[nfb-talk] audible traffic signals

Mike Freeman k7uij at panix.com
Tue Dec 14 04:14:31 UTC 2010


Mike:

I'd love one of those bloo-tooth signals myself although whether I'd have 
the presence of mind to yank out my phone to check it is debatable.  So you 
and I have no argument.

Mike
s
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Hingson" <info at michaelhingson.com>
To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:20 AM
Subject: [nfb-talk] audible traffic signals


>I changed the subject to reflect the current discussion.  This should have 
>been done some time ago.
>
> John and Mike, both of you raise interesting points.
>
> John, the fact is that the existence of ats is a blindness issue, not an 
> engineering one.  The fact that the government through the "Access Board" 
> mandates more audible signals does not make the government nor the board 
> experts either.  The NFB has hundreds if not thousands of rehabilitation 
> experts by any definition.
>
> Audible signals do serve a purpose and the NFB, (although much earlier it 
> took a harder stance), recognizes this.  There are, however, some who 
> claim that these signals should exist everywhere and that they make it 
> safe for blind people to cross the street.  Not true just as it is not 
> true that stop lights do not make it safe for sighted people to cross the 
> street.  In some cases the audible signal does make it easier especially 
> when directionality is concerned.  Having more signals just because some 
> feel it necessary because they have the mistaken belief that these signals 
> make it better for the blind is a serious problem and it helps promulgate 
> incorrect stereotypes about us.  If you reject this without delving a 
> great deal into the philosophy of the NFB then you too are being closed.
>
> Mike, yes we do have our minds made up.  However, we should be open to new 
> concepts and ideas.  If someone comes along and develops a signal which 
> gives us more useful information then we should be open to it.  We did 
> this when audible signals providing directionality of traffic flow came 
> into existence.  For my part, I would love a signal which would transmit a 
> bluetooth signal to my phone indicating to me the name of the street I was 
> approaching, for example.  That same signal could also indicate the signal 
> status.  Is that a good idea?  Perhaps, but it is something to consider.
>
> I do not think we need audible signals everywhere.  We do need to force 
> ourselves to listen to traffic noises, the only reliable way for us to 
> know vehicle movement.  The "compliance board" has not given proper 
> guidelines on providing signals and nor will they so long as some blind 
> people feel they need the crutch of a signal especially where it does not 
> provide truly helpful information.  To make it clear, I do not think that 
> knowing whether a light is red or green due to a sound from a signal is 
> important enough for me to advocate for audible signals since I can get 
> this information more accurately for my purposes from traffic sounds.  We 
> need to teach this more firmly to blind people.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Mike Hingson
>
> 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 9:28 AM
> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Enough already!
>
> 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 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.
>>>> 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 doesn‚?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
> 





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list