[nabs-l] A common-since legislative idea

[Jason Mandarino]

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