[nfb-talk] audible traffic signals
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Tue Dec 14 04:14:31 UTC 2010
Mike:
I'd love one of those bloo-tooth signals myself although whether I'd have
the presence of mind to yank out my phone to check it is debatable. So you
and I have no argument.
Mike
s
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Hingson" <info at michaelhingson.com>
To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:20 AM
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