[nfb-talk] Traffic Signals

ckrugman at sbcglobal.net ckrugman at sbcglobal.net
Tue Dec 21 08:19:27 UTC 2010


they might be less disruptive if they were installed so as to not have to 
lose one's line of direction after approaching an intersection to use it. We 
have a problem here in Fresno where they're installed with a lack of 
uniformity sometimes as far as ten feet from a corner. We also have a 
problem where the city in attempting to save money installs one rounded curb 
cut rather than separate curb cuts so that an actual curb cut is worthless 
for use to gain a sense of direction. In many instances I lose a light cycle 
just to use the control and then return to a subsequent position for 
crossing an intersection.
Chuck
----- 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 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Traffic Signals


> Mike,
>
> I think my travel skills are fine, and I generally dislike the typical 
> classic chirper.  The modern ones that adapt their volume to that of the 
> traffic on the street, however, don’t pose any kind of safety hazard to 
> me, and I personally don’t care if they’re installed everywhere, so long 
> as it is done in such a way that the costs are controlled reasonably.
>
> I personally care more about when the things are installed than if they 
> are.  Fact is that baby boomers like the blasted things, and therefore we’re 
> going to see a lot more of them regardless of our opinion about them, so I 
> think it is quite fortunate that we’ve had our hands in designing the 
> current generation of these things in such a way as to not place ourselves 
> at risk of being unable to hear the traffic needlessly.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 07:50:49PM -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>Joe:
>>
>>Although there are plenty of folks within NFB that would be happy to 
>>oblige you by opposing APS's as we have in the past, many younger members 
>>(whether because their O&M skills are deficient or they perceive 
>>intersections as becoming more complex) now believe that NFB needs to take 
>>a more nuanced position although I dare say few would go so far as John 
>>wishes us to and blanket favor the blasted things everywhere. (grin)
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
>>To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:30 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
> 





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list