[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Albert J Rizzi albert at myblindspot.org
Tue Mar 23 17:48:03 UTC 2010


I again agree with you. it is a theory that if applied would afford
protections, but in truth, your funny about tomb stones is far more
accurate. I just want to draw attention to the law as written and not at all
mean to suggest that it is in and of itself sufficient protection for any
pedestrians, blind or not. I like you agree  that our society over all is
one of entitlement and hands off on being responsible to or for our fellow
man. sad commentary on our nation. I however, continue to strive for those
moments in life where dialogues such as these shift peoples thoughts, maybe
not on the topic at hand but on another level in another instance where the
same sense of appreciation for fellow man may shift things in a more humane
favor.

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 David Baker
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:32 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Albert, your comments remind me of the tombstone marker that reads, "Here
lies
John Day, who died taking the right-of way."

I don't think cane laws offer VIP's any protection.  They may punish an
errant
driver, but they cannot be relied upon for safety.

I think you are somehow mixing criminal law concepts with tort law concepts
in
your thinking here.  Pedestrians, visually impaired or not, are killed every
day.  If a driver's behavior was negligent in a particular circumstance, he
or
she may have to pay damages to heirs of the blind person based on the tort.
Also, depending upon the circumstances they may, or may not be guilty of a
crime.  The criminal statutes should operate as a deterrent for
irresponsible
behavior, but, as we know, they frequently do not.  The same is true for
negligence and because the consequences of bad behavior in tort are more
remote,
they are even less effective.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people increasingly do not feel they
owe
anything to other members of society --  healthcare, taxes, respect,
civility,
or due care.  The only things that matter in traffic situations when we
cannot
see drivers are the behavior of drivers and our mobility skills.  In the
end,
our interpretation of what the laws mean is pretty irrelevant.  

David

-----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 9:10 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

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


_______________________________________________
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/david%40bakerinet.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





More information about the NAGDU mailing list