[nfb-talk] audible traffic signals
John Heim
john at johnheim.net
Mon Dec 13 20:56:00 UTC 2010
Michael, I agree with much of what you say, of course, but there is one very
questionable statement in your message. You say you can get the information
on whether a light is green more reliably from listening to traffic noise
than from an audible signal. That is almost certainly not true. I can't
point to a study that proves it but it is so counter-intuitive that it is
almost certainly wrong.
An audible signal would tell you whether the light is green approximately
100% of the time. Listening to the traffic is almost certainly something
less than 100%. As a blind person with very good mobility skills and very
good hearing, I believe depending on traffic noise is significant'y less
than 100%. But that its less than 100% should not be in doubt.
I was in San Rafael in March getting a guide dog. On one night excersize,
the instructor said that 10 out of 11 of us crossed against the light at a
particular intersection. If necessary, I can give you the name of the
instructor who will confirm this story. I'm sure you know him. The point is
that the students at a guide dog school are above average. I'm not saying
they're the best of the best. But they're above average. Yet, at one point
over 90% of us made a mistake.
Admittedly, I can't prove it but most likely, mistakes like that are very
common. The reason audible walk signals are so valuable is that they make it
far less likely that you'll make a mistake.
Personally, I have never talked to anyone not in the NFB who thinks that
they're safer without audible walk signals. That opinion seems to be unique
to members of the NFB. And its so counter-intuitive that I just cannot agree
with it without strong supporting evidence.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Hingson" <info at michaelhingson.com>
To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: [nfb-talk] audible traffic signals
>I changed the subject to reflect the current discussion. This should have
>been done some time ago.
>
> John and Mike, both of you raise interesting points.
>
> John, the fact is that the existence of ats is a blindness issue, not an
> engineering one. The fact that the government through the "Access Board"
> mandates more audible signals does not make the government nor the board
> experts either. The NFB has hundreds if not thousands of rehabilitation
> experts by any definition.
>
> Audible signals do serve a purpose and the NFB, (although much earlier it
> took a harder stance), recognizes this. There are, however, some who
> claim that these signals should exist everywhere and that they make it
> safe for blind people to cross the street. Not true just as it is not
> true that stop lights do not make it safe for sighted people to cross the
> street. In some cases the audible signal does make it easier especially
> when directionality is concerned. Having more signals just because some
> feel it necessary because they have the mistaken belief that these signals
> make it better for the blind is a serious problem and it helps promulgate
> incorrect stereotypes about us. If you reject this without delving a
> great deal into the philosophy of the NFB then you too are being closed.
>
> Mike, yes we do have our minds made up. However, we should be open to new
> concepts and ideas. If someone comes along and develops a signal which
> gives us more useful information then we should be open to it. We did
> this when audible signals providing directionality of traffic flow came
> into existence. For my part, I would love a signal which would transmit a
> bluetooth signal to my phone indicating to me the name of the street I was
> approaching, for example. That same signal could also indicate the signal
> status. Is that a good idea? Perhaps, but it is something to consider.
>
> I do not think we need audible signals everywhere. We do need to force
> ourselves to listen to traffic noises, the only reliable way for us to
> know vehicle movement. The "compliance board" has not given proper
> guidelines on providing signals and nor will they so long as some blind
> people feel they need the crutch of a signal especially where it does not
> provide truly helpful information. To make it clear, I do not think that
> knowing whether a light is red or green due to a sound from a signal is
> important enough for me to advocate for audible signals since I can get
> this information more accurately for my purposes from traffic sounds. We
> need to teach this more firmly to blind people.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Mike Hingson
>
> The Michael Hingson Group, INC.
> “Speaking with Vision”
> Michael Hingson, President
> (415) 827-4084
> info at michaelhingson.com
> To learn more about my upcoming book, speaking topics and speaking
> availability please visit www.michaelhingson.com
> Thunder Dog is now available for early ordering on Amazon!!!
> http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Dog-Blind-Triumph-Ground/dp/140020304X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289090352&sr=1-3
>
>
> for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit:
> http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of John Heim
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:28 AM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>
> Mike, would you please take a step back and consider what you just wrote?
>
> You are essentially arguing that because you've already made up your
> minds,
> there's no reason to seek additional facts. You've just admitted to the
> very closed mindedness you have been accusing me of. I beg you to rethink
> this position. I am not a kook no matter what you may think. I am merely
> taking the very rational position that audible walk signals are good for
> blind people. And now, a member of the NFB Board of Directors tells me
> that
> the issue is close because the issue is closed.
>
> Well, the issue is NOT closed no matter how much the NFB would like it to
> be. The NFB doesn't set policy for the Federal government of the United
> States. The Access Board continues to recommend more use of audible
> signals.
> And every day in this country, the issue comes up when blind people like
> myself go to the traffic engineer in their home town and ask for another
> audible signal.
> Your position is simply unconcionable. You've made up your mind based on
> your own personal preference regardless of the actual safety of these
> devices. You are putting the lives of blind people at risk. If you are
> wrong
> about audible walk signals, you could be getting blind people killed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>
>
>> The answer is NO. Traffic engineers aren't experts on blindness; neither
>> are most O&M instructors though they would like to think otherwise. We
>> are. Besides, why should NFB advocate wasting time and money on studies
>> when we believe we know the answer?
>>
>> As I implied last evening, I doubt we'll come to a meeting of minds on
>> this one.
>>
>> Mike Freeman
>>
>> sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 7:45, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Did the NFB consult traffic engineers and mobility instructors regarding
>>> the possibility of developing study methods for determining the
>>> usefulness of audible walk signals? Does the NFB have any traffic
>>> engineers on staff or in any capacity within the organization to address
>>> this issue? It seems extremely unlikely to me that its impossible to
>>> study whether an APS makes it safer for a blind pedestrian to cross the
>>> street. I believe that's the kind of thing traffic engineers do every
>>> day.
>>>
>>> How about this.... I'll contact the Institue of Transportation Engineers
>>> and ask them to design a study. If they come up with a suitible study
>>> methodology, would you help get the NFB to push for it and perhaps even
>>> fund it?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 9:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>
>>>
>>> John:
>>>
>>> With respect, I doubt that any answer I provide will satisfy you. Your
>>> mind
>>> is made up which is your right. So, I suppose, are most of ours. But
>>> I'll
>>> answer your question in a fashion that probably won't satisfy either you
>>> *or* NFB:
>>>
>>> WE haven't demanded studies because truly definitive studies cannot be
>>> done.
>>> (a) There aren't enough blind people to give a meaningful statistical
>>> result. (b) Ambient sound conditions, weather, the training of the
>>> blind
>>> test subjects and the type of APS are all so variable that coming up
>>> with
>>> concrete conclusions would be difficult at best. Yes, I know; we
>>> demanded
>>> studies on quiet cars. But at least in that instance, one could use a
>>> sound
>>> meter and gain some sort of objective information on the ratio of the
>>> volume
>>> of sound from quiet cars under various circumstances to that of the
>>> ambient
>>> environment. With respect to APS's, however, so much is subjective that
>>> it
>>> would be tough to come up with meaningful tests.
>>>
>>> Besides, in the case of quiet cars, we are advocating that a device be
>>> *added* whereas with audible pedestrian signals, they're not normally
>>> present so we see little reason to study something which our membership
>>> doesn't want and, in large measure, which isn't now present. In other
>>> words, only advocates would gain any advantage from advocating APS
>>> studies.
>>> I submit that you wouldn't worry about whether we would advocate studies
>>> if
>>> you were satisfied with the number of APS's now in existance or planned.
>>>
>>> Actually, our position is a bit more subtle than outright opposition.
>>> Aside
>>> from the expense, I doubt that many would oppose strictly vibrotactile
>>> audible pedestrian signals in that they wouldn't fuzz up the ambient
>>> sound
>>> environment. But many not in our movement persist in believing that APS
>>> units can do more than they can, e.g., give directional clues as to
>>> where
>>> a
>>> blind pedestrian should point himself/herself when crossing an
>>> intersection.
>>> It has been my experience that there are too many echos from buildings
>>> and
>>> the like to make such clues effective.
>>>
>>> I suppose most of us would worry a bit that if even vibrotactile signals
>>> were more prevalent than they now are -- but not everywhere -- we might
>>> encounter the situation which occurs often in Japan where other
>>> pedestrians
>>> and law officers have hizzy-fits if blind persons don't walk in the
>>> expected
>>> paths, i.e., those with tactile clues in the sidewalks and audible
>>> pedestrian signals. Most of us in NFB would bridle at that sort of
>>> expectation; we would want to walk where we damned well pleased, to the
>>> same
>>> extent that other pedestrians can. But that's a rather abstract concept
>>> to
>>> get across to peple, just as is the concept that acceptance of special
>>> blindness privileges causes lessend expectations of the blind as a
>>> whole,
>>> thus decreasing opportunities to participate in society as first-class
>>> citizens.
>>>
>>> But I've said probably more than the subject warrants.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 4:46 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe I have claimed I'm in the right. Instead, I've been
>>> saying
>>> that I can't understand why people can't see how illogical the NFB
>>> position
>>> is. But there's a huge difference between those 2 statements.
>>> Admittedly,
>>> its a very subtle difference but its very, very important. The way I
>>> put
>>> it
>>> is more or less a challenge to anyone to explain the NFB position to me.
>>> My
>>> post about the NFB position yesterday was chock full of questions. If
>>> the
>>> NFB thinks APS's are dangerous, why isn't it fighting for studies to be
>>> done?
>>>
>>> So, Mike, you are probably in a better position to answer that question
>>> than
>>> anybody. Where in the world did the NFB get the idea that APSs make
>>> blind
>>> pedestrians less safe? The NFB has passed resolutions critical of the
>>> Access
>>> Board for wanting to expand the use of APSs without proof that they
>>> work.
>>> But hasn't the NFB done the same thing only in reverse?And if the NFB is
>>> unconvinced that APSs make blind pedestrians safer, wouldn't the
>>> responsible
>>> thing to do have been to demand proof?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 6:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>
>>>
>>> John:
>>>
>>> There are a fair number of us who *do* oppose your position. Simply
>>> claiming that you are in the right won't cut it.
>>>
>>> I wish you the best of luck in reforming the best of us -- and in
>>> finding
>>> the shekels to pay for APS's everywhere.
>>>
>>> Peace!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 3:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to plant the seed of doubt among the more rational members of
>>> this list.
>>>
>>> But you're right. I have pretty much made up my mind to finally join the
>>> NFB. For a long time I said to myself, why should I have to waste my
>>> time
>>> and money straightening out the NFB? But I really think the only way
>>> we're
>>> going to settle the APS issue is if some research is done. And I can't
>>> see
>>> it getting done if I don't get it going.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>
>>>
>>> John:
>>>
>>> If you are trying to get the NFB to change its
>>> position you won't do it through this list -- and you are wasting your
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> At 01:34 PM 12/11/2010, you wrote:
>>>> I've never baited anyone on this list. I'm not trolling. I don't care
>>>> what people think of me and it doesn't matter a flying fig if the
>>>> people on this list find me annoying. The NFB has done many very
>>>> destructive things over the past ten years. It deserves criticism for
>>>> its actions on accessible pedestrian signals, accessible money, and
>>>> DVS. When the NFB engages in these issues, it has to expect
>>>> criticism.
>>>> These are huge issues affecting millions of people and I shouldn't be
>>>> expected to worry about whether I'm annoying Ray and Joseph. Lives
>>>> are
>>>> at stake here. I think the NFB can tolerate a little criticism.
>>>> Freedom
>>>> of speech isn't just for those we agree with. By no means do I expect
>>>> anyone to listen to me. You have every right to ignore me. But you
>>>> don't have the right, ethically, to silence me. I'm not saying you
>>>> can't silence me. I'm saying that would be wrong. It would be unfair
>>>> and unethical. In fact, you may not have the right to silence me. I ran
>>>> this past a lawyer one time and he said that since the NFB accepts
>>>> money from the federal government, my right to post here may be
>>>> protected under the First Amendment. He didn't seem to sure but lets
>>>> not bother finding out. On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:33 PM, David Andrews
>>>> wrote: > Joseph, I am not going to throw you off this list because of
>>>> what > you said. I also think that John fully know what most people
>>>> think > of him -- and his ideas. > > I have only jumped on people for
>>>> personal attacks, not for stating > their opinion, as long as that
>>>> isn't personal. > > I am not convinced that John is intentionally
>>>> baiting the list, > although I acknowledge that he may be and I will
>>>> think about what
>>>> > you say. > > I will also say that I am getting pretty tired of this >
>>>> > whole
>>>> thing, > John himself says that we have been having this discussion
>>>> for
>>>> over > two years and no one's mind has been changed. Consequently I
>>>> may
>>>> > declare the subject off topic if and until there are new > >
>>>> > developments.
>>>> It doesn't do anyone any good to keep rehashing the > same old ground
>>>> and making each other mad. We certainly won't come > to any
>>>> understanding that way. > > Dave > > At 05:51 PM 12/10/2010, you wrote:
>>>> >> I‚?Tm saying let him take his lumps like a man. He‚?Ts
>>>> demonstrated
>>>> >> time and again that he can dish it out, but he seems totally >>
>>>> unwilling to take what he gets in return. I don‚?Tt presume to know
>>>> >>
>>>> your motives for enabling him, but enabling him is what you‚?Tre >>
>>>> doing, and the whole list is paying the price for it. I‚?Tm not >>
>>>> suggesting someone else should take the job, nor am I suggesting >>
>>>> that you are somehow anti-Federationist. HE has demonstrated >>
>>>> himself
>>>> to be anti-Federationist, however, on numerous occasions. >> That‚?Ts
>>>> fine, until it begins to disrupt the list for any other >> purpose
>>>> than
>>>> his anti-federationist screed. We‚?Tre at that point >> now. I‚?Tve
>>>> seen more than one message from you threatening a >> respected
>>>> federationist with removal from the lists for being >> baited into the
>>>> little game. Yet always, the instigator is >> permitted to continue
>>>> without consequence. Ultimately, the things >> we do have
>>>> consequences.
>>>> It‚?Ts the natural order of things. Yet >> he has been shielded from
>>>> the social consequences of constantly >> going out of his way to
>>>> offend
>>>> others, because any time someone >> tells him where to stick it, you
>>>> tell them that they need to stop >> or be removed. Let me be plain
>>>> about it: John Heim is a parasite. >> He is a whiny and bitter
>>>> little
>>>> twerp who believes the world OWES >> him something because he is
>>>> blind.
>>>> He is fundamentally opposed to >> the NFB because our first response
>>>> to
>>>> people like him is simple: >> GET OVER YOURSELF. You deserve nothing
>>>> special because you are >> blind. You get the same chance everybody
>>>> else gets. If you don‚?Tt >> get the same chance, then the NFB is
>>>> here
>>>> to fight for equality. >> But that seems not to be good enough. He
>>>> seems to demand more. >> And if the NFB doesn‚?Tt agree, he demands
>>>> that we change our >> policies and positions to accommodate his
>>>> viewpoint. If that >> warrants removal from this list, then remove me.
>>>> And then remove >> anyone else who thinks so. Who‚?Td be left, I
>>>> wonder? But I for >> one am tired of playing this infantile little
>>>> game with the man. >> If his delicate ego cannot stand to know that
>>>> there are some who >> think so little of him, then it‚?Ts time for him
>>>> to learn that the >> world is a hard place, that a man is judged by
>>>> his
>>>> actions and his >> principles, and that outside of his sheltered
>>>> little
>>>> world, nobody >> really cares if he is offended by what they think of
>>>> him. God knows >> there are those on this list who think just about as
>>>> much of me, >> and quote possibly I‚?Tve added to that list. I
>>>> promise
>>>> I‚?Tm not >> going to be deeply offended if someone says so. Joseph On
>>>> Thu, Dec >> 09, 2010 at 09:58:44PM -0600, David Andrews wrote: >So
>>>> Joseph, >> let's be clear. What exactly are you saying -- or what
>>>> >are
>>>> you >> asking for. > >Do you think I am a bad Federationist, disloyal,
>>>> not >> a friend to the >cause -- or what? What would you do -- have
>>>> me
>>>> >> removed. If you want >to do that, go ahead and try -- go to Dr.
>>>> >>
>>>> Maurer and take your shot. > >I call each thread as I see it. I >>
>>>> have not "blindly" no pun intended >defend the person to whom you >>
>>>> speak about. Unlike yourself, and many >others, I am not convinced >>
>>>> that he does what he does to provoke us. >I think he genuinely >>
>>>> believes what he says, and knows he is right, >and can't understand >>
>>>> how or why we don't understand it. > >While I don't always agree >>
>>>> with him, he has the right to not be >attacked personally, no >>
>>>> matter
>>>> his affiliation. If it were him who >were doing the >> personal
>>>> attacks, I would jump on him too -- and I >believe I have >> in the
>>>> past.
>>>> > >You are making some pretty broad generalizations, >> and I just
>>>> > >don't
>>>> >think it holds up. Generally a discussion >> degrades to the point
>>>> > >where several people go to far and make >> personal attacks. I
>>>> > >reply
>>>> >to >one or two -- but it is really meant >> for everybody. So while
>>>> >you >might choose to believe I am picking >> on Federationists,
>>>> >because that >is what I do, it couldn't be >> farther from the truth.
>>>> > > >David >Andrews,
>>>> Moderator > >At 02:05 PM >> 12/9/2010, you wrote: >>David, Have you
>>>> noticed the trend of >> discussions on this list over >>the past
>>>> couple
>>>> of years or so? I >> have, and I√¢¬?¬Tve double-checked >>the
>>>> archives
>>>> to be sure I >> wasn√¢¬?¬Tt reading something into it. The >>pattern
>>>> is that every >> large discussion seems to involve one group >>of
>>>> people arguing for >> the ability of the blind, for the NFB, its
>>>> >>policies, and its >> mission. The other side of the discussion is
>>>> >>generally one >> person. The pattern of the discussion is that the
>>>> >>individual says >> something incendiary against one of the above,
>>>> >>something I have a >> hard time accepting is unintentional at this
>>>> >>point. The group >> reacts, some with distaste, some with
>>>> >>disagreement, and some with >> anger. This last group has taken
>>>> the
>>>> >>bait, if you will. This is >> where you come in, because inevitably
>>>> >>the individual insists that >> he is √¢¬?¬ooffended√¢¬?¬ù and
>>>> √¢¬?¬obaselessly >>attacked√¢¬?¬ù for >> his views. You defend him,
>>>> going so far as to >>threaten to ban >> longtime regulars and
>>>> well-respected >>federationists. The >> individual takes this as a
>>>> sign that he may >>stand behind you, and >> continue to insult not
>>>> only
>>>> us few here, but >>everything this >> organization stands for. The
>>>> fact
>>>> that there is not >>a single >> person on this list that does not know
>>>> of whom I speak is >> >>evidence in and of itself. It√¢¬?¬Ts really
>>>> got to stop. Those >> who >>would not be flamed should not make a
>>>> habit of setting >> fires. >>Having set a few myself over the years,
>>>> it comes with the >> >>territory. Joseph On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at
>>>> 10:19:24PM -0600, David >> >>Andrews wrote: >This is a personal attack
>>>> and is totally >>
>>>> >>unacceptable. You can >disagree with someone -- but please stick >>
>>>> >>to >>facts, not speculation >etc. > >David Andrews, Moderator > >At
>>>> >> >> 03:09 >>PM > > >_________________________________________ ______
>>>> >> >> >nfb-
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list