[Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
Thu Jan 29 16:54:03 UTC 2009
I'm not sure why there is any negative concerns about legislation governing
quiet cars. This legislation impacts safety for all, not just the blind.
This legislation is based on safety factors and what is best for all. It is
no different than mandatory seat belt laws, increased penalties for drunk
drivers or environmental emission standards. Government has a responsibility
and a mandate to protect all of its citizens and this mandate is necessary
as we find that time and time again industries generally do not act in a
social responsible manner unless they are regulated to do so. This
legislation in actuality has nothing to do with the personal responsibility
that a blind traveler or anyone else must take as a driver or pedestrian.
There has been no outcry against audible signals at railroad crossings or
train whistles that blow to alert people about oncoming trains, accept in
some cases about the frequency of the whistle. As a cane traveler for about
the last 40 years I have found that I still have to know and recognize the
rules of the road and pretty much follow them the same as a driver does.
Chuck Krugman, M.S.W., Paralegal
1237 P Street
Fresno ca 93721
559-266-9237
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Ellen" <gabias at telus.net>
To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'"
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
> Mike,
> You frequently mention blind people taking responsibility for their own
> travel. I absolutely agree that we are responsible for ourselves; that's
> the
> only sane premise from which to operate.
> In this circumstance, though, I wonder what you mean. The problem with
> quiet
> cars is that their near silence robs us of the possibility of taking
> charge
> of our own safety because we don't have data about where the cars are, how
> fast and in what direction they're moving. How can I take responsibility
> for
> evaluating data which I do not possess?
> If you could suggest some ways in which I could be responsible for
> operating
> safely in an environment where I cannot hear what's coming, I would
> genuinely appreciate knowing about them. I, like almost every blind person
> I
> know, dislike asking for environmental modifications and will only do so
> if
> I believe it is absolutely necessary. Your implication that asking
> manufacturers to implement standards which correct a design flaw is
> somehow
> failing to live up to my responsibilities as a blind traveler leaves me
> shaking my head. How is what we're asking for different from requiring
> shatter proof windshields? In a world where every driver was absolutely
> responsible there would be no crashes and windshields could be made of
> ordinary window glass. Yet we all accept the notion that safety glass is
> not
> only good but necessary. Seat belts are required in all vehicles (with the
> possible exception of taxis in some jurisdictions). The government in my
> province will fine me if I don't wear one. Some argue that government may
> have gone too far with such a requirement, but the notion that safety
> standards can and should be regulated is well established.
> If cars continue to get quieter and no method is found for making them
> discernable by sound, my only responsible alternative as a blind traveler
> is
> never to leave home alone. I've worked hard to learn what I've needed to
> learn to travel and I am more than willing to work hard to travel safely
> in
> the presence of nearly silent vehicles. My problem is that no one to date
> has shown me or any other blind person how to travel safely without
> adequate
> sound cues.
> I would be supremely arrogant to suggest that I know everything there is
> to
> know about independent travel. I certainly do not. That's why I'm asking
> you
> for information on ways I can effectively take responsibility for travel
> around nearly silent vehicles. The only comparable situation is travel
> where
> there is too much noise, in the presence of a jackhammer, for instance. In
> those situations I wait until the noise stops, take another route, or find
> someone to help me cross the street. Unlike a jackhammer, a silent car
> doesn't advertise its presence so that I can take responsible action. Lack
> of knowledge of the presence of such cars is precisely the problem this
> legislation seeks to correct.
>
> Mary Ellen
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On
> Behalf Of michael townsend
> Sent: January 28, 2009 5:01 PM
> To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
>
>
>
> Here you go again, folks. Put the weight of this on the organizations
> that
> make the car without taking any responsibility for your own actions. It's
> nice to have legislation, but where are the mobility specialists, and
> state
> agencies in this. I noticed the cane traveler was mentioned. In no part
> of
> this was brought up the fact that guide dog schools have begun to train
> their dogs and then the teams to work within the environment and meet the
> challenge of dealing with the hybrid issue. Legislation is fine, David and
> others, but you have to begin to take some responsibility for your own
> actions and meet the challenges that exist head-on.
>
> Thanks for the post.
>
> Mike T
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On
> Behalf Of David Andrews
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:39 PM
> To: david.andrews at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
>
>
>
>
> Legislative Agenda of Blind Americans:
> Priorities for the 111th Congress, FIRST Session
>
>
> The National Federation of the Blind
> (NFB) is the oldest and largest organization of blind people in the United
> States. As the Voice of the Nation's Blind, we present the collective
> views
> of blind people throughout society. All of our leaders and the vast
> majority of our members are blind, but anyone can participate in our
> movement. There are an estimated 1.3 million blind people in the United
> States, and every year approximately 75,000 Americans become blind. The
> social and economic consequences of blindness affect not only blind
> people,
> but also our families, our friends, and our coworkers.
>
> Three legislative initiatives demand the immediate attention of
> the 111th Congress in its first session:
> 1. We urge Congress to ensure the safety of
> blind and other pedestrians by passing the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
> Act. This legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of Transportation
> to:
> . Begin a study within ninety days of its
> enactment to determine the most practical means of assuring that blind and
> other pedestrians receive essentially similar information to what they now
> receive from sound emitted by internal combustion engines;
> . Determine the minimum amount of sound
> necessary to offer sufficient information for blind pedestrians to make
> safe
> travel judgments based on appropriate scientific research and consultation
> with blind Americans and other affected groups;
> . Within two years of beginning the study,
> promulgate a motor vehicle safety standard to address the needs of blind
> and
> other pedestrians by requiring either a minimum level of sound or an
> equally
> effective means of providing the same information as is available from
> hearing internal combustion engines; and
> . Apply the standard to all motor vehicles
> manufactured or sold in the United States beginning no later than two
> years
> after the date it is promulgated.
>
>
> 2. We urge Congress to work with blind
> Americans to create a Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind that
> mandates
> consumer electronics, home appliances, and office equipment to provide
> user
> interfaces that are accessible through nonvisual means. This legislation
> should:
>
> . Mandate that all consumer electronics,
> home appliances, and office equipment be designed so that blind people can
> access the same functions as sighted people through nonvisual means and
> with
> substantially equivalent ease of use;
>
> . Create a commission comprised of
> essential stakeholders to establish standards for nonvisual accessibility
> of
> electronic devices intended for use in the home or office;
> . Endow the commission with enforcement
> powers or locate it within a government agency having such powers; and
> . Authorize it to reexamine and rewrite
> standards to keep pace with the evolution of consumer electronic
> technology.
>
> 3. We urge Congress to promote and facilitate
> the transition by blind Americans from recipients of Social Security
> Disability Insurance benefits to income-earning, taxpaying, productive
> members of the American workforce by enacting legislation to:
>
> . Replace the monthly earnings penalty with
> a graduated 3-for-1 phase-out (i.e., a $1 reduction in benefits for each
> $3
> earned above the limit);
>
> . Replace the monthly earnings test with an
> annualized earnings test with an amount equal to twelve times. Substantial
> Gainful Activity amount; and
>
> . Establish an impairment-related work
> expense deduction for blind Social Security Disability Insurance
> beneficiaries equal to the amount applicable for this deduction when
> determining an appropriate income subsidy under Medicare Part D or 16.3
> percent of earnings, whichever is greater.
>
>
> For more information about these priorities, please see below or
> consult the attached fact sheets.
>
> Blind Americans need your help to achieve our goals of economic
> security, increased opportunity, and full integration into American
> society
> on a basis of equality. Enactment of these legislative proposals will
> represent important steps toward reaching these goals. We need the help
> and
> support of each member of Congress. Our success benefits not only us, but
> the whole of America as well. In this time of national economic
> insecurity,
> these measures will contribute to increasing the tax base and encouraging
> the purchase of consumer goods.
>
> ENHANCING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY: ENSURING THE BLIND CAN CONTINUE TO TRAVEL
> SAFELY AND INDEPENDENTLY
>
>
> Purpose: To require hybrid, electric, and other
> vehicles to emit a minimum level of sound to
> alert blind and other pedestrians of their presence.
>
> Background: Until recently independent travel
> for the blind has been a relatively simple
> matter, once a blind person has been trained in
> travel techniques and has learned to use a white
> cane or travel with a guide dog. Blind people
> listen to the sounds of automobile engines to
> determine the direction, speed, and pattern of
> traffic. Sounds from traffic tell blind
> pedestrians how many vehicles are near them and
> how fast they are moving, whether the vehicles
> are accelerating or decelerating, and whether the
> vehicles are traveling toward, away from, or
> parallel to them. With all of this information,
> blind people can accurately determine when it is
> safe to advance into an intersection or across a
> driveway or parking lot. The information
> obtained from listening to traffic sounds allows
> blind people to travel with complete confidence
> and without assistance. Studies have shown that
> sighted pedestrians also use this information when traveling.
>
> Over the past few years, however,
> vehicles that are completely silent in certain
> modes of operation have come on the market, and
> many more silent vehicles are expected in the
> near future. These vehicles are designed to have
> many benefits, including improved fuel efficiency
> and reduced emissions, but they do not need to be
> silent in order to achieve these intended
> benefits. An unintended consequence of these
> vehicles as they are currently designed is that
> they will reduce the independence of blind
> Americans and endanger the lives, not only of
> blind people, but also of small children, seniors, cyclists, and runners.
>
> Currently the most popular of these
> vehicles is the gasoline-electric hybrid, which
> alternates between running on a gasoline engine
> and on battery power (although a few electric
> automobiles are already on America's roads and
> new all-electric models are planned). The blind
> of America do not oppose the proliferation of
> vehicles intended to reduce damage to the
> environment, but for safety these vehicles must
> meet a minimum sound standard.
>
> On April 9, 2008, Congressmen Ed Towns
> and Cliff Stearns introduced H.R. 5734 (the
> Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2008). This
> legislation sought to solve the problem of silent
> cars by authorizing a two-year study to determine
> the best method for allowing blind individuals to
> recognize the presence of silent cars, and by
> requiring that, two years after the study was
> completed, all new vehicles sold in the United
> States must comply with the solution determined
> by the study. In the 110th Congress,
> eighty-eight members of the House cosponsored this legislation.
>
> Need for Congressional Action: For several years
> the National Federation of the Blind has been
> concerned about the proliferation of silent
> vehicles. Recently automobile manufacturers have
> acknowledged the problems posed to blind
> pedestrians by silent vehicle technology and have
> begun to work with the National Federation of the
> Blind to seek solutions. However, federal
> regulators have indicated that, in the absence of
> statistics on injuries or deaths caused by hybrid
> vehicles, nothing can be done. Congress must
> therefore direct the Department of Transportation
> to take action. It is crucial that this problem
> be addressed before the inevitable avalanche of
> tragedies involving blind people, small children,
> seniors, cyclists, runners, and newly blinded veterans shocks the nation.
>
> Proposed Legislation: Congressmen Towns and
> Stearns have reintroduced the Pedestrian Safety
> Enhancement Act to direct the Secretary of
> Transportation to conduct a study and establish a
> motor vehicle safety standard that provides a
> means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of
> motor vehicle operation, based on appropriate
> scientific research and consultation with blind
> Americans and other affected groups. This
> national motor vehicle safety standard must have
> the following characteristics:
> * In all phases of operation (including times
> when the vehicle is at a full stop) vehicles
> shall be required to emit an omni-directional
> sound with similar spectral characteristics to
> those of a modern internal combustion engine.
> * The sound should vary in a way that is
> consistent with the sound of vehicles with
> combustion engines to indicate whether the
> vehicle is idling, maintaining a constant speed,
> accelerating, or decelerating.
> The standard need not prescribe the
> apparatus, technology, or method to be used by
> vehicle manufacturers to achieve the required
> minimum sound level. This approach will
> encourage manufacturers to use innovative and
> cost-effective techniques to achieve the minimum sound standard.
> The addition of components to emit a
> minimum sound discernible by blind and other
> pedestrians will not negatively affect
> environmental benefits of gasoline-electric
> hybrids and other automobiles running on
> alternate power sources, and the emitted sound
> need not be loud enough to contribute to noise
> pollution. Automobiles that operate in complete
> silence, however, endanger the safety of all of
> us; silent operation should be viewed as a design
> flaw comparable to the lack of seat belts or air bags.
>
> Requested Action: Please support blind Americans
> by cosponsoring the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
> Act to authorize the U.S. Department of
> Transportation to establish and promulgate
> regulations specifying a minimum sound standard
> for all new automobiles sold in the United
> States. In the House of Representatives, members
> can be added by contacting Emily Khoury in
> Congressman Towns's office, or James Thomas in
> Congressman Stearns's office. In the Senate
> members can support independence for blind
> Americans by sponsoring companion legislation.
>
>
> Contact Information:
> Jesse Hartle
> Government Programs Specialist
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> Phone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2233
> Email: jhartle at nfb.org
>
> A TECHNOLOGY BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE BLIND
>
>
> Purpose: To create a Technology Bill of Rights
> for the Blind that mandates consumer electronics,
> home appliances, and office equipment to provide
> user interfaces that are accessible through nonvisual means.
>
> Background: In recent years rapid advances in
> microchip and digital technology have led to
> increasingly complex user interfaces for everyday
> products like consumer electronics, home
> appliances, and office equipment. Many new
> devices in these categories require user
> interaction with visual displays, on-screen
> menus, touch screens, and other user interfaces
> that are inaccessible to individuals who are
> blind or have low vision. No longer are settings
> on the television, home stereo system, or
> dishwasher controlled by knobs, switches, and
> buttons that can be readily identified and whose
> settings can be easily discerned, with or without
> the addition of tactile markings by the
> user. Moreover, the use of inaccessible
> interfaces on office equipment such as copiers
> and fax machines makes these devices unusable by
> the blind and therefore a potential threat to a
> blind person's existing job or a barrier to obtaining new employment.
>
> This growing threat to the
> independence and productivity of blind people is
> unnecessary since digital devices can function
> without inaccessible interfaces. Today
> text-to-speech technology is inexpensive and more
> nearly ubiquitous than it has ever been; it is
> used in everything from automated telephone
> systems to the weather forecasting service
> broadcast by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration. Indeed, a few manufacturers have
> incorporated this technology into their products
> to create talking menus or to articulate what is
> on the display; there is no reason why other
> manufacturers cannot do so as well. And
> text-to-speech technology is not the only
> mechanism by which consumer electronics, home
> appliances, and office equipment can be made accessible to blind people.
>
> Need for Legislation: Currently there are no
> enforceable mandates for manufacturers of
> consumer electronics, home appliances, or office
> equipment to make their devices accessible and no
> accessibility standards to provide guidance to
> manufacturers on how to avoid creating barriers
> to access by the blind. Congress should
> therefore enact a Technology Bill of Rights for
> the Blind, which clearly establishes that
> manufacturers must create accessible user
> interfaces for their products, provide a means
> for enforcement, and establish standards that
> will provide meaningful benchmarks that
> manufacturers can use to make their products accessible.
>
> Congress need not mandate a single,
> one-size-fits-all solution for all consumer
> technology. Rather any such legislation should
> mandate regulations that set meaningful
> accessibility standards, while at the same time
> allowing manufacturers to select from a menu of
> potential solutions that, singly or in
> combination, will allow blind users to operate
> the technology easily and successfully. This
> will not only give manufacturers the freedom and
> flexibility they desire, but encourage
> innovations that make consumer technology more usable for everyone.
>
>
>
> Proposed Legislation: Congress should enact a
> Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind that:
>
> * Mandates that all consumer electronics,
> home appliances, and office equipment be
> designed so that blind people are able to access
> the same functions as sighted people by nonvisual
> means and with substantially equivalent ease of use; and
>
> * Creates a commission to establish standards
> for nonvisual accessibility of electronic devices
> intended for use in the home or office. Such a
> commission should represent all stakeholders,
> including organizations of the blind;
> manufacturers of consumer electronics, home
> appliances, and office equipment or associations
> representing such manufacturers; and experts on
> universal design, electronic engineering, and
> related fields. This commission should have
> enforcement powers or be housed within a
> government agency having such powers (e.g., U.S.
> Department of Commerce), and should be authorized
> to reexamine and rewrite standards periodically,
> as consumer electronic technology continues to evolve.
>
> Requested Action: Please support blind Americans
> by introducing legislation to create a Technology
> Bill of Rights for the Blind (or by cosponsoring
> once legislation has been introduced) so that
> blind people will be able to participate fully in
> all aspects of American society. Increased
> access leads to increased independence, increased
> employment, and increased tax revenue.
>
>
>
> Contact Information:
> James McCarthy
> Government Programs Specialist
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> Phone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2240
> Email: jmccarthy at nfb.org
>
> REMOVING THE EARNINGS PENALTY: A COMMON SENSE
> WORK INCENTIVE FOR BLIND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES
>
>
> Purpose: To promote and facilitate the
> transition by blind Americans from Social
> Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
> beneficiaries to income-earning, taxpaying,
> productive members of the American workforce.
>
> Background: The unemployment rate for
> working-age blind people is over 70
> percent. Part of the reason for this
> disproportionately high statistic is the myths
> and misconceptions about the true capacities of
> blind people. These erroneous perceptions are
> manifested when employers refuse to hire the blind.
>
> In addition, governmental programs
> intended to help blind people meet their basic
> economic needs, especially the SSDI program, have
> had the unintended consequence of creating an
> incentive for blind people to remain unemployed
> or underemployed despite their desire to
> work. Low societal expectations result in low
> representation of the blind in the
> workforce. This low representation of the blind
> reinforces low societal expectations-it is a
> vicious circle that perpetuates systemic
> employment discrimination against the blind.
>
> Despite the efforts of the National
> Federation of the Blind, blindness still has
> profound social and economic
> consequences. Governmental programs should
> encourage blind people to reach their full
> employment potential; they should not encourage economic dependence.
>
> Existing Law: Title II of the Social Security
> Act provides that disability benefits paid to
> blind beneficiaries are eliminated if the
> beneficiary exceeds a monthly earnings
> limit. This earnings limit is in effect a
> penalty imposed on blind Americans when they
> work. This penalty imposed by the SSDI program
> means that, if a blind person earns just $1 over
> $1,640 (the monthly limit in 2009 following a
> Trial Work Period), all benefits are lost.
>
> Section 216(i)(1)(B) of the Social
> Security Act defines blindness as a disability
> based on objective measurement of acuity and
> visual field, as opposed to the subjective
> criterion of inability to perform Substantial
> Gainful Activity (SGA). For blind people, doing
> work valued at the SGA earnings limit terminates
> benefits but does not terminate disability. Only
> blind people not working or those with work
> earnings below an annually adjusted statutory
> earnings limit receive benefits.
>
> Need for Legislation: When a blind person enters
> the workforce, there is no guarantee that wages
> earned will replace SSDI benefits after taxes are
> paid and work expenses are deducted. For
> example, Jane worked as a customer service
> representative with an annual income of $35,000
> until she became blind from diabetic
> retinopathy. Jane meets the criteria for SSDI
> benefits, which provide income of $1,060 a month
> (or $12,720 a year) tax-free while she is not
> working. Jane wants additional income to meet
> her financial needs. After an adjustment period
> and blindness skills training, she finds
> employment as a part-time representative making
> $10 an hour for 35 hours a week. Jane grosses
> $350 a week for an average of $1,517 a
> month. Using a conservative 25 percent
> withholding tax, Jane nets $1,137.50 from her
> work, combined with her $1,060 disability
> benefit, for a net total of $2,197.50 a
> month. If Jane should have the opportunity to
> work full time (40 hours), her weekly salary
> would go up to $400 a week for a monthly average
> of $1,733. This amount is over the 2009 earnings
> limit, so Jane loses all of her disability
> benefits. Using the same 25 percent tax level,
> Jane nets only $1,300 a month-working an extra
> five hours a week has cost Jane $897.50 net
> income (over $10,500 a year). This example
> illustrates the work disincentive contained in current law.
>
> A gradual reduction of $1 in benefits
> for every $3 earned over the earnings limit would
> remove the earnings penalty and provide a
> financial incentive to work. The benefit amount
> paid to an individual will gradually decrease,
> while the individual's contribution to the Social
> Security trust fund increases over time. Under
> this approach, as Jane earns more, she pays more
> into the trust fund, and her dependence on benefits decreases.
>
> Monthly earnings evaluations are
> unnecessarily complicated for both the
> beneficiaries and the Social Security
> Administration. Since the medical prognosis for
> blind people rarely changes, and because
> blindness is objectively measurable, blind people
> should be subject to an annual earnings test with
> the limit equal to the twelve times applicable monthly SGA amount.
>
> Under current law blind workers
> frequently pay for items and services related to
> their disabilities that are necessary for them to
> work, and they are permitted to subtract these
> Impairment Related Work Expenses (IRWE) from
> monthly earnings when determining monthly
> income. Properly crediting IRWE poses a serious
> challenge to the SSDI program and creates a lack
> of predictability for the blind person trying to
> determine whether benefits will be available. To
> address both issues, Congress should permit SSDI
> recipients to claim the same amount used when
> determining an income subsidy under the Medicare
> prescription drug program, currently 16.3 percent.
>
> Congress should enact legislation to:
> . Provide that earnings of blind SSDI
> beneficiaries in excess of the annual earnings
> limit result in a gradual benefit reduction of $1
> for each $3 earned over the limit;
> . Establish an annual earnings test for blind SSDI beneficiaries;
> and
> . Establish one standard IRWE deduction for
> blind SSDI beneficiaries equal to the amount
> presently applicable for this deduction when
> determining an appropriate income subsidy under
> the Medicare prescription drug program or 16.3
> percent of earnings, whichever is greater.
>
> Requested Action: Please support blind Americans
> by cosponsoring legislation that provides a
> common sense work incentive for blind Social Security beneficiaries.
>
> Contact Information:
> James McCarthy
> Government Programs Specialist
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
> Phone: (410) 659-9314, extension 2240
> Email: jmccarthy at nfb.org
>
> The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
> attachments:
>
> 2009-Washington-Seminar-Legislative-Agenda-and-FactSheets.doc
>
>
>
> Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail
> programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
> types of file attachments. Check your e-mail
> security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quietcars mailing list
> Quietcars at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Quietcars:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/gabias%40telus.ne
> t
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date:
> 1/28/2009
> 7:24 PM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quietcars mailing list
> Quietcars at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Quietcars:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net
More information about the QuietCars
mailing list