[blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

[Prows, Bennett (HHS/OCR)]

Hello,

Making fun of concerns about the quietness of cars isn't really
thoughtful.  In fact, I worry about my sighted children being hit by a
quiet car while attempting to "stop, look and *listen.)  I was almost
hit by a bicyclist one time, because I didn't hear the wheels.  There
may be technological ways to get information that  a car is approaching,
etc, but not everyone can have access to them.  And, how reliable are
they.

Anyway, think about crossing the street when cars don't make a sound
loud enough to be heard, and it gives me pause, though I do still cross,
even at unmarked crossings.

To bring a bit of analysis here, which car company is going to be sued
first for product liability, when a blind person gets hit because he/she
couldn't hear the car?  The organization of the blind has been quite
public about the problem, and yet the companies and engineers are not
moving forward on this issue that I am aware.  So, it could be argued
that they knew or should have known that someone would be hurt by the
product.

Probably a weak legal argument, but mine nevertheless.  Hope I never
have to use it in my own personal case.  (grin.)


/s/

Bennett Prows
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of albert griffith
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:08 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

Can you imagine the headline on the front page of say The New York
Times;
BLIND ORGANIZATIONS RESIST DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH BREED AUTOMOBILE
TECHNOWLEDGY
BECAUSE IT WON'T MAKE ENOUGH NOISE!  What a Hoot!  This is absurd!  If
these
cars do become too quiet there are a number of solutions already on the
market. 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On
Behalf Of Stephanie Ortoleva
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:52 AM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List; blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] blindlaw Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

My heavens, I am amazed.  I must say that the posts below range from the
rediculous to the absurd.  Describing global warming as a fantacy is
equivalent to the austridge burying her or his head in the sand, as
another
colleague says.

Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it
would
have been better had we started 10 years ago.  I never can understand
why
people just don't seem to get science over mythology.

As blind people, we have learned to adjust to the change from the horse
and
buggy to the car and I'd guess we can develop techniques to address this
one
too.

Stephanie


At 04:18 PM 2/25/2008, ger sadlier wrote:
>On re reading my previous e-mail, it may have been a bit 'strongly'
worded.
>
>   OI don't retract any of the centiments however and I agree with 
> every word of Chris's e-mail.
>
>   Even if we were wrong about global warming, I would argue that its 
> better on the side that will save the planit, not that which puts our 
> planit in danger.
>
>   Finally regarding the high-bread car, is their a clear and present 
> danger of the production of a vehicle which puts life at risk, 
> presumably through being noiseless?
>
>   Unless such is likely in the near future, regulating against the 
> possibility is like boulting the stable door before the horse has even

> had the chance to come in.
>
>   Perhaps, in the U.S. there is such a threat though, in which case 
> good luck.
>
>   Gerard
>
>
>blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote:
>   Send blindlaw mailing list submissions to blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
>blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
>than "Re: Contents of blindlaw digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: 'environmental zelots' (ger sadlier) 2. Re: 'environmental 
>zealots' (David Andrews) 3. Re: 'environmental zealots' (Russell J. 
>Thomas, Jr.) 4. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Craig Borne) 5. Re: 
>'environmental zelots' (Mike Freeman) 6. Re: 'environmental zelots' 
>(Chris Danielsen) 7. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Russell J. Thomas, 
>Jr.) 8. Re: 'environmental zelots' (Chris Danielsen)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:28:49 +0000 (GMT)
>From: ger sadlier
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Message-ID: <290021.77768.qm at web26004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the
absurd.
>
>Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge 
>burying his head in the sand.
>
>Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it 
>would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
>
>In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people 
>are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S.
>public are unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
>(no pun intended given the list.)
>
>As to the 'quiet car'
>1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
>2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
>leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
>
>implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
>blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that 
>factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.
>
>It really is off the wall.
>
>G
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends 
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>-------------- next part -------------- Hi, I must say that the posts 
>below range from the rediculous to the absurd.
>?
>Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge 
>burying his head in the sand.
>?
>Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it 
>would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
>?
>In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people 
>are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S.
>public are unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
>(no pun intended given the list.)
>?
>As to the 'quiet car'
>1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
>2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
>leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
>?
>implying?that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
>blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that 
>factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.
>?
>It really is off the wall.
>?
>G
>Send instant messages to your online friends 
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:34:40 -0600
>From: David Andrews
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zealots'
>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Most of the public sees it, it is our current bone-headed 
>administration that is the problem.
>
>Dave
>
>At 12:28 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:
> >Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the
absurd.
> >
> > Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the 
> > austridge burying his head in the sand.
> >
> > Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though 
> > it would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
> >
> > In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that 
> > people are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S.
> > public are unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
> > (no pun intended given the list.)
> >
> > As to the 'quiet car'
> > 1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a 
> > mennace
> > 2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
> > leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
> >
> > implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
> > blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that

> > factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its 
> > existence.
> >
> > It really is off the wall.
> >
> > G
> >
> > Send instant messages to your online friends 
> > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >blindlaw mailing list
> >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1295 - Release Date:
> >2/23/2008 9:35 PM
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:06:44 -0800
>From: "Russell J. Thomas, Jr."
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zealots'
>To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'"
>Message-ID: <000601c87718$65705440$1602a8c0 at RJT>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>It might be helpful if there was an effort made to educate the three 
>remaining presidential candidates on the issue with the hope that 
>something might be accomplished in 2009, if no action is taken this
year.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>On Behalf Of David Andrews
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 10:35 AM
>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zealots'
>
>Most of the public sees it, it is our current bone-headed 
>administration that is the problem.
>
>Dave
>
>At 12:28 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:
> >Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the
>absurd.
> >
> > Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the 
> > austridge burying his head in the sand.
> >
> > Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though 
> > it would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
> >
> > In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that 
> > people are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S.
> > public are unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
> > (no pun intended given the list.)
> >
> > As to the 'quiet car'
> > 1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a 
> > mennace
> > 2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
> > leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
> >
> > implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
> > blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that

> > factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its 
> > existence.
> >
> > It really is off the wall.
> >
> > G
> >
> > Send instant messages to your online friends
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >blindlaw mailing list
> >blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1295 - Release Date:
> >2/23/2008 9:35 PM
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:45:14 -0500
>From: "Craig Borne"
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'"
>Message-ID: <002501c8771d$c7cbd380$0200a8c0 at computer>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view

>global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
>Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered 
>with inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
>This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is 
>in no way a scientific fact. Global warming is still a theory, and as 
>such, the merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and 
>disagreement. Folks with a view against global warming should not be 
>categorized as ostriches, just as proponents of global warming cannot 
>claim a scientific truth with so many experts in the scientific
community
not acknowledging its existence.
>To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is 
>circumstantial at best, not direct.
>Craig
>
>Craig Borne
>Baltimore, Maryland
>cjborne at comcast.net
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>On Behalf Of ger sadlier
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>
>Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the
absurd.
>
>Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge 
>burying his head in the sand.
>
>Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it 
>would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
>
>In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people 
>are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are

>unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
>(no pun intended given the list.)
>
>As to the 'quiet car'
>1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
>2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
>leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
>
>implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
>blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that 
>factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.
>
>It really is off the wall.
>
>G
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends 
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:51:49 -0800
>From: "Mike Freeman"
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List"
>Message-ID: <000c01c8772f$76131730$014bbd43 at owner96190708e>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Right on!
>
>Let's here it for the 1500-year solar cycle! And we aren't nearly as 
>wrm as we were in the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300 A.D.) yet!
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Craig Borne
>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:45 AM
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>
>
>With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view

>global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
>Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered 
>with inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
>This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is 
>in no way a scientific fact. Global warming is still a theory, and as 
>such, the merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and 
>disagreement. Folks with a view against global warming should not be 
>categorized as ostriches, just as proponents of global warming cannot 
>claim a scientific truth with so many experts in the scientific 
>community not acknowledging its existence.
>To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is 
>circumstantial at best, not direct.
>Craig
>
>Craig Borne
>Baltimore, Maryland
>cjborne at comcast.net
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>On
>Behalf Of ger sadlier
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>
>Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the 
>absurd.
>
>Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge 
>burying his head in the sand.
>
>Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it 
>would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
>
>In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people 
>are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are

>unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
>(no pun intended given the list.)
>
>As to the 'quiet car'
>1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
>2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
>leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
>
>implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
>blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that 
>factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.
>
>It really is off the wall.
>
>G
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends 
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>-------------- next part -------------- Right on!
>?
>Let's here it for the 1500-year solar cycle! And we aren't nearly as 
>wrm as we were in the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300 A.D.) yet!
>?
>Mike
>?
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>mailto:cjborne at comcast.net Craig Borne
>To:
>mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
>Sent:
>Sunday, February 24, 2008 11:45 AM
>Subject:
>Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view

>global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
>Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered 
>with inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
>This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is 
>in no way a scientific fact.? Global warming is still a theory, and as 
>such, the merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and 
>disagreement.? Folks with a view against global warming should not be 
>categorized as ostriches, just as proponents of global warming cannot 
>claim a scientific truth with so many experts in the scientific
community
not acknowledging its existence.
>To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is 
>circumstantial at best, not direct.
>Craig
>Craig Borne
>Baltimore, Maryland
>mailto:cjborne at comcast.net cjborne at comcast.net -----Original 
>Message-----
>From: mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org 
>[mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of ger sadlier
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the
absurd.
>??
>? Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge

>burying his head in the sand.
>??
>? Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it

>would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
>??
>? In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people

>are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are

>unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
>? (no pun intended given the list.)
>??
>? As to the 'quiet car'
>? 1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a 
>mennace ? 2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, 
>without leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize
cars.
>??
>? implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
>blind and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that 
>factory to keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.
>??
>? It really is off the wall.
>??
>? G
>?Send instant messages to your online friends 
>http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org blindlaw at nfbnet.org 
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:34:32 -0500
>From: "Chris Danielsen"
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'"
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>Craig,
>
>For what it's worth, and with due respect, I think the number of 
>scientists who disagree with the prevailing theory of global warming is

>a distinct minority, not an equal number to that of its proponents. 
>Also, no one really disagrees that global warming is occurring, the 
>disagreement is over what causes it and whether it is a cyclical event 
>driven by climatic factors that we can't control or a phenomenon caused

>by factors (namely the emission of greenhouse gases) that we can. 
>Finally, it has become fashionable nowadays to say that anything that 
>is a scientific "theory," such as evolution or global warming, is by 
>definition not a fact. But the word "theory" means something quite 
>different in scientific discussion than it means in conventional 
>language. In science, a "theory" is a coherent explanation of something

>based on the facts that we know through observation and study; it is 
>not simply a guess. Theories may be incomplete, but they aren't simply 
>made up. They are based, as you say, often on circumstantial evidence. 
>But if circumstantial evidence is enough to put a man to death (as it 
>often is), it should also be enough to serve as a legitimate template
for a
debate about changing environmental policy.
>
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>On Behalf Of Craig Borne
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:45 PM
>To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>
>With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view

>global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
>Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered 
>with inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
>This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is 
>in no way a scientific fact. Global warming is still a theory, and as 
>such, the merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and 
>disagreement. Folks with a view against global warming should not be 
>categorized as ostriches, just as proponents of global warming cannot 
>claim a scientific truth with so many experts in the scientific
community
not acknowledging its existence.
>To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is 
>circumstantial at best, not direct.
>Craig
>
>Craig Borne
>Baltimore, Maryland
>cjborne at comcast.net
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>On Behalf Of ger sadlier
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'
>
>Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the
absurd.
>
>Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge 
>burying his head in the sand.
>
>Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it 
>would have been better had they started 10 years ago.
>
>In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people 
>are extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are

>unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
>(no pun intended given the list.)
>
>As to the 'quiet car'
>1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
>2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without 
>leading to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.
>
>implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard 
>blind
>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>  Send instant messages to your online friends 
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw