[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Tue Mar 23 13:10:05 UTC 2010

that is what I am saying and that is how I am interpreting the law. with out
audible signs and with the advent of the hybrid cars, our abilities are
seriously curtailed. Hence the onus in these laws comparatively or not are
on the driver. Further, there are many cut outs in a pathway which could
lead a blind person into traffic or in some instances lead them to believe
that they are crossing properly at an intersection but in fact are crossing
mid block. The driver must blind pedestrian or not, yield to the pedestrian
and always be on point and alert to the surroundings  on the road so as to
avoid and or anticipate unforeseen circumstances. I really do not agree with
your interpretation and would think that the law means nothing to any of us
if we were to interpret the law as you do. I am not saying that a blind
pedestrian cannot lend something to the incident, however, ultimately it is
the driver of the vehicle who needs to be aware of what is happening on and
off the road. If a blind person crosses against the light and a driver
approaches, it is clear to me that the driver has the responsibility under
these laws to stop and avoid hitting said pedestrian. How would you suggest
a blind pedestrian deal with a corner, no audible cross signs and nothing
but hybrids to deal with. We do not have the controls  to have audibile
signs placed here and there, the hybrid is ever popular for good reason, and
we are left with this law to at least give us a piece of mind in being able
to indepednetly and freely walking about. 
Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
CEO/Founder
My Blind Spot, Inc.
90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
New York, New York  10004
www.myblindspot.org
PH: 917-553-0347
Fax: 212-858-5759
"The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
doing it."

Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Marion Gwizdala
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:43 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Albert,
    Let me ask you a question? If you were a licensed driver of a vehicle 
traveling down a road at 45 MPH and a blind person, carrying a white cane or

guided by a guide dog, stepped out in front of you, who is at fault for the 
crash? Should you, as the driver, be cited for the crash because the blind 
person did not use due caution?
    As for the issue of contributory or comparitive negligence, I am not an 
attorney, so I may not understand all of its technicalities, however, here 
is what Florida statute states:

"The failure of any such person to carry a cane or walking stick or to be 
guided by a dog shall not be considered comparative negligence, nor shall 
such failure
be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action with regard to 
negligence." (316.1301(3) f.s)

    It seems as if the intent of this statute by the legislature is not to 
limit the ability of a driver to bring a suit of negligence against a blind 
person, only to limit the arguments that can be used to assign the 
contribution of each to the negligent act. Likewise, if a blind person is 
crossing against the light or in a place where it would be unsafe to cross, 
it seems as if Florida's statutes could allow for an assignment of 
comparitive negligence to the blind person for the crash!

    The white cane law could also be argued to allow a blind person to cross

an interstate highway. Would you also contend that doing so would be an 
acceptable practice and, if a blind person is crossing a busy expressway 
where pedestrians are not even allowed, and is struck by a vehicle, the 
operator of the vehicle should be charged?

Fraternally yours,

Marion

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Albert J Rizzi" <albert at myblindspot.org>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

> Will you clearly provide a reference which states this position you take? 
> Or
> can you clarify if this is how you  choose to interpret the law. I am
> concerned others will misunderstand you here as I do, so I sent a few
> references from some states. Please show us where your laws say the blind
> person is or can be considered contributoraly negligent if hit buy the
> driver of a vehicle..
>
> Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
> CEO/Founder
> My Blind Spot, Inc.
> 90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
> New York, New York  10004
> www.myblindspot.org
> PH: 917-553-0347
> Fax: 212-858-5759
> "The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
> doing it."
>
>
> Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Marion Gwizdala
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:03 PM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick 
> street
>
> Tracy,
>    I am not implying that it is the blind guy's fault. I am only saying
> that the white cane law does not excuse the blind person from using due
> caution while crossing!
>
> Marion
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione at access.net>
> To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick 
> street
>
>
>> Marion, while it's true that the blind person could be responsible, it
>> seems to me that the assumption is just that--blind guy gets hit, blind
>> guy is at fault.  It ain't necessarily so.
>> I've heard that, many years ago, if a blind person was hit and brought 
>> the
>> case to court, it would be dismissed or the blind person would lose.  We
>> were assumed to have been negligent just because we were walking around
>> outside without a sighted keeper.
>> I think that law has changed, but I'm not so sure about the underlying
>> assumption.
>>
>> We have to be careful, of course.  We can't go bounding out into the
>> street without trying to make sure it's safe to go, as best we can.  But
>> the White Cane law says that drivers also have some responsibility not to
>> turn on top of us, or back out over us, or whatever. It doesn't seem too
>> much to ask.
>> Tracy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nagdu:
>>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.ne
> t
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.
> org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.ne
t 

_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.
org