[nfb-talk] Traffic Signals
Joe Orozco
jsorozco at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 23:55:03 UTC 2010
John,
I have tried several times to change over the subject line to something more clear and relevant. Please help in that regard, even if others don't. As to your case, there are aspects of it with which I agree; however, it's clear that the issue is not a high priority for the NFB. It's a waste of your energy to continue to persuade people here that your logic is a good one, but even if you did manage to win the masses over, you need to convince the leadership, and the best way to do this is via a resolution. My sense is that the organization's position will not dramatically change between now and next July. The Driver Challenge is too hot of an item, not to mention preparations for the Youth Slam. I'm not saying the NFB is incapable of tackling more than one project, but what you are proposing is so specific as to make it beyond the realm of possibility, at least from my limited perspective. Even if you were right, how do you go about enforcing such a thing consistently enough to make a real difference? I would propose working with transportation-oriented groups who could take these APS into account as they go about their normal course of work rather than hoping the NFB will act on it.
Best,
Joe
“Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves, some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all.”--Sam Ewing
-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of John Heim
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 6:17 PM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
Criticize me all you like but the bottom line is that I am sitting here
arguing that blind people would be safer having access to
traffic signals
than we are without it. Meannwhile, Mike is arguing that
somehow, I'm less
safe in the presence of a device that gives me that information.
You can't trash talk me out of my opinion because I'm always
going to fall
back on that one basic fact. I merely think it would be good if
just like
the 6 billion or so sighted people on this planet, I got a
signal when the
traffic light changes.
---- Original Message -----
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
> Now Mike, you should really stop being “unethical” with John.
Don't you
> know that his position is “rational” and “logical” and yours
is based on
> “supposition”, “opinion”, and is otherwise “irresponsible”?
>
> Honestly, I don’t know why you’re bothering to continue to
beat this dead
> horse with him. He’s been making the same rants about the same three
> issues for literally years. The issue is black and white to
him, and the
> NFB is black. It is his personal mission to single- handedly
change the
> NFB’s stand by beating us over the head with it until we accept the
> superiority that is John.
>
> The notion that he wouldn’t know his own fallacies if they
slapped him
> upside the head doesn’t seem to matter much.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:35:59AM -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>John:
>>
>>You say below that you take the very "rational" position that audible
>>traffic signals are good for the blind. I say that's not
rationality but
>>a mere expression of opinion and misguided at that. With
respect, you
>>think the same of my position. And I say there's no way to
test either
>>proposition objectively since there are so many variables including
>>expectations and attitudes of the test subjects.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:27, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, would you please take a step back and consider what you just
>>> wrote?
>>>
>>> You are essentially arguing that because you've already
made up your
>>> minds, there's no reason to seek additional facts. You've
just admitted
>>> to the very closed mindedness you have been accusing me of.
I beg you to
>>> rethink this position. I am not a kook no matter what you
may think. I
>>> am merely taking the very rational position that audible
walk signals
>>> are good for blind people. And now, a member of the NFB Board of
>>> Directors tells me that the issue is close because the
issue is closed.
>>>
>>> Well, the issue is NOT closed no matter how much the NFB
would like it
>>> to be. The NFB doesn't set policy for the Federal
government of the
>>> United States. The Access Board continues to recommend more use of
>>> audible signals. And every day in this country, the issue
comes up when
>>> blind people like myself go to the traffic engineer in
their home town
>>> and ask for another audible signal.
>>> Your position is simply unconcionable. You've made up your
mind based
>>> on your own personal preference regardless of the actual
safety of these
>>> devices. You are putting the lives of blind people at risk.
If you are
>>> wrong about audible walk signals, you could be getting blind people
>>> killed.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:00 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>
>>>
>>>> The answer is NO. Traffic engineers aren't experts on blindness;
>>>> neither are most O&M instructors though they would like to think
>>>> otherwise. We are. Besides, why should NFB advocate
wasting time and
>>>> money on studies when we believe we know the answer?
>>>>
>>>> As I implied last evening, I doubt we'll come to a meeting
of minds on
>>>> this one.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Freeman
>>>>
>>>> sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 7:45, "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did the NFB consult traffic engineers and mobility instructors
>>>>> regarding the possibility of developing study methods for
determining
>>>>> the usefulness of audible walk signals? Does the NFB
have any traffic
>>>>> engineers on staff or in any capacity within the organization to
>>>>> address this issue? It seems extremely unlikely to me that its
>>>>> impossible to study whether an APS makes it safer for a blind
>>>>> pedestrian to cross the street. I believe that's the
kind of thing
>>>>> traffic engineers do every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about this.... I'll contact the Institue of Transportation
>>>>> Engineers and ask them to design a study. If they come up with a
>>>>> suitible study methodology, would you help get the NFB to
push for it
>>>>> and perhaps even fund it?
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman"
<k7uij at panix.com>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 9:44 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>> With respect, I doubt that any answer I provide will satisfy you.
>>>>> Your mind
>>>>> is made up which is your right. So, I suppose, are most
of ours. But
>>>>> I'll
>>>>> answer your question in a fashion that probably won't
satisfy either
>>>>> you
>>>>> *or* NFB:
>>>>>
>>>>> WE haven't demanded studies because truly definitive
studies cannot be
>>>>> done.
>>>>> (a) There aren't enough blind people to give a meaningful
statistical
>>>>> result. (b) Ambient sound conditions, weather, the
training of the
>>>>> blind
>>>>> test subjects and the type of APS are all so variable
that coming up
>>>>> with
>>>>> concrete conclusions would be difficult at best. Yes, I know; we
>>>>> demanded
>>>>> studies on quiet cars. But at least in that instance,
one could use a
>>>>> sound
>>>>> meter and gain some sort of objective information on the
ratio of the
>>>>> volume
>>>>> of sound from quiet cars under various circumstances to
that of the
>>>>> ambient
>>>>> environment. With respect to APS's, however, so much is
subjective
>>>>> that it
>>>>> would be tough to come up with meaningful tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, in the case of quiet cars, we are advocating
that a device be
>>>>> *added* whereas with audible pedestrian signals, they're
not normally
>>>>> present so we see little reason to study something which our
>>>>> membership
>>>>> doesn't want and, in large measure, which isn't now
present. In other
>>>>> words, only advocates would gain any advantage from
advocating APS
>>>>> studies.
>>>>> I submit that you wouldn't worry about whether we would advocate
>>>>> studies if
>>>>> you were satisfied with the number of APS's now in existance or
>>>>> planned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, our position is a bit more subtle than outright
opposition.
>>>>> Aside
>>>>> from the expense, I doubt that many would oppose strictly
vibrotactile
>>>>> audible pedestrian signals in that they wouldn't fuzz up
the ambient
>>>>> sound
>>>>> environment. But many not in our movement persist in
believing that
>>>>> APS
>>>>> units can do more than they can, e.g., give directional
clues as to
>>>>> where a
>>>>> blind pedestrian should point himself/herself when crossing an
>>>>> intersection.
>>>>> It has been my experience that there are too many echos
from buildings
>>>>> and
>>>>> the like to make such clues effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose most of us would worry a bit that if even vibrotactile
>>>>> signals
>>>>> were more prevalent than they now are -- but not everywhere -- we
>>>>> might
>>>>> encounter the situation which occurs often in Japan where other
>>>>> pedestrians
>>>>> and law officers have hizzy-fits if blind persons don't
walk in the
>>>>> expected
>>>>> paths, i.e., those with tactile clues in the sidewalks and audible
>>>>> pedestrian signals. Most of us in NFB would bridle at
that sort of
>>>>> expectation; we would want to walk where we damned well
pleased, to
>>>>> the same
>>>>> extent that other pedestrians can. But that's a rather abstract
>>>>> concept to
>>>>> get across to peple, just as is the concept that
acceptance of special
>>>>> blindness privileges causes lessend expectations of the
blind as a
>>>>> whole,
>>>>> thus decreasing opportunities to participate in society
as first-class
>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I've said probably more than the subject warrants.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim"
<john at johnheim.net>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 4:46 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe I have claimed I'm in the right. Instead,
I've been
>>>>> saying
>>>>> that I can't understand why people can't see how
illogical the NFB
>>>>> position
>>>>> is. But there's a huge difference between those 2 statements.
>>>>> Admittedly,
>>>>> its a very subtle difference but its very, very
important. The way I
>>>>> put it
>>>>> is more or less a challenge to anyone to explain the NFB
position to
>>>>> me. My
>>>>> post about the NFB position yesterday was chock full of
questions. If
>>>>> the
>>>>> NFB thinks APS's are dangerous, why isn't it fighting for
studies to
>>>>> be
>>>>> done?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Mike, you are probably in a better position to answer that
>>>>> question than
>>>>> anybody. Where in the world did the NFB get the idea
that APSs make
>>>>> blind
>>>>> pedestrians less safe? The NFB has passed resolutions
critical of the
>>>>> Access
>>>>> Board for wanting to expand the use of APSs without proof
that they
>>>>> work.
>>>>> But hasn't the NFB done the same thing only in
reverse?And if the NFB
>>>>> is
>>>>> unconvinced that APSs make blind pedestrians safer, wouldn't the
>>>>> responsible
>>>>> thing to do have been to demand proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Freeman"
<k7uij at panix.com>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 6:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a fair number of us who *do* oppose your
position. Simply
>>>>> claiming that you are in the right won't cut it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish you the best of luck in reforming the best of us -- and in
>>>>> finding
>>>>> the shekels to pay for APS's everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peace!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim"
<john at johnheim.net>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 3:36 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to plant the seed of doubt among the more
rational members
>>>>> of
>>>>> this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you're right. I have pretty much made up my mind to
finally join
>>>>> the
>>>>> NFB. For a long time I said to myself, why should I have
to waste my
>>>>> time
>>>>> and money straightening out the NFB? But I really think
the only way
>>>>> we're
>>>>> going to settle the APS issue is if some research is
done. And I can't
>>>>> see
>>>>> it getting done if I don't get it going.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews"
<dandrews at visi.com>
>>>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:32 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are trying to get the NFB to change its
>>>>> position you won't do it through this list -- and you are
wasting your
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> At 01:34 PM 12/11/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>> I've never baited anyone on this list. I'm not trolling.
I don't care
>>>>>> what people think of me and it doesn't matter a flying
fig if the
>>>>>> people on this list find me annoying. The NFB has done many very
>>>>>> destructive things over the past ten years. It deserves
criticism for
>>>>>> its actions on accessible pedestrian signals, accessible
money, and
>>>>>> DVS. When the NFB engages in these issues, it has to expect
>>>>>> criticism. These are huge issues affecting millions of
people and I
>>>>>> shouldn't be expected to worry about whether I'm
annoying Ray and
>>>>>> Joseph. Lives are at stake here. I think the NFB can tolerate a
>>>>>> little criticism. Freedom of speech isn't just for
those we agree
>>>>>> with. By no means do I expect anyone to listen to me.
You have every
>>>>>> right to ignore me. But you don't have the right, ethically, to
>>>>>> silence me. I'm not saying you can't silence me. I'm saying that
>>>>>> would be wrong. It would be unfair and unethical. In
fact, you may
>>>>>> not have the right to silence me. I ran this past a
lawyer one time
>>>>>> and he said
>>that since the NFB accepts money from the federal
government, my right to
>>post here may be protected under the First Amendment. He
didn't seem to
>>sure but lets not bother finding out. On Dec 10, 2010, at
11:33 PM, David
>>Andrews wrote: > Joseph, I am not going to throw you off this
list because
>>of what > you said. I also think that John fully know what
most people
>>think > of him -- and his ideas. > > I have only jumped on
people for
>>personal attacks, not for stating > their opinion, as long
as that isn't
>>personal. > > I am not convinced that John is intentionally
baiting the
>>list, > although I acknowledge that he may be and I will
think about what
>>>>>> > you say. > > I will also say that I am getting pretty
tired of this
>>>>>> > > > whole
>>>>>> thing, > John himself says that we have been having
this discussion
>>>>>> for over > two years and no one's mind has been changed.
>>>>>> Consequently I may
>>>>>> > declare the subject off topic if and until there are
new > > >
>>>>>> > developments.
>>>>>> It doesn't do anyone any good to keep rehashing the > same old
>>>>>> ground and making each other mad. We certainly won't
come > to any
>>>>>> understanding that way. > > Dave > > At 05:51 PM 12/10/2010, you
>>>>>> wrote: >> I‚?Tm saying let him take his lumps like a
man. He‚?Ts
>>>>>> demonstrated >> time and again that he can dish it out,
but he seems
>>>>>> totally >> unwilling to take what he gets in return. I don‚?Tt
>>>>>> presume to know >> your motives for enabling him, but
enabling him
>>>>>> is what you‚?Tre >> doing, and the whole list is paying
the price
>>>>>> for it. I‚?Tm not >> suggesting someone else should
take the job,
>>>>>> nor am I suggesting >> that you are somehow
anti-Federationist. HE
>>>>>> has demonstrated >> himself to be anti-Federationist,
however, on
>>>>>> numerous occasions. >> That‚?Ts fine, until it begins
to disrupt
>>>>>> the list for any other >> purpose than his anti-federationist
>>>>>> screed. We‚?Tre at that point >> now. I‚?Tve seen more
than one
>>>>>> message from you threatening a >> respected
federationist with remov
>>al from the lists for being >> baited into the little game.
Yet always,
>>the instigator is >> permitted to continue without consequence.
>>Ultimately, the things >> we do have consequences. It‚?Ts
the natural
>>order of things. Yet >> he has been shielded from the social
>>consequences of constantly >> going out of his way to offend others,
>>because any time someone >> tells him where to stick it, you
tell them
>>that they need to stop >> or be removed. Let me be plain
about it: John
>>Heim is a parasite. >> He is a whiny and bitter little twerp who
>>believes the world OWES >> him something because he is blind. He is
>>fundamentally opposed to >> the NFB because our first
response to people
>>like him is simple: >> GET OVER YOURSELF. You deserve
nothing special
>>because you are >> blind. You get the same chance everybody
else gets.
>>If you don‚?Tt >> get the same chance, then the NFB is here
to fight for
>>equality. >> But that seems not to be good enough. He
seems to demand
>>more. >> And if the NFB d
>>oesn‚?Tt agree, he demands that we change our >> policies
and positions
>>to accommodate his viewpoint. If that >> warrants removal
from this list,
>>then remove me. And then remove >> anyone else who thinks
so. Who‚?Td be
>>left, I wonder? But I for >> one am tired of playing this infantile
>>little game with the man. >> If his delicate ego cannot
stand to know
>>that there are some who >> think so little of him, then
it‚?Ts time for
>>him to learn that the >> world is a hard place, that a man
is judged by
>>his actions and his >> principles, and that outside of his sheltered
>>little world, nobody >> really cares if he is offended by
what they think
>>of him. God knows >> there are those on this list who think
just about as
>>much of me, >> and quote possibly I‚?Tve added to that list.
I promise
>>I‚?Tm not >> going to be deeply offended if someone says so.
Joseph On
>>Thu, Dec >> 09, 2010 at 09:58:44PM -0600, David Andrews wrote: >So
>>Joseph, >> let's be clear. What exactly are you saying -- or what >
>>are you >> asking for. > >Do you think I am a bad Federationist,
>>disloyal, not >> a friend to the >cause -- or what? What
would you do --
>>have me >> removed. If you want >to do that, go ahead and
try -- go to
>>Dr. >> Maurer and take your shot. > >I call each thread as I
see it. I
>> >> have not "blindly" no pun intended >defend the person to
whom you >>
>>speak about. Unlike yourself, and many >others, I am not
convinced >>
>>that he does what he does to provoke us. >I think he genuinely >>
>>believes what he says, and knows he is right, >and can't
understand >>
>>how or why we don't understand it. > >While I don't always
agree >> with
>>him, he has the right to not be >attacked personally, no >>
matter his
>>affiliation. If it were him who >were doing the >> personal
attacks, I
>>would jump on him too -- and I >believe I have >> in the past.
>>>>>> > >You are making some pretty broad generalizations, >>
and I just >
>>>>>> > > >don't
>>>>>> >think it holds up. Generally a discussion >> degrades
to the point
>>>>>> > > >where several people go to far and make >>
personal attacks. I
>>>>>> >reply >to >one or two -- but it is really meant >> for
everybody.
>>>>>> >So while >you >might choose to believe I am picking >> on
>>>>>> >Federationists, >because that >is what I do, it couldn't be >>
>>>>>> >farther from the truth. > > >David >Andrews,
>>>>>> Moderator > >At 02:05 PM >> 12/9/2010, you wrote:
>>David, Have you
>>>>>> noticed the trend of >> discussions on this list over
>>the past
>>>>>> couple of years or so? I >> have, and I√¢¬?¬Tve double-checked
>>>>>> >>the archives to be sure I >> wasn√¢¬?¬Tt reading
something into
>>>>>> it. The >>pattern is that every >> large discussion seems to
>>>>>> involve one group >>of people arguing for >> the ability of the
>>>>>> blind, for the NFB, its >>policies, and its >>
mission. The other
>>>>>> side of the discussion is >>generally one >> person.
The pattern of
>>>>>> the discussion is that the >>individual says >> something
>>>>>> incendiary against one of the above, >>something I have
a >> hard
>>>>>> time accepting is unintentional at this >>point. The group >>
>>>>>> reacts, some with distaste, some with >>disagreement,
and some with
>>>>>> >> anger. This last group has taken the >>bait, if
you will. This
>>>>>> is >> where you come in, because inevitably >>the individual
>>>>>> insists that >> he is √¢¬?¬ooffended√¢¬?¬ù and √¢¬?¬obaselessly
>> >>attacked√¢¬?¬ù for >> his views. You defend him, going
so far as to
>> >> >>threaten to ban >> longtime regulars and well-respected
>> >> >>federationists. The >> individual takes this as a
sign that he may
>> >> >>stand behind you, and >> continue to insult not only
us few here,
>> >>but >>everything this >> organization stands for. The
fact that there
>> >>is not >>a single >> person on this list that does not
know of whom I
>> >>speak is >> >>evidence in and of itself. It√¢¬?¬Ts really got to
>> >>stop. Those >> who >>would not be flamed should not make
a habit of
>> >>setting >> fires. >>Having set a few myself over the
years, it comes
>> >>with the >> >>territory. Joseph On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at
>> >>10:19:24PM -0600, David >> >>Andrews wrote: >This is a
personal attack
>> >>and is totally >>
>>>>>> >>unacceptable. You can >disagree with someone -- but
please stick
>>>>>> >> >> >>to >>facts, not speculation >etc. > >David
Andrews, Moderator
>>>>>> >> > >At >> >> 03:09 >>PM > >
>>>>>> >> >_________________________________________ ______ >> >> >nfb-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list