[Mt-blind] What's More Important, Safety or Freedom?

[dmgina]

this is Dar,
In order for us to stay safe,
it is important for the car manufactures to make sure cars can be heard so 
we can protect ourselves.
When the right on red got passed, was the first I felt danger had come to 
the blind.
We will never be able to stop people from leaving for work on time.
So going faster than they should will always be a problem.
I don't know how else I can protect myself from the training I received in 
traveling.
I use the same skills today, as I did when I started cane travel in 1970.
We can ask for folks to watch out, but I have to see it happen first.
The accident that took place this last week,
where the nurse got killed in her car.
A young kid running away.
Car gets out of control and a life was taken.
Just think if someone was trying to cross the street.
They also would have lost their lives.
I see nothing wrong to ask for protection.
Just would have to think out how I would need it.


--Dar
www.mypowermall.com/biz/home/5779
Every Saint has a past
Every Sinner has a future

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Marks" <blind.grizzly at gmail.com>
To: "Montana Association for the Blind List" <mt-blind at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:42 PM
Subject: [Mt-blind] What's More Important, Safety or Freedom?


> Things have been slow on the list, so I thought I would bring up a topic
> from last fall's MAB Convention.  During the Chapter President's meeting, 
> we
> discussed chapter projects that promote safety for blind Montanans.  At
> least part of the discussion focused on white cane laws.  Jerry Hutch told
> us about the Helena Chapter's efforts on improving safety.  I tried to
> correct Jerry's misunderstanding about white cane laws.  He said he thinks
> of the laws as primarily safety laws.  Actually, white cane laws did not
> come about due to safety.  On the contrary, they were civil rights 
> oriented
> laws that did away with a major prejudice.  Before white cane laws, 
> society
> assumed that accidents involving blind pedestrians and vehicles were 
> caused
> by the blind person.  Most people believed that blind people could not
> function, and so they had to be at fault in pedestrian-vehicle accidents.
> White cane laws forced a change in this thinking.  These civil rights laws
> put blind people on equal footing with the sighted so that authorities 
> would
> look at accidents involving blind pedestrians and vehicles on a factual
> rather than a prejudicial level.  In other words, sometimes an accident 
> may
> be the blind person's fault.  Sometimes it's the driver's fault.
>
> I believe there is a very real danger in getting overzealous about safety.
> If we go too far, we need up taking away freedoms.  Safety is very, very
> important.  It starts with personal responsibility, uses lots of common
> sense, and holds all parties accountable.  Safety should never, never rob
> people of their freedoms, though.  If we go safety goofy about white cane
> laws and such, we put blind people in a dependent role.  We could expect
> society to watch out for us so much that we end up bringing back to life 
> the
> very prejudices that brought about white cane laws.  All that's necessary 
> is
> to strike a balance.  Blind people should not expect others to watch out 
> for
> us.  We should watch out for ourselves.  At the same time, we should 
> expect
> others to hold up their end of the bargain.  Negligence should not be
> tolerated no matter whether it comes from a vehicle driver or a blind
> pedestrian.
>
> I mention all this because the MAB really needs to watch out for extremist
> approaches to safety issues.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
>
> -------
> Jim Marks
> blind.grizzly at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mt-blind mailing list
> Mt-blind at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/mt-blind
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Mt-blind:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/mt-blind/dmgina%40qwest.net
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1393 - Release Date: 4/23/2008 
> 8:12 AM
>
>