[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

[David Andrews]

Marion, there is actually a technique, sometimes called a "forced 
crossing," where you hold the cane up and out, and cross a busy 
street.  I have done it on a b usy 4 lane street, and it takes a 
little nerve, but at least for me worked.

Dave

At 04:01 AM 3/24/2010, you wrote:
>Jewel,
>    My message may have sounded a bit sardonic; perhaps that was my 
> intention! As for the technique of extending the white cane at an 
> arm's length, I am sure that this law was not written by an expert 
> in the field of Orientation & Mobility instruction, but by a 
> legislature that has no clue about how blind people travel safely. 
> You can try this technique, but I believe the outcome would be the 
> same as my suggestion to Albert. I believe one needs to find a 
> signal-controlled intersection and cross with the flow of traffic.
>
>Fraternally yours,
>Marion Gwizdala
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jewel S." <herekittykat2 at gmail.com>
>To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog 
>Users" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street
>
>
>>Marion,
>>Can we keep it a little more civil, please? Telling someone to go step
>>into traffic is not very nice, and it sounds a little bit (if not a
>>lot) sardonic.
>>
>>I don't think Albert is saying that drivers should stop on a dime, but
>>if I extend my cane at arm's length at a crosswalk, wait a minute, and
>>then step out, I think I should be reasonably able to assume that the
>>cars have had enough time to come to a full stop in a pedestrian-heavy
>>area where the speed limit is *supposed* to be 25 mph anyway. For a
>>street with faster speeds, I should reasonably assume that I need to
>>extend my cane for a longer time to give cars more time to come to a
>>full stop. Obviously, a car going at 50 mph is not going to be able to
>>stop in a minute's notice, but if I extend my cane for 3 minutes, that
>>should give cars enough time to notice my cane and stop. As for
>>highways...well, I wouldn't even consider attempting this yielding
>>rule on a highway...I'd soon be roadkill!
>>
>>No one is saying that all cars must come to a full stop as soon as a
>>blind pedestrian comes to the curb. Blind pedestrians can find the
>>curb, and are expected to give fair warning to drivers. But once the
>>pedestrian is at the crossing and gives warning, the cars should all
>>stop and give right-of-way to the pedestrian. This is the law (at
>>least in NC), and should be followed, though it isn't at this time. I
>>hope to correct that, at least in the state's capital where I live.
>>
>>Let's try to all remain civil and friendly, and if we disagree and
>>can't agree, like Alfred said, agree to disagree and go on with life.
>>
>>~Jewel
>>
>>On 3/23/10, Marion Gwizdala <blind411 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>Albert,
>>>     I have an idea! Go to a busy intersection in new York City and step out
>>>into traffic! Let us know how you fare in court, if you are alive to fare!
>>>
>>>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 6:44 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe we should just agree to disagree. I am not inclined to follow your
>>>>line of thinking here especially when laws such as the ones on the books
>>>>in
>>>>many states require a car to stop the moment a blind person steps into the
>>>>road, I have seen that even if the blind person neglected to use his cane
>>>>or
>>>>dog and should for whatever reason fly solo, this would not preclude a
>>>>driver from taking responsibility to stop and allow the pedestrian to
>>>>pass.
>>>>So, it seems we are going to agree to disagree here,
>>>>
>>>>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 6:03 PM
>>>>To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>>>Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick
>>>>street
>>>>
>>>>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