[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Jewel S. herekittykat2 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 25 03:20:25 UTC 2010


Sometimes crossing with a crosswalk signal or traffic singla is
neither possible nor wise.
Would you require pedestrians to go twenty minutes out of their way to
get to a crosswalk or traffic light, just to get across the street?
You might think, that's a bit extreme of an example, but for someone
who had a very slow gait such as myself, walking a block may take that
long. The other day, for example, I was dropped off by the #12 bus on
the right side of Clarke Avenue, a street within Cameron Village, a
large shopping center that sparwls out over many blocks. I needed to
take the #16 out to my doctor's office. The bus stop was directly
across the street from where I was dropped off by the bus, and there
was a crosswalk there. My bus was due to arrive in approximately 5
minutes. The The traffic light at this location is half a block away,
which would take a minimum of 5 minutes to get to, a minimum of 5
minutes to get across, and another 5 minutes to get back half a block
to the bus...if I miss the bus, it is another hour until the next one.

Do you propse that because I am blind, I should not take this
crosswalk because the cars do not yield? Why should I have to walk 15
minutes out of the way to get across the road, and have to sit at the
bus stop for another hour because I couldn't cross in time?

And then there are the small towns where traffic lights and crossalks
are far apart. Would you have a blind pedestrian walk all the way down
Bethel Road in Hampton Virginia from the bus stop to Hampton Roads
Center Parkway to get to the Food Lion and McDonalds across the
street? That's a minimum of 20 minutes out of the way, more if traffic
at the intersection is crazy, as it often is.

I just don't see the point of not using a crosswalk that is available.
It is obviously marked with ramps and white lines. It is a pedestrian
crosswalk, and there is absolutely no reason I should be unable to use
it just because drivers refuse to give right-of-way. Maybe I run the
risk of getting hit, but the point is that I *shouldn't* have to make
the choice between going way out of the way or possibly getting hit in
the middle of a crosswalk. And yes, I have had my cane run over, my
foot run over, and a car back up into my knee.

I am tired of stupid drivers, and it is time something be done about.
This is as crucial as Braille literacy in my mind. It is one of the
most important things that we should be advocating for, the safety of
everyone. Drivers should be more heavily fined and more often, and it
needs to happen soon. It is getting ridiculous.

~Jewel

On 3/24/10, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>




More information about the NAGDU mailing list