[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

[Jewel S.]

>From what I read of the North Carolina White Cane Laws (please correct
me if I'm wrong), drivers must give right-of-way to any blind
pedestrian with a white cane or guide dog. In fact, one law states
that if a blind pedestrian extends their white cane at arm's length at
a crosswalk or intersection (whether the light is for or against),
vehicles are to come to a full stop and remain at a full stop until
the blind pedestrian is fully across the road.

Of course, this points out that the person has to extend the cane at
arm's length (what do you do if you have a guide dog; extend your
arm?) in order to get right-of-way. I guess that's to get drivers'
attention.

In North Carolina, there is also a law about walking on the side of
the street versus walking on the sidewalk. First, it's illegal for
people to walk on the side of a road that has a sidewalk. But if there
is no sidewalk, the pedestrian must walk on the far left of the road.
It also makes the statement that all drivers must use every precaution
to avoid the pedestrian and use the car horn to alert the person if
necessary.

>From these laws in North Carolina, it looks like as long as the blind
pedestrian extends their cane (again, what about guide dog users?),
all of the fault is with the driver if the driver strikes the
pedestrian.

My two cents,
Jewel

On 3/23/10, Marion Gwizdala <blind411 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Albert,
>     As you stated, drivers should use "due caution" to avoid striking a
> pedestrian. At the same time, if that pedestrian - whether blind or
> sighted - is crossing against the light and is struck or in any other way
> causes a traffic crash, such a pedestrian may likely be party to a law suit
> to recover damages resulting from the crash. The only thing I see in the
> laws that I have read is that the failure of a blind person to use a cane or
> guide dog cannot be used to assign a portion of the contributory negligence.
> Other than that fact, the negligence of a blind person to observe other laws
> pertaining to safe pedestrian travel can be used to assign a person's
> contribution to the incident that causes the damages being recovered.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
> ----- 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 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street
>
>
>> No, not unless and until there are audible crossing signs to allow for our
>> choice to ignore said signage and then perhaps only then could I see a
>> lawyer attempting to make that case. However, an elementary glance at the
>> laws as they pertain to pedestrians of all abilities make the drivers
>> responsible  for taking all actions to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Now,
>> how
>> all that would play out in court should it go that far is only to be
>> decided
>> in a court room. But first and foremost, blind or not the laws as written
>> require that all drivers yield the right of way to a pedestrian, unless
>> that
>> is a specific law includes guidelines pointing out specifically that a
>> drivers responsibility is waived if a pedestrian crosses against the
>> light.
>> I have yet to see any statute expressly making such a statement. If you
>> can
>> find one share it here could make the discussion a little more
>> interesting.
>>
>> 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 Dan Weiner
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:09 PM
>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick
>> street
>>
>> , a hypothetical question, guys.
>> Now, whether we like to admit it or now, all of us have crossed against
>> the
>> light at least once.
>> There's no moving traffic, or the cars turn in strange ways or something.
>> So, if we cross against the light, but not deliberately in to traffic,
>> what
>> would be the implications of that?
>> Would you then say that we have partial responsibility?
>>
>> Dan W. and the big boy, Carter
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/herekittykat2%40gmail.com
>