> discuss the case. “We are unaware of
>this lawsuit and will look into >>>>>> it,†he
>said. > >>>>>> Ed Rutan, city attorney for Salt
>Lake City, would not comment, >>>>>>
>either, >>>>>> citing the pending nature of the
>litigation. > > >>>>>> __._,_.___ > > >>>>>>
>-- >>>>>> Arielle Silverman >>>>>> President,
>National Association of Blind Students >>>>>>
>Phone: 602-502-2255 >>>>>> Email: >>>>>>
>nabs.president at gmail.com >>>>>> Website: >>>>>>
>www.nabslink.org > >>>>>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >>>>> 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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
> > >>>>> -- >>>>> Email services provided by the
>System Access Mobile Network. Visit >>>>>
>www.serotek.com to learn more about
>accessibility anywhere. >>>>>
>_______________________________________________ >
> >>>> 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: >>>>>
David Andrews: dandrews at visi.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dandrews920
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list