[nabs-l] A common-since legislative idea

Wed Apr 1 04:24:41 UTC 2009

Jamie,

I can see your point, to an extent.  Let me try and explain more
coherently what I was getting at earlier.  I attended the school for
the blind in my state for several years.  There, I encountered a
number of teachers with partial vision who could drive, with
restrictions.  For instance, one teacher I encountered couldn't drive
in inclement weather or at night, but had a provisional license
because she could drive at other times.  Whether it was "safe" for her
to be driving really wasn't something I considered it my business to
decide.  She passed enough of the regulations that she qualified, as
long as she abided by certain conditions, to receive a license.  It's
these individuals, already hedged about with restrictions that I worry
about ideas like this affecting.
Courtney

On 3/31/09, Jamie Principato <blackbyrdfly at gmail.com> wrote:
> People usually do ask for a drivers license rather than an ID, but they
> *ALWAYS* mean an ID. "Drivers license" is just the thing said out of habit
> because *MOST* individuals are sighted and use their license as their ID. I
> have never once encountered a situation where a state ID wasn't as readily
> accepted as a drivers license when ID was needed, even if "drivers license"
> was the term used, nor have I met anyone who has expressed difficulty with
> this. I'm not sure I understand the problem. If you are classified as
> legally blind, there is obviously a reason for it, and even if you could
> "sneak by" an eye test at the DMV, you shouldn't *have* to sneak by at all.
> You shouldn't be on the road. Just get a state ID. I have a friend right now
> who is a high partial, but he is most definitely legally blind and it shows
> in day to day activities. He is convinced he can drive though and has even
> gone as far as buying a vehicle. He fully intends to "sneak by" on the
> vision test, or possibly even listen to the person before him and memorize
> the letters on the chart. I think he's a fool if he does this. Regardless of
> how high a partial you are, if you are labeled as legally blind and your
> vision is less than what is required to get a license, you *SHOULD NOT HAVE
> A LICENSE*.
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Beth <thebluesisloose at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Blind people should have some form of ID, and the problem I have with
>> the surrender of a driver's license is this: everyone asks for a
>> "driver's license."  Not necessarily a Florida Identification Card.
>> It has a number and that on it like a license, but stll not a license.
>> Beth
>>
>> On 3/31/09, Nathan Clark <troubleclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > anybody who is blind should not be driving.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/31/09, Jason Mandarino <blind.subscriber at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I have had a few friends that are legally blind, but were not in a
>> >> position
>> >> of degenerative eye sight. Of course they were of the large print
>> >> category,
>> >> but never the less unattractive glasses and additional equipment as
>> >> they
>> >> would put it.
>> >>
>> >> My only issue with this is that it is yet another thing based on
>> >> generalizations. I understand the point, but I thin that statements
>> >> like
>> >> these am what corner us into our own issues. We are easily caught up
>> into
>> >> what works for one or a few, and forget that blindness is just as
>> >> individualized as personality. I am completely for the safety of
>> >> others,
>> >> but
>> >> even when it comes to elderly people and their driver's license,
>> >> perhaps
>> >> it
>> >> would be more appropriate to have them do something more than a written
>> >> test
>> >> and a brief eye exam.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, there is no expectation to even have driver's education
>> in
>> >> Georgia, so in my opinion the established safety nets are the true
>> >> issue
>> >> not
>> >> more policies.
>> >>
>> >> Mandarino
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> >> Behalf
>> >> of Jim Reed
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:02 PM
>> >> To: MAB List
>> >> Subject: [nabs-l] a common-sence legislative idea
>> >>
>> >> Hey all,
>> >> The following is not going to sit well with some of you so let me
>> preface
>> >> it
>> >> with some personal background to set the context:
>> >> 1. By 2005 I was legaly blind with RP.
>> >> 2. In the summer of 2007 I bought a car.
>> >> 3. In summer of 2008, I wrecked said car, with a passenger, because I
>> did
>> >> not see the sharp turn ahead. Fortunatly, the accident was injury-free,
>> >> but
>> >> could have just as easily been a fatal roll-over.
>> >>
>> >> That said, my idea:
>> >> Blind people, contingent upon recieving any government services which
>> they
>> >> qualify for,(in part, or in whole) as a result of being blind, must
>> >> permanatly surrender their drivers license.
>> >>
>> >> I know some will say this is cohersive, and it is.
>> >>
>> >> Some will say it prevents blind people from recieving essential
>> services,
>> >> it
>> >> does; but, no one has the right to endanger the life of another, and,
>> >> if
>> a
>> >> person chooses to do so, that person does not deserve the support of
>> >> society
>> >> or it's government.
>> >>
>> >> And lastly, some will make a free-choice arguement. To them I would say
>> >> blindness isnt a choice, its a fact.
>> >>
>> >> This is one of those "father knows best" type situations where what is
>> >> truely best for the individual is percieved by that individual as
>> >> negitive.
>> >>
>> >> As it seems likely that it is the younger blind people who are most
>> >> inclined
>> >> to make choices similar to mine, what we are really talking about here
>> is
>> >> saving the next generation of blind people from injury, death, or legal
>> >> troubles.
>> >>
>> >> As negitive as this may seem to some blind people, if it saves even one
>> >> life, blind or sighted, then it was worth it.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts?
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >> "Ability is of little account without opportunity."
>> >>
>> >>       |
>> >>           -Napoleon Bonaparte
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> nabs-l mailing list
>> >> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> >> nabs-l:
>> >>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/blind.subscriber%40g
>> >> mail.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> nabs-l mailing list
>> >> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> >> nabs-l:
>> >>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/troubleclark%40gmail.com
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nabs-l mailing list
>> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> > nabs-l:
>> >
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/thebluesisloose%40gmail.com
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>>
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/blackbyrdfly%40gmail.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/liamskitten%40gmail.com
>