[nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals

Tue May 25 22:02:11 UTC 2010

Mr. John Heim seems to have the opinion that the NFB position is 
inappropriate and somehow harmful pretty consistently, in my 
experience.  Often enough, it becomes apparent to most in the 
discussion that the position of this organization is not that which 
is expressed by Mr. Heim.  I know of no instance where Mr. Heim has 
ever allowed facts presented in rebuttal to change his negative view 
of the NFB.  Remarkably, Mr. Heim styles himself a supporter of the 
organization.

I have found it useless to argue with him, since his views are 
inevitably self-described as "factual" and "logical".  That with 
which he disagrees is "irrational", "illogical", or "supposition".  
Indeed, I once presented Mr. Heim with an Aristotilian Syllogism 
whose very form necessitated that the argument was valid.  One need 
only evaluate two premises to determine the valid argument was also a 
sound one.  Mr. Heim called it both illogical and irrational.

I have long since stopped receiving his messages.  I see that the 
pattern persists on this mailing list, however.

In the hopes of providing SOME meaning to this message, I will say 
that my understanding of the NFB view on these pedestrian signals is 
as follows:

The original audible pedestrian signals, rarely used today but still 
installed in many places, pose a significant danger to blind 
travelers.  They drown out the sound of the traffic, no matter how 
heavy.  We unequivocally oppose these, and indeed want the ones that 
have been installed to be removed.  They are a direct hazard to the 
very population they purport to serve.

Modern audible pedestrian signals adapt themselves to current traffic 
conditions.  We do not, as a policy, protest the installation of 
these signals.  It is true that we largely find them unnecessary, but 
we do concede that they could be useful at certain intersections 
under certain conditions.  Since this view renders the usefulness of 
such a device a matter for subjective judgment, we can have no clear 
policy on the matter and are left with only our general opinion: We 
find them unnecessary at most intersections.

At some point, I had information detailing the cost breakdown for 
installing an audible signal.  I cannot locate it now, and it would 
not necessarily reflect costs half a decade later.  Even so, the 
overall picture it painted was that while the overall cost associated 
with installing such a device seemed horrendous, the cost of the 
signal and the labor to install it were minimal.  Most of the costs 
are those associated with road construction work and closing an 
intersection in order to do it.

Faced with this data, most Federationists in the past have readily 
agreed that if the road crew were already in use on the street in 
question, installing the signal was no large matter or additional 
expense.  If a city wishes to install such signals in such a fashion, 
the cost is so little that it can hardly be worth an objection—we 
should be so lucky if this were the largest and most frequent 
unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer dollars at even the city level of 
government!  At least the signal may prove to be of some use over its 
multi-decade life cycle (and how often can one say so of a government 
expenditure?)

I cannot imagine you would have heard that from Mr. Heim.

Joseph

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 02:06:46PM -0500, Dewey Bradley wrote:
>Why do you think the NFB  should change its stance?
>Do you need them?
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim" 
><jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:51 AM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals
>
>
>As recently as 2003, the NFB organized protests against audible  walk
>signals:
>http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030103.htm
>
>Personally, I feel there is no more important issue on which the NFB needs
>to change its stance. This is about as wrong-headed as an organization can
>be.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Florida Association of
>Guide Dog Users" <flagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NAGDU Mailing List,the National
>Association of Guide Dog Users" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NFB Florida"
><nfbf-l at nfbnet.org>; "NFB of Florida parents" <fopbc at nfbnet.org>
>Cc: "Dianne Ketts" <dianne at ketts.org>
>Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:20 AM
>Subject: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals
>
>
>The FCB is streaming their convention and I am currently listening to a
>speech by an O & M instructor, Dianne Ketts, who happens to work for the
>Lighthouse of Central Florida. I know Dianne personally and find her to be a
>very progressive-thinking O & M instructor. She is explaining the various
>kinds of Pedestrian signals, traffic lights and the use of audible
>pedestrian signals. She particularly emphasizes that you need proper O & M
>techniques and training whether or not the audible indications exists,
>saying that the audible signal only indicates that the walk signal is
>showing, not that it is safe to cross the street. I find her outlook
>refreshing and the lecture fascinating.  It is interesting to learn how the
>various lights are actuated as well as how the audible pedestrian signals
>work. I think it would be of great use to have an explanation of these
>various signals and the technology regarding APS'S AT A FUTURE NFBF
>CONVENTION AND EVEN POSSIBLY AT AN NFB national convention. I really believe
>with traffic patterns changing, with more and more cars on our roadways,
>this information is useful for us to know. She says, for example, that
>whether there is an APS or not, there are some intersections where it is
>imperative for people to find the push-button. Really interesting!
>
>Sherri
>
>
>Sherri Brun, NFBF Secretary and Newsline® Coordinator
>E-mail:  flmom2006 at gmail.com
>http://www.nfbnewslineonline.org
>http://www.nfbflorida.org
>
>"Don't give up something you want forever for something you want only for
>now!"
>_______________________________________________
>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