[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Sun Mar 28 08:30:05 UTC 2010

Hi,

As a totally blind person with a guide dog, I believe that if it can't be 
proved that the blind or visually impaired person was knowingly responsible 
for the accident, then the driver is responsible.

I hope this clears up any issues here.

Cheers and best wishes,

Michelle
----- 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 10:40 PM
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/m-johnson%40bigpond.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2766 - Release Date: 03/23/10 
19:33:00