[nfb-talk] Traffic Signals

Mike Freeman k7uij at panix.com
Tue Dec 14 03:59:46 UTC 2010


John:

First, your message below implies that an objective study can be done.  AS I 
say elsewhere, I dispute that assumption.

Second, while placement of traffic signals (audible or otherwise) is partly 
a matter of engineering judgment, it is equally a political matter -- the 
neighborhoods and intersections where there are demonstrated hazards get 
trafic signals.  This is the case with audible traffic signals also.  It's a 
matter of politics as much as anything else.  So NFB has a perfect right to 
take the position it does, just as ACB has a perfet right to take the 
position *it* does.

Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Heim" <john at johnheim.net>
To: <jsorozco at gmail.com>; "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals


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 





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list