[nfbwatlk] Living History: of Risks and Responsibilities

[Gloria Whipple]

Hi Mike,

great article!

Thank you,



Gloria Whipple


-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Freeman
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 13:38
To: nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbwatlk] Living History: of Risks and Responsibilities

The Braille Monitor

 

             Vol. 34, No. 9
October 1991

 

 

RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

by Mike Freeman

 

>From the Associate Editor: Mike Freeman is the first vice president of the
National Federation of the Blind of Washington. He is thoughtful and alert
to the nuances of daily life and social interchange. Here (with comments of
mine concerning an Ohio incident) is a brief article he recently sent to the
Braille Monitor: 

 

The legal doctrine of contributory negligence, as applied to the blind, held
that if a blind person travelled outside his or her home and became involved
in an accident, the blind person, simply by being present, was automatically
considered to be negligent, no matter what the circumstances of the
accident. For example, if a blind person were to cross a street in a
pedestrian crosswalk in accord with the traffic signal and were to be hit by
a car, the driver might not be held responsible even though the car had
disobeyed the traffic signal. This doctrine severely restricted the
independent movement of blind persons. It was a prime reason for the long
struggle of the National Federation of the Blind to secure passage of White
Cane laws in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. With the
enactment of these laws, the doctrine of contributory negligence was
specifically negated, and the blind gained the right to travel freely in the
world on an equal basis with the sighted.

 

While the doctrine of contributory negligence, as applied to the blind, and
the underlying presumption that blind people are necessarily unsafe
travelers have been eliminated from the law of the land, they have not yet
been eliminated from the public mind. This was brought home to me sharply by
a recent incident.

 

I work at the Ross Substation complex of the Bonneville Power Administration
in Vancouver, Washington. In order to get there every workday I must cross
Highway 99, a busy four-lane highway. There is a pedestrian crosswalk with a
traffic signal operated by a push button. When the proper button is pressed,
the traffic comes to a halt, and a pedestrian can cross the road in safety.

 

On a recent foggy morning a colleague at work remarked that it must have
been more dangerous than usual for me to get to work, inasmuch as the
Highway 99 traffic would have found it more difficult than usual to spot me
crossing the road. Initially, I replied with some sort of flippant remark
such as: "Well, no more than you." Upon a moment's reflection, however, I
decided that a further explanation was in order. "There is a good traffic
light at that spot," I said. "Assuming that both the vehicular traffic and I
obey it, it doesn't really matter whether it's foggy or not. When the cars
stop, I go. My safety is my responsibility; and, anyway, it's no more risky
for me than it is for any other pedestrian crossing there."

 

My colleague hesitated, then agreed. I got the impression, though, that he
was not completely satisfied with my answer. The notion that the risks I
take are my responsibility seemed a bit novel to him. Moreover, even if he
were prepared to grant this assumption, I got the distinct impression that
he didn't buy my argument that I, a blind pedestrian, was as safe a traveler
(with or without adverse conditions such as fog) as a sighted pedestrian.

 

This is the crux of the matter. Although we have virtually won the battle
against insurance companies that discriminate against the blind, we still
have a long way to go in convincing the general public that we the blind, as
a class, pose no higher risks to ourselves and others than does the public
at large, and that we can--indeed we must--assume responsibility for
ourselves and our actions in order to take our places on an equal basis with
the rest of the public in the continuing adventure of human existence.

 

>From the Associate Editor: Mike Freeman is absolutely right when he
identifies his acquaintance's remark as one of the more benign but still
dangerous manifestations of the conviction that sighted people must always
assume responsibility for the safety of blind pedestrians because, of
course, we can't possibly take care of ourselves. I am reminded of this
truth every time a motorist leans out of a passing car to inquire of me when
I am walking along a street in my small town, "Where are you trying to go?"
First of all, it is none of his--it is almost always a man--business.
Second, I am not trying to go; I am going. When I am lost, I take
responsibility for asking directions.

 

But there is still a malignant manifestation of the contributory negligence
of blind pedestrians doctrine floating around in the public mind. It may
have vanished from the law books with the passage of the White Cane
statutes, but there are plenty of people who have not yet got the word. 

 

Early in March of 1991 an Ohio Federationist who uses a dog guide was
crossing a busy street in her small town. She had the green light, so she
and her dog stepped out boldly to cross the intersection. A young man, who
was not watching carefully, turned right on the red light and struck both
the woman and the dog guide. Neither was hurt badly, but the woman was taken
to the emergency room, where her husband, a physician, eventually got to
her. 

 

The incompetence of the officials who dealt with the case is demonstrated by
one question the police officer who wrote up the accident report asked the
victim's husband: "Can the dog read traffic signs?" No one from the district
attorney's office ever contacted the woman to determine how serious her
injuries had been. These two things should have prepared her for what
happened in Mayor's Court a few weeks later when the case came up for
hearing. 

 

Pronouncing it as his opinion that no blind person could independently cross
streets in safety, the mayor fined the driver $10 and warned the blind woman
not to travel alone in the future. No one knew or cared about White Cane
laws or protection. It was obvious to the mayor, the district attorney, and
the defendant that somehow the blind woman had caused the accident, even if
she did have the right-of-way--and nothing she could say would change their
minds. She is herself an attorney by training, and you can be sure that she
did not remain silent. 

 

After this travesty of justice was carried out, she attempted to interest
area newspapers in her story. They were not interested. She and the NFB of
Ohio wrote letters to the mayor, the district attorney, and the police,
urging inservice education programs for public officials. They could not be
bothered. The woman is still deciding whether or not to bring a civil suit
against the driver for damages. 

 

This is an unpleasant little reminder to us all that it is not enough to be
in the right. Sometimes it is not even enough to have the law on your side.
It is important to remember that we are farther along the road to freedom
than we have ever been, but we are not there yet. 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbwatlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/glowhi%40centurylink.n
et