[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street
Albert J Rizzi
albert at myblindspot.org
Tue Mar 23 14:35:58 UTC 2010
I do not feel this is the white cane law in its totality but best I could do at present.
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 Albert J Rizzi
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:32 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street
Here are some interesting tid bits from new york law on the subject of pedestrian traffic:
•Section 1153. Provisions relating to blind or visually impaired persons.
◦(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article every driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection or crosswalk shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing or attempting to cross the roadway when such pedestrian is accompanied by a guide dog or using a cane which is metallic or white in color or white with a red tip.
◦(b) No person, unless blind or visually impaired, shall use on any street or highway a cane which is metallic or white in color or white with a red tip.
◦(c) This section shall not be construed as making obligatory the employment of the use of a guide dog or of a cane or walking stick of any kind by a person blind or visually impaired.
•Section 1155. Pedestrians to use right half of crosswalks. Pedestrians shall move, whenever practicable, upon the right half of crosswalks.
•Section 1156. Pedestrians on roadways.
◦(a) Where sidewalks are provided and they may be used with safety it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
◦(b) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction. Upon the approach of any vehicle from the opposite direction, such pedestrian shall move as far to the left as is practicable.
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 cheryl echevarria
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:56 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street
I have to put my 2 cents in here and I am sure it will be taken in different ways.
I used to drive, I had my license since the age of 18 and I stopped driving at the age of 35 so that is a long time. So you are saying that if I am driving and not paying attention which sounds to me that is what happened here because if the driver actually saw the pedestrian or any pedestrian and lets face it crossing the streets safely doesn't make a whole lot of beans here because I cross at crossing light with my dog, and the other day some one was making the right on red and almost hit Maxx and yelled at me to get out of the way.
So if that driver didn't stop and he saw me and it is his word against mine that they would side with the driver that I shouldn't have been in the road. People are going to lie to win there argument, and being a former legal secretary and 3 credits away from being a paralegal, I have seen it all in my former employers office. That people will lie to win, doesn't have to be the truth or the law just what will win the case.
So who would have been at fault with Maxx and myself and this stupid person yelling at me to move out of the way while I had the right of way. If he hit me and I was almost at the other side of the street, I would have been partially to blame it doesn't seem right to me.
Cheryl Echevarria
Independent Travel Consultant
http://Echevarriatravel.com<http://echevarriatravel.com/>
1-866-580-5574
http://blog.echevarriatravel.com<http://blog.echevarriatravel.com/>
Reservations at echevarriatravel.com<mailto:Reservations at echevarriatravel.com>
Affiliated as an Independent Contractor with Montrose Travel CST-1018299-10
----- Original Message -----
From: Marion Gwizdala<mailto:blind411 at verizon.net>
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users<mailto:nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:42 AM
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<mailto:albert at myblindspot.org>>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org<mailto: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<http://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> [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<mailto:carcione at access.net>>
> To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org<mailto: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<mailto:nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_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<http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.ne>
> t
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org<mailto:nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_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<http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot>.
> org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org<mailto:nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_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.net<http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net>
_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org<mailto:nagdu at nfbnet.org>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_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/cherylandmaxx%40hotmail.com<http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/cherylandmaxx%40hotmail.com>
_______________________________________________
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/albert%40myblindspot.org
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list