[Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Mary Ellen
gabias at telus.net
Sat Jan 31 22:23:28 UTC 2009
There are probably a lot of specific solutions which would make cars audible
to pedestrians. I don't think legislation should prescribe which one should
be adopted. Each car has a different design. All that needs to be done is
for there to be some agreement about what constitutes a minimum standard.
Then we can leave it to the manufacturers to design the means for meeting
that standard which works best with their vehicles. Private companies may
develop a system for retrofitting cars, or the manufacturer may recall them
for retrofitting. A workable system for the pedestrian to use may also be
designed, but I see that as far more complicated to do, both because it
would be a trickier piece of engineering and because most pedestrians
wouldn't want to carry one. If such a device were to be seen as a solution
for blind pedestrians, it would be much more expensive. It would also be
unwise; blind people are not the only ones affected by this problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of michael townsend
Sent: January 31, 2009 6:26 AM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Mr. Evans, again, if my aunt had wheels, she would have been a bus.
This study will take two years to find out what may be needed to fix the
problem.
There are results that can be purchased now, fro Lotus and a German
manufacturer, but at some cost.
There are some folks at Stanford that have developed a system of speakers
that emit sounds, too.
Question is, who's going to p00ay for them, are these going to be
retrofi9tted, and which sys5tme is going to be a standard across the board.
As each auto manufacturer has its own way of dealing with getting more power
from each engine, has different methodologies in keeping pollution to a
minimum, has different ways of putting the power to the wheels, has
different options from which can choose to so equip their cars, we are
putting off an inevitable decision.
Someone once suggested that marbles be placed in the hubcaps of cars, but
that would only work if the cars were moving, and secondly, cars don't have
hubcaps today, for the greatest majority, but styled, steel or al8uminum
wheels.
Why couldn't a simple bulb, like those fitted into the tail light sockets
that emit a sound be rigged to the electric motors so that when the auto's
engine shut down and the motors were operational, the car would emit a beep?
Answer, one might think that a car or truck was backing up instead of just
idling and waiting to accelerate.
Yes, Mr. Evans, this is a lot more complicated than one would think, and
this legislation, while a start fro m Mr. Towns, proves to be a little long
in the tooth.
How does Mr. Towns' effort differ from that of ACB and NFB lobbying or its
bill? These are questions I need answers to in order to formulate an
informed opinion on how to move forward and make my personal evaluation of
the situation. Deb, perhaps you might comment on this, or anyone else, for
that matter on list who's familiar with both pieces of legislation.
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of David Evans
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:19 PM
To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
Dear Debra,
As we use to say in the 60's, "Right on sister!"
As an engineer, I would be ethically, morally, legally and professionally
irresponsible if I did not take action to prevent an accident or failure of
any part or whole aircraft, spacecraft or nuclear reactor I worked on or
designed. Does this mean that I can think of everything or allow for every
circumstance that might arise , No it doesn't, but I do have a
responsibility to consider and correct what I can. No one flys in a plane
that has not been completely tested, destructively and Non-Destructively
before passengers are allowed on them. The planes are then test flown to
also test them in flight and to make sure they preform as they are supose
to. Case in point, the recent crash in the Hudson River.
Both engines were knocked out by bird strikes and sheared off, as designed,
upon a belly landing to avoid flipping the plane. The "Ditch Switch" worked
and sealed the plane so as to slow it sinking. This was because of
experience designers have gotten from other crashes. Engineers and designers
can not think of everything before some highly complicated piece of
machinery is built, but as problems are identified, they must be addressed
and corrected. They responsibility rest on the manufacturer and builders,
not the guy who buys it or flys it. How is this issue with quiet cars any
different? Cars that are quiet and can not be heard are a clear danger just
by logic, the same way we know that a rattle snake is deadly dangerous even
is we have never incountered one in our life. God knew what he was doing
when he put rattles on the snakes tail and caused it to shake its rattle as
a warning, "Don't Tread on Me!" Only a few people die from snake bite each
year, but we know that to mess with the wrong side of a rattle snake is not
smart. We are just suggesting the same thing from quiet cars. The Bill will
only fund a study, to get facts and figures to base suggestion upon to help
protect us all from a quiet car sneaking up on us in aparking lot or
intersection. Something that has happened to me 3 times in the last 8
months. There is far greater danger in becoming crippled for Life by these
cars than there is of just dying, as there is in most traffic accidents, but
this can be prevented and reduced if fixes are found and implimented. As
more and more of these cars come in to use the problem will grow and so will
the price tag, both financially and in human misery. It would be emmorial
of us not to try to do something to prevent it. I remember how parents
feared the idea of Polio in the 1950's. Then the treatment came along and
some people who came down with it the day before the vaccine was available,
were asking why it did not come sooner to help them. What will we say to a
person who could have been saved if the fix was just available a day sooner?
David Evans, NFBF
Nuclear/Aerospace Materials Engineer
Builder of the Lunar Rovers and the F-117 Stealth Fighter Serving member of:
The Palm Tran Service Board Para-Transit Committee Chair
Palm Beach County Metro Planning Organization Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board
(SFRTA) South Florida Regional Transit Authority/Tri-Rail Advisory Committee
Governor's Select Task Force on Voting Access
Florida State HAVA Planning Committee
----- ----- Original Message
From: "Deborah Kent Stein" <dkent5817 at att.net>
To: "Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety"
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
>
>
> Last summer I began conducting a survey of people - both blind and
> sighted - who have been involved in accidents or who have had close
> calls with quiet vehicles. So far I've interviewed 31 people. A
> number of them are guide dog handlers. In some instances the car
> approached from behind and the dog did not see or hear it coming. In
> others a car made a right turn on red or ran a light and the dog did
> not react. Some people do credit their dogs with saving them from
> being killed or injured, but dogs are no guarantee of safety in an
> environment where vehicles are operating silently. In order to travel
> safely and responsibly we need to know what the cars around us are
> doing, and unless we can hear them we have no way of detecting their
> presence.
>
> Debbie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Evans" <drevans at bellsouth.net>
> To: "Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety"
> <quietcars at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] 2009 Washington Seminar Materials
>
>
>> Dear Mike,
>> Thanks for your opinion Mike, but I do take responsibility for myself
>> every time I travel.
>> I use the skills I have been taught and use them very well.
>> You imply that because you use a guide dog, that you are protected
>> because of its use.
>> Well maybe you are and maybe you aren't.
>> I know that users of guide dogs get hit by cars too, just as both
>> cane users and fully sighted people do every day.
>> How much did your guide cost? $20,000 dollars, 30 or 40, 000 dollars
>> to raise and train and will work for you how many years before it
>> needs to be retired?
>> I am not against guide dogs and have been in fact applying for one
>> myself, so don't think that I am anti-guide dog, I am not.
>> I am just ticked that you sound as if we have done something wrong
>> and irresponsible here in addressing an issue of life and death for
>> Blind travelers.
>> There are things that can be just as bad , if not worst, than death.
>> Being so crippled and disabled that we have no quality of life left,
>> laying in a bed with a feeding tube and someone changing our diapers,
>> unable to go anywhere or do anything for ourselves can be far worst.
>> We are much more likely to suffer crippling injuries and be
>> financially destroyed by being hit by a car than we are of being killed.
>> All I can ask is that I, and the greatest majority of Blind people,
>> would ask is to have some way of detecting quiet cars and vehicles so
>> as to avoid them.
>> The manufactures should have thought of this when they designed them.
>> All this bill will do is start a study of the problem and come up
>> with some suggestions as how to fix it , who should do it and what
>> will be required to make it happen.
>> I am disappointed that it does not require all vehicles to be
>> retro-fitted too.
>> If the answer was that every blind person be given a guide dog to
>> protect them from quiet cars, there would not be enough guide dogs to go
around.
>> The cost would be as high or higher that placing a "fix" on the cars
>> themselves.
>> Lets see, $30,000 per dog times 1.3 million blind people plus
>> figuring a replacement dog every 11 to 12 years and the space program
>> seems to be not so bad.
>> We all can't have or use a guide dog for many reasons, nor should we
>> be forced too just because you think that is the answer and seems
>> logical to you.
>> I am glad you like your guide dog, I hope I like mine too, but I
>> still want to have some say in maintaining my own safety. Its my
>> life and if I am suppose to be responsible for my actions and what
>> happens to me, I don't want to look up from the surface of the street
>> and say to my guide dog, " I think you missed one Rex!"
>> I can't blame the dog if I am not taking charge of my actions and how
>> I handle the situations. To do that I need to be able to detect
>> them, where they are coming from and how fast. I can then make a
>> decision as to what to do in a crossing or walking through a parking
>> lot.
>>
>> David Evans, NFBF
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "michael townsend" <mrtownsend at optonline.net>
>> To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'"
>> <quietcars at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:01 PM
>> 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/drevans%40bellsou
th.net
>>
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 6:37 AM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/dkent5817%40world
net.att.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/drevans%40bellsou
th.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 1/30/2009
5:31 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/mrtownsend%40opto
nline.net
_______________________________________________
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: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 1/30/2009
5:31 PM
More information about the QuietCars
mailing list