[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

[David Baker]

Tami, (privately I refer to you as Tami the Wise, ... umm when you and your
poodle are not being silly),

I think your observations here are on target.  Unfortunately, our prospects for
drivers paying attention are getting worse with the universal use of cell phones
and the refusal of our legislators to ban their use by drivers.  Texting makes
our safety even more problematic.  Strong laws, clear liability for damages,
noise makers for electric cars and constant public awareness work are essential
if we are to improve safety and our sense of comfort out on the street.

Laws are peculiar artifacts in society.  The place in Europe where I have felt
the safest, for instance, is in Rome (other than for pickpockets).  Despite what
appears to be total chaos, I have to be careful not to approach the curb with my
white cane as the crazy mix and unorganized assortment of vehicles come to an
instant stop in all directions when I do.  On the other hand, in Germany where
rules are clear and penalties strong I have been knocked down by little old
ladies on the sidewalk when I've inadvertently crossed their path as they moved
from point A to point B.  The difference, of course, is that I was not obeying
the rules in Germany and in Italy there are no rules (at least none that people
obey, other than you don't hurt others), so Italians have to stay conscious of
and keep track of their environment at all times -- which included me.  My wife
and son followed me through dense crowds in Italy, because people parted for the
cane as I walked through.  Try that in the U.S., let alone Germany.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
Tamara Smith-Kinney
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:38 PM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

David,

What I'm hearing from my listening in on the argument is what I got from your
message:  The conflict is between the law as written vs. the real world where it
is applied and enforced.  Or not, as the case may be. /smile/

I have no legal expertise, and I do find the discussions of various points of
view interesting to add to my knowledge and understanding of my rights and
responsibilities as a blind traveler.  Although I see those as not terribly
different from those that applied when I was a sighted traveler.  I just have
had to learn to be safe in a different way because I now perceive the world in a
different way.

It seems to me that the entire concept of "contributory negligence" can easily
become a matter of opinion, especially during an argument about whose fault it
really was.  Sometimes, yes, it's pretty doggone obvious.  More times, I would
imagine it can be pretty tough to sort out for the authorities and legal experts
who are listening to testimony after the fact.

Philosophically and personally, the conclusion I have come to in terms of
developing my own nonvisual travel skills and new habits and practices is that,
when it comes to me the pedestrian vs. Mr. Wild Driver, or even Ms.
Safe Driver in a silent car I never heard coming, I'm going to lose either way.
I may end up rich after the lawsuit, but I'd rather have all my bones and
organis in their original state, thank you.  /smile/

I do think that making the consequences to drivers who hit pedestrians -- blind
or otherwise -- severe and meaningful and well-publicized is a good way to
improve the odds any person can walk across the street safely.  If drivers are
aware that not paying attention could really, really cost them, a large
percentage will be more likely to be aware who might not otherwise be...  Or so
I believe, based on what I know of human nature.  Which could be all wrong.
/smile/

Tami Smith-Kinney