[nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals
John G. Heim
jheim at math.wisc.edu
Thu May 27 16:19:48 UTC 2010
Steve, you'll have to be more specific in your criticism of the links I've
provided. It is obviously impossible for me to respond to this vague
criticism that the links I provided don't document my claims.
And it is absolutely true that no documentation of the claim that audible
walk signals are hazardous to the blind has been presented on this list or
in the Braille monitor articles I have sighted. If I had seen any
documentation of that claim, I'd have mentioned it. But I can't because that
claim, made many times on this list and in the Braille Monitor has never
been documented as far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, the assertion
that audible walk signals are hazardous to blind pedestrians is nothing but
supposition.
The only way opposition to audible walk signals makes sense is if they
somehow do make it harder for blind people to cross streets. Otherwise, it
would obviously be desirable to give blind people access to the same
information provided to sighted people for their safety when crossing
streets. You're not going to deny the usefulness of walk signals in genearl
are you? But unlike the claim that audible walk signals are hazardous, a
great deal of research has gone into finding out which audible signals are
easiest to hear, interfere with traffic noise the least, and are most easily
localized by blind people. Some of the studies sited in the article on the
Access Board web site go back to the early 1980s.
The reasoning behind the NFB's opposition to audible walk signals would deny
the usefullness of visible walk signals. You think that cities around the
globe are putting these things up on a whim? Yes, of course blind people can
cross streets without audible walk signals. But sighted people can cross
streets without visible walk signals. Its just that we're all safer when we
have a walk signal. So unless people can document the claim that audible
signals make blind people less safe, it is perfectly reasonable for me not
to give any credibility to that claim.
You say its easy for me to claim that all the facts are on my side. Well,
its easy for you to deny it. But it doesn't even matter because anyone can
research this issue for themselves. You do't have to take my word for these
things. You have access to google don't you?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals
> John,
>
> First, I took some time to read one of the links you provided in an
> earlier note. It has a lot of useful information, but it
> really does not address my concerns, nor does it address most concerns
> that I have seen expressed here. It is easy to
> provide links in a note and then chastize those who don't, but in reality,
> your links don't really address the issues that
> have generally been raised here. Statements such as "People who are
> informed agree with me" illustrate part of the
> problem that I have with the methods used in your arguments. You define
> your opinion as "informed" and "correct" and
> any disagreeing viewpoint as "Wrong-headed" or misinformed. I believe
> that all of us need to be careful making
> statements that are unsubstantiated, though, and where documentation
> supports a position, it is a good thing.
> However, we all believe that we are right and the other guy is wrong.
>
> Let's start with values. I'm not sure that the NFB has values in the
> strict sense that you have described them, but where
> did you get the idea that only religious organizations have values. Every
> time I get an appraisal from my employer who is
> a large private corporation, I am measured on whether I am living the
> corporate values. It is common or organizations to
> have values that define them, and expect employees and members to live
> those values. .
>
> Should any organization impose its values? I think this is a tricky
> question because it depends what you see as the
> baseline. Since the services we receive, including Accessible Pedestrian
> Signals, are made available from public funds,
> there are going to be values imposed. If not by the NFB or ACB, they will
> be imposed by congress or the Department of
> Transportation. The value Congress imposes may be Democratic now but
> could be Republican in a couple of years.
> The question is not whether anyone has the right to impose values, but who
> will impose them. At some level, people will
> want to know if the money they are spending for an APS that someone has
> requested is truly necessary, even if they are
> required by law. For this reason, anything that is publically funded,
> APS's, services blind persons receive, SSI payments,
> even SSDI payments, bring with them expectations and values to which those
> who receive the benefits have to
> conform in some way. You also bring values into the discussion and you
> seek to impose your values every bit as much
> as does anyone else, but in your mind, you have defined your values as
> being correct while others are not so you see
> your values as statements of fact. You do a pretty good job of backing up
> your arguments and you deserve credit for
> that, but you are so certain of your arguments that you elevate them
> abouve the arguments of others without
> considering what is happening. Let me take an example.
>
> You seem to be making the case that APS's increase safety. You then are
> very critical of positions we have taken as
> only benefiting the super blind. I contend that this position, whether
> intentional or not, draws focus away from a fairly
> major gap in your reasoning. If you are truly concerned about safety, you
> would need to consider, in addition to the
> characteristics of the APS, whether there is an increased risk assumed by
> a poor traveler who cannot discern traffic
> patterns as he or she crosses a street. It is not my contention that such
> a person should not travel, but you don't factor
> that into your arguments anywhere that I can see. Rather than saying that
> such a person should not travel, it is my
> contention that each of us needs to do what we can to decrease risk by
> getting good travel training. Certainly we are
> not all going to achieve the same level of skill, but we will achieve more
> skill with training than without it. I can certainly
> envision cases where the addition of an APS will increase safety.
> However, the training one gets also affects their
> safety, probably more than does the existence of an APS. However, I doubt
> there has been research on that so I don't
> have any links. Safety is dependent on many factors, not just one and
> there is an interrelationship.
>
> is the real question why do I oppose APS or why am I against safety? I
> think you ask that question because it is to your
> advantage to ask questions such that they benefit your position and then
> supply the answers yourself in such a way that
> they also fit your position. I am not against APS categorically and
> neither is the NFB according to our resolutions. I am
> also not against improving safety for persons crossing streets, but I want
> to see that people are safe crossing parking
> lots as well. I frankly think we need to learn more about the range of
> achieveable travel skills that exist after good
> quality training. We also need to consider how multiple disabilities
> affect travel skills. If you are truly concerned about
> safety, you have to look at the entire picture, not just the smaller part
> that happens to be of immediate concern.
>
> In reality, though, much of the energy that is expended here is not about
> accessible pedestrian signals or accessible
> money. Much of the energy is really about what we need from society and
> what do we expect without thinking about
> the need. How do you decide what should be provided as a right and
> without any justification? Most of us probably
> agree that education fits into this area. Most of us have ideas of things
> we'd like to have but realize it is not a right. To
> me, it is reasonable to think about the actual need for APS's, even if it
> were decided they were needed everywhere. To
> say that if the information is provided to the sighted it should be
> provided to us isn't something that I buy regarding
> stoplights. Yet, I suppose it really is my position regarding education,
> for example. I am willing to entertain the notion
> that my line might be artificial even though I do not think it is. Where
> do you draw the line?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:17:11 -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
>
>>Super Blind Guy is my term for the person the NFB wants you to be. This
>>is
>>the guy for whom blindness has become a mere nuisance.
>
>>Its truely ironic that I am being criticized on this list for not being
>>Super Blind Guy. Earlier this month, I was thuroughly trashed on the acb-l
>>list for insisting that everyone should try to be Super Blind Guy. IMO,
>>that
>>is the goal every blind person should set. But I don't think that should
>>be
>>an official policy of the NFB because they have no right to tell people
>>how
>>to be blind.
>
>>Nobody has a right to tell anyone else how to deal with their disability.
>>I
>>happen to agree that with proper training blindness can be reduced to a
>>mere
>>nuisance. But I bristle at the NFB telling me that I should feel that way.
>>That's a personal value that nobody has a right to determine on my behalf.
>>I happen to agree with that value judgement but I would never tell anyone
>>that they have to share my values. I think they should share them but that
>>decision *must* be left up to the individual.
>
>>The NFB has an ethical responsibility to represent those who do not share
>>its values. In fact, the NFB should not even *have* values. The NFB is
>>not
>>a church or a religious organization. It should not be dictating values.
>>That is inappropriate and unethical.
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jim Marks" <blind.grizzly at gmail.com>
>>To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:48 AM
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian
>>signals
>
>
>>> It's OK to be blind. And it's sure a lot more functional to develop
>>> solid
>>> blindness skills. Blind people can either fix our environments or we
>>> can
>>> learn how to be good at being blind. Most of us blend the two options
>>> for
>>> the best effect. APS give us information about our environment. They
>>> don't
>>> affect the alternative techniques of blindness, though.
>>>
>>> What does this common sense approach have to do with blaming the victim
>>> and
>>> being super blind? Also, what does being super blind mean? Aren't we
>>> talking about function here? I thought the re-print of the speech was
>>> pretty good stuff. When I read it, I thought that we are starting to
>>> turn
>>> a
>>> corner to a better understanding of APS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Jim Marks
>>> blind.grizzly at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of John G. Heim
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:16 AM
>>> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian
>>> signals
>>>
>>> My mobility skills are not at issue here. The fact is that not everyone
>>> has
>>> perfect mobility skills and everyone can make a mistake. I've already
>>> posted
>>>
>>> a link to an article about the ways that audible walk signals help blind
>>> people deal with confusing and difficult situations. Did you read that
>>> article?
>>>
>>> In fact, my mobility skills are just fine. But that's not the point. I
>>> have
>>> had access to some of the best mobility training in the world via the
>>> Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Guide dogs for the Blind. But not
>>> everyone has that access. And even if they do, everyone makes mistakes.
>>> Audible walk signlas help blind people avoid mistakes.
>>>
>>> Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. Blaming the blind person for
>>> their
>>> problems is not a solution. But all too often, that is exactly what the
>>> NFB
>>> does. Its a direct result of the NFB philosophy that blindness can be
>>> reduced to a mere nuiscance. Well, that may or may not even be true. But
>>> the
>>>
>>> main problem with it is that it inevitably results in blaming the
>>> victim.
>>> If
>>>
>>> you can't cross a street without audible walk signals, that's your
>>> problem.
>>> If you're not Super Blind Guy (or Gal), the NFB has no use for you.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at att.net>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian
>>> signals
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should get some travel training, I don't like them because
>>> when
>>> the dam things are makeing all the raket, I can't hear the traffic.
>>> This is a fact of life, people don't always stop for a red light, I want
>>> to
>>> be able to hear them.
>>> Maybe someone on the list can explain to you how blind people are able
>>> to
>>> tell when the light is ready for you to cross.
>>> These things are where sighted people get there negative stereotypes
>>> from.
>>> They think that we can't do anything for our selves, like open a door,
>>> cross
>>> the street, find a seat, carry our food, take care of our kids, and much
>>> more.
>>> Its guys like you that hold us back.
>>> That's just one reason that they wont hire us, they think we can't do
>>> anything.
>>> I know someone else like you, he wont even go to the store or to the
>>> bank
>>> by
>>> him self, and he knows how to, but wants everyone to know that blind
>>> people
>>> are stupid and helpless.
>>> Maybe you should get rehab to send you to one of the NFB training
>>> centers.
>>> I whent to the Colorado center myself, they are good, I'm not shore
>>> about
>>> the other 2, but I'm shore they are good as well.
>>> They can show you how to tell when the light changes, and when and how
>>> to
>>> cross the street
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian
>>> signals
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, of course I need audible walk signals.
>>>
>>> I hope you're not trying to imply that I shouldn't need audible walk
>>> signals. By that logic, visible walk signals are also unnecessary. That
>>> would imply that cities all over the globe have wasted millions of
>>> dollars
>>> installing visible walk signals for sighted people. If you don't
>>> believe
>>> that visible walk signals help sighted people cross streets more safely,
>>> you
>>> should contact the traffic engineers in your city and they will set you
>>> straight. Just as visible signals help sighted people cross streets more
>>> safely, audible signals help blind pedestrians cross streets more
>>> safely.
>>>
>>> Here is a link to some information about audible walk signals helping
>>> blind
>>> people cross streets more safely:
>>> http://www.apsguide.org/appendix_c_research.cfm
>>>
>>> If you have any reason to believe that audible signals do not help blind
>>> pedestrians cross the street more safely, I would like to see it. It
>>> certainly seems counter-intuitive to say that audible signals would not
>>> make
>>> blind pedestrians safer. If you're going to say that, you are obligated
>>> to
>>> provide some evidence. The NFB should not be organizing protests
>>> against
>>> something that by all appearances would make blind pedestrians safer
>>> unless
>>> they have some compelling reason to believe it doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, the NFB should stop playing games with the lives of blind
>>> pedestrians.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dewey Bradley" <dewey.bradley at att.net>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian
>>> signals
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think the NFB should change its stance?
>>> Do you need them?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:51 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian
>>> signals
>>>
>>>
>>> As recently as 2003, the NFB organized protests against audible walk
>>> signals:
>>> http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm03/bm0301/bm030103.htm
>>>
>>> Personally, I feel there is no more important issue on which the NFB
>>> needs
>>> to change its stance. This is about as wrong-headed as an organization
>>> can
>>> be.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Florida Association
>>> of
>>> Guide Dog Users" <flagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NAGDU Mailing List,the National
>>> Association of Guide Dog Users" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>; "NFB Florida"
>>> <nfbf-l at nfbnet.org>; "NFB of Florida parents" <fopbc at nfbnet.org>
>>> Cc: "Dianne Ketts" <dianne at ketts.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 8:20 AM
>>> Subject: [nfb-talk] Explanation of traffic lights and pedestrian signals
>>>
>>>
>>> The FCB is streaming their convention and I am currently listening to a
>>> speech by an O & M instructor, Dianne Ketts, who happens to work for the
>>> Lighthouse of Central Florida. I know Dianne personally and find her to
>>> be
>>> a
>>> very progressive-thinking O & M instructor. She is explaining the
>>> various
>>> kinds of Pedestrian signals, traffic lights and the use of audible
>>> pedestrian signals. She particularly emphasizes that you need proper O &
>>> M
>>> techniques and training whether or not the audible indications exists,
>>> saying that the audible signal only indicates that the walk signal is
>>> showing, not that it is safe to cross the street. I find her outlook
>>> refreshing and the lecture fascinating. It is interesting to learn how
>>> the
>>> various lights are actuated as well as how the audible pedestrian
>>> signals
>>> work. I think it would be of great use to have an explanation of these
>>> various signals and the technology regarding APS'S AT A FUTURE NFBF
>>> CONVENTION AND EVEN POSSIBLY AT AN NFB national convention. I really
>>> believe
>>> with traffic patterns changing, with more and more cars on our roadways,
>>> this information is useful for us to know. She says, for example, that
>>> whether there is an APS or not, there are some intersections where it is
>>> imperative for people to find the push-button. Really interesting!
>>>
>>> Sherri
>>>
>>>
>>> Sherri Brun, NFBF Secretary and NewslineR Coordinator
>>> E-mail: flmom2006 at gmail.com
>>> http://www.nfbnewslineonline.org
>>> http://www.nfbflorida.org
>>>
>>> "Don't give up something you want forever for something you want only
>>> for
>>> now!"
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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