[nfb-talk] [NFB-talk] Here We GoAgain: Home Makeover-blindcouple in OH

[John Heim]

I am pretty sure that I never said the NFB was against accessible pedestrian 
signals in all circumstances.  In fact, I think this only proves my point. 
When I tell you that the NFB organized protests against the Access Board 
recommendations on accessible signals and the they said they make blind 
pedestrians less safe, you heard "against them". But that's not what I said.

I've been trying to make a point about the NFB's position on accessible 
signals for a couple of years now and I really don't think that its not 
getting through because of the way I'm putting it. I have 2 very specific 
complaints with the NFB's position on accessible signals. first is that 
They organized protests against the Access Board recommendations in 2001. 
Secondly, they have been saying that accessible signals make blind 
pedestrians less safe. I've provided links to Braille Monitor articles 
supporting thos claims.

You can see the effect of these actions as well as I can. There are a lot of 
myths about audible signals and almost universal opposition to them on this 
list. If the NFB's position is that it favors accessible signals under 
certain circumstances, its lost on many of the members of this list.

---- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:11 PM
Subject: [nfb-talk] [NFB-talk] Here We GoAgain: Home Makeover-blindcouple in 
OH


> John:
>
> I think Steve is correct in that you do polarize the discussion especially 
> over audible traffic signals.  You indicate that the NFB is against all 
> such signals, and then bring up complicated intersections etc.  We are not 
> against all of them and have acknowledged that in some instances they may 
> well be a good thing.  You conveniently ignore this though.
>
> I would say we are not in favor of having them installed every where, as I 
> suspect you would be.
>
> I really question the wisdom of discussing this yet again -- over the 
> years we have changed our position some, I doubt you have.  We need to 
> disagree and move on.
>
> Dave
>
> At 04:40 PM 12/9/2010, you wrote:
>>John,
>>
>>You and probably some others are intentionally polarizing this issue. 
>>Your example of intersections with unusual configurations is irrelevant, 
>>for example,
>>since we don't oppose them in that situation.  The rest of your premise is 
>>based upon the concept that if the sighted have it then we should as well. 
>>Nobody
>>is saying we should do away with walk lights.  The question is whether 
>>getting the same information to us is necessary and in some cases even 
>>helpful.
>>
>>As an attempt to get a broader handle on issues that confront us, when do 
>>we say we need the same access to something to which sight provides access
>>and when do we say we don't need the same access, just consideration so we 
>>can use alternative approaches to a problem?  If safety is a prime issue 
>>for
>>example, how does one balance the fact that the safest thing we can do is 
>>to stay home.  Don't amusement parks have the right to decide it is not 
>>safe for
>>us to ride without being accompanied by someone who can warn us of sudden 
>>changes as some amusement parks have claimed?  Even if we reach the
>>point that it is easy to install an audible signal at every corner that 
>>has a controlled light, It would, in my opinion, be a mistake to allow 
>>safety to become the
>>sole governing factor for decisions as to what is good for us.  It would 
>>also be unfortunate if we were to loose the ability to figure out 
>>alternative ways of
>>doing things rather than expecting that everywhere we go, someone will 
>>provide an exact copy of the sighted experience because that isn't likely 
>>to
>>happen.  I think this is at least partly why you get such a strong 
>>response to your position on audible signals.  It is unfortunate that all 
>>discussion roads with
>>you seem to lead to an audible intersection, though, because I think you 
>>have made some worthwhile points and generated some good discussion
>>regarding this TV show.  The idea that we only want to be portrayed as 
>>completely self-sufficient including replacing our own plumbing is a topic 
>>that is worth
>>examining.  There are those who feel they could accept the good stuff but 
>>educate at the same time.  I wouldn't be surprised that's what these 
>>people may
>>have thought they could do.  We have to be careful to realize that this 
>>show isn't a documentary.  It is not a news show.  It is, in a manner of 
>>speaking,
>>fiction, a show designed to sell ads and get ratings, to make people cry 
>>and tell themselves how lucky they are.  There's a lot of good stuff to 
>>discuss here
>>without walking down the same old APS path again.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Steve Jacobson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>