[nfb-talk] Traffic Signals

Brian Miller brian-r-miller at uiowa.edu
Tue Dec 14 00:43:20 UTC 2010


Hi Michael,

Your comment reminds me of what I learned in driver's Ed, which I took in
high school despite my blindness... Right of way is yours only when it is
yielded to you.  The traffic signal indicates the right of way, but the
traffic is what yields it to you.  

Nevertheless, we all act on the assumption that traffic will obey the
signals, so the signal is more than just an indicator, it is supposed to
dictate the flow of traffic.  We all know this does not always happen, but
it does most of the time, or there would be even more accidents than there
all ready are.  So I assert the signal is more than you credit it, but
perhapws less than others grant it.  

The real trick is when there is no traffic flow, or when the flow is very
sporadic.  Then the signal I argue takes on more importance as the traffic
flow is not a reliable indicator of when one should cross.  

Brian M





-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Hingson
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:19 PM
To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals

Ah, but it isn't the signal which indicates that a sighted person should
cross, but rather traffic flow.  The signal is simply an indicator which
tells a person that it should be their turn.  So, it doesn't give us more
information at all unless other factors such as directionality are involved.

The Michael Hingson Group, INC.
 "Speaking with Vision"
Michael Hingson, President
(415) 827-4084
info at michaelhingson.com
To learn more about my upcoming book, speaking topics and speaking
availability please visit www.michaelhingson.com Thunder Dog is now
available for early ordering on Amazon!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Dog-Blind-Triumph-Ground/dp/140020304X/ref=sr_
1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289090352&sr=1-3


for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit:
http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com

-----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 1:11 PM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals

Steve, all an APS does is provide exactly the same information to a blind
person as sighted people get with a visible walk signal. In general, you're
in favor of blind people getting the same services from our government as
sighted people aren't you? I would hope you'd be in favor of that especially

when it comes to safety. The Access Board is merely recommending giving
blind people access to stop lights, the same information millions of people
around the world use to cross streets every single day.

You don't see people deliberately closing their eyes to cross the street,
depending on their hearing and ignoring stop lights. That would be crazy.
Sometimes you see people ignoring stop lights and depending on their vision
to cross the street. But that's illegal and with good reason.  Its too
dangerous.

I will certainly grant you that safety isn't the only concern. But
certainly, safety mush be the number one priority. There would have to be a
huge drawback in other ways for safety to not be the number one
consideration. But we can't tell that unless we know how much safer, if at
all, audible signals make blind pedestrians.


----- Original Message -----

From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals


John,

Speaking for myself, I reject the notion that safety considerations are the
only basis upon which the acceptability or need of APS's is determined.
Therefore,
even if a study were to unquestionably be able to prove that there was an
increase in safety, I would have to weigh it against other factors.  I think

most
would agree that my safety would be increased far more if I never left my
house, but that does not mean I'm going to follow that road.

Further, it seems to me that if someone advocates a new approach such as an
APS, it is their responsibility to prove its value.  The assumption all
along here is that it represents an improvement and that it is up to us,
whether we pay for a study or not, to prove the assumption is false.  There
is a certain arrogance that says "My position is right and it is your
obligation to prove

me wrong," which is really what you are saying.  I believe that collective
experience has some validity in forming an opinion and question what sort of

a study would provide the kind of results that would be meaningful.  For
example, when looking at our current resolutions, for a study to be
meaningful it would have to evaluate the safety only on intersections where
we feel an APS is not required since it would be irrelevant to measure the
safety where

we accept that an APS might be useful.  .  This is truly unlikely to yield
meaningful results given that it would be occurring on those intersections
that are the safest for us to navigate.  This is therefore really not likely

to prove
anything conclusive.  It seems to me that our ability to examine our own
positions and adjust them as circumstances change is far more reasonable
than those who say we need an APS at every controlled intersection
regardless of the need or the cost.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:13:05 -0600, John Heim wrote:

>IMO, the NFB policy should not determine which facts they consider. The 
>NFB should consider all the facts and then determine the policy.  It 
>doesn't make sense to argue that since the NFB has already made up its 
>collective mind, it shouldn't push for a study. It shouldn't have made 
>up its mind until the issue was studied.

>Also,  I wasn't suggesting the NFB fund the study itself. Although, I 
>would find that preferable to the current position.  But I would hope 
>the Access Board would be able to get the government to commission the 
>study. This might be a good opportunity to work with the ACB too. Go to 
>the ACB and ask them to help work on the Access Board to get a study
commissioned on ASPs.
>They'd be shocked but they'd almost have to say yes.

>I'm not volunteering anyone else to do this. I'll do it. Appoint me to 
>the APS Oversight committee or whatever . I'll write the letters and/or 
>resolutions. Whatever it takes.

>Lets get this settled... Do audible signals make blind pedestrians 
>safer or not? Lets not rely on personal preferences.  This is too 
>important. Lives are at stake.

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
>To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:30 AM
>Subject: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals


>My thinking is that if the NFB is not interested in supporting the use 
>of audible signals, it should not spend the money on studies.  But, nor 
>should money be spent on opposing it either.  A simple stated position 
>should suffice.  If, however, its position on signals is as blurry as 
>recent posts lead me to believe, it should first start by getting off 
>the fence and making up its mind definitively one way or the other.

>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 10:45 AM
>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!

>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: >>
>Iâ?Tm saying
>>let him take his lumps like a man.  Heâ?Ts demonstrated  >>
>time and again
>>that he can dish it out, but he seems totally  >> unwilling to
>take what he
>>gets in return.  I donâ?Tt presume to know  >> your motives
>for enabling
>>him, but enabling him is what youâ?Tre  >> doing, and the
>whole list is
>>paying the price for it. Iâ?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.   >> Thatâ?Ts fine, until it begins to
>disrupt the list
>>for any other  >> purpose than his anti-federationist screed.
>Weâ?Tre at
>>that point  >> now. Iâ?Tve seen more than one message from you
>threatening
>>a  >> respected federationist with removal 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.  Itâ?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 donâ?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 doesnâ?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.  Whoâ?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 itâ?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 Iâ?Tve
>>added to that list.  I promise Iâ?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 IâÂ?ÂTve double-checked >>the
>archives to be
>>sure I  >> wasnâÂ?ÂTt 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 
>>âÂ?ÂooffendedâÂ? and âÂ?Âobaselessly >>attackedâÂ? 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.
>ItâÂ?ÂTs 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