[nfb-talk] Traffic Signals
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Tue Dec 14 04:34:47 UTC 2010
John:
I'm going to comment on your message below at some length because I think
the overarching principle is worth pondering.
You say that all an APS does is give the blind person the same information
as is given to the sighted person. Theoretically, I suppose your argument
has some merit. In the real world, however, an APS can degrade the
information a blind person has to work with in crossing a street. Why?
Light (the visual signal) is a transverse magnetic wave that is highly
directional and, moreover, is traveling at the speed of light. So a sighted
person can glance for only the blink of an eye and get the information
he/she needs to determine in what state the signal is without having his/her
soundscape degraded or not being able to change his/her direction of view
almost instantaneously. Sound, on the other hand, is a pressure wave; like
the electromagnetic wave, it has a direction. However, its amplitude is
represented by pressurization and rarifaction of the air in its vicinity.
Moreover, one ascertains the direction of sound by brain computation of the
time and phase of the sound waves reaching each ear. All of the foregoing
implies that the soundscape can be easily masked or degraded by other
sounds. Thus, unless an audible signal gave a single click or ring of a
bell to tell me when the WALK cycle started and then shut up, I would
consider it a distraction.
But more than this, you appear to be operating under the assumption that if
the sighted have a thing, we the blind must perforce have it, too. If we go
down that road, it's a never-ending one -- unless we get our sight back.
Rather than applying that standard, I think we should demand the right to
compete with everyone else and *only* those reasonable accommodations for us
to successfuly compete. To me, APS's fail this test as does "accessible"
currency and, for the most part, described vdideo.
It should be noted, though, that NFB tacitly supported the 21st Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act, if only to get the emergency TV
warnings spoken.
Anyway, I'll stop there and let Steve carry on this argument. (grin)
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals
Steve, all an APS does is provide exactly the same information to a blind
person as sighted people get with a visible walk signal. In general, you're
in favor of blind people getting the same services from our government as
sighted people aren't you? I would hope you'd be in favor of that especially
when it comes to safety. The Access Board is merely recommending giving
blind people access to stop lights, the same information millions of people
around the world use to cross streets every single day.
You don't see people deliberately closing their eyes to cross the street,
depending on their hearing and ignoring stop lights. That would be crazy.
Sometimes you see people ignoring stop lights and depending on their vision
to cross the street. But that's illegal and with good reason. Its too
dangerous.
I will certainly grant you that safety isn't the only concern. But
certainly, safety mush be the number one priority. There would have to be a
huge drawback in other ways for safety to not be the number one
consideration. But we can't tell that unless we know how much safer, if at
all, audible signals make blind pedestrians.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals
John,
Speaking for myself, I reject the notion that safety considerations are the
only basis upon which the acceptability or need of APS's is determined.
Therefore,
even if a study were to unquestionably be able to prove that there was an
increase in safety, I would have to weigh it against other factors. I think
most
would agree that my safety would be increased far more if I never left my
house, but that does not mean I'm going to follow that road.
Further, it seems to me that if someone advocates a new approach such as an
APS, it is their responsibility to prove its value. The assumption all
along
here is that it represents an improvement and that it is up to us, whether
we pay for a study or not, to prove the assumption is false. There is a
certain
arrogance that says "My position is right and it is your obligation to prove
me wrong," which is really what you are saying. I believe that collective
experience has some validity in forming an opinion and question what sort of
a study would provide the kind of results that would be meaningful. For
example, when looking at our current resolutions, for a study to be
meaningful it would have to evaluate the safety only on intersections where
we feel an
APS is not required since it would be irrelevant to measure the safety where
we accept that an APS might be useful. . This is truly unlikely to yield
meaningful results given that it would be occurring on those intersections
that are the safest for us to navigate. This is therefore really not likely
to prove
anything conclusive. It seems to me that our ability to examine our own
positions and adjust them as circumstances change is far more reasonable
than
those who say we need an APS at every controlled intersection regardless of
the need or the cost.
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:13:05 -0600, John Heim wrote:
>IMO, the NFB policy should not determine which facts they consider. The NFB
>should consider all the facts and then determine the policy. It doesn't
>make sense to argue that since the NFB has already made up its collective
>mind, it shouldn't push for a study. It shouldn't have made up its mind
>until the issue was studied.
>Also, I wasn't suggesting the NFB fund the study itself. Although, I would
>find that preferable to the current position. But I would hope the Access
>Board would be able to get the government to commission the study. This
>might be a good opportunity to work with the ACB too. Go to the ACB and ask
>them to help work on the Access Board to get a study commissioned on ASPs.
>They'd be shocked but they'd almost have to say yes.
>I'm not volunteering anyone else to do this. I'll do it. Appoint me to the
>APS Oversight committee or whatever . I'll write the letters and/or
>resolutions. Whatever it takes.
>Lets get this settled... Do audible signals make blind pedestrians safer or
>not? Lets not rely on personal preferences. This is too important. Lives
>are at stake.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
>To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:30 AM
>Subject: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals
>My thinking is that if the NFB is not interested in supporting the use of
>audible signals, it should not spend the money on studies. But, nor should
>money be spent on opposing it either. A simple stated position should
>suffice. If, however, its position on signals is as blurry as recent posts
>lead me to believe, it should first start by getting off the fence and
>making up its mind definitively one way or the other.
>Joe
>"Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
>some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing
>-----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 10:45 AM
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>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: >>
>Iâ?Tm saying
>>let him take his lumps like a man. Heâ?Ts demonstrated >>
>time and again
>>that he can dish it out, but he seems totally >> unwilling to
>take what he
>>gets in return. I donâ?Tt presume to know >> your motives
>for enabling
>>him, but enabling him is what youâ?Tre >> doing, and the
>whole list is
>>paying the price for it. Iâ?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. >> Thatâ?Ts fine, until it begins to
>disrupt the list
>>for any other >> purpose than his anti-federationist screed.
>Weâ?Tre at
>>that point >> now. Iâ?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. Itâ?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 donâ?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 doesnâ?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. Whoâ?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 itâ?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 Iâ?Tve
>>added to that list. I promise Iâ?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 IâÂ?ÂTve double-checked >>the
>archives to be
>>sure I >> wasnâÂ?ÂTt 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
>>âÂ?ÂooffendedâÂ? and âÂ?Âobaselessly >>attackedâÂ? 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.
>ItâÂ?ÂTs 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
_______________________________________________
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