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

Thu Apr 24 09:09:24 CDT 2008

Throughout history, the cane, staff, and stick have existed as traveling 
aids for the blind and visually impaired. Dating back to biblical times 
records show that a shepherd's staff was used as a tool for solitary 
travel. The blind used such tools to alert them to obstacles in their path.

For centuries, the "cane" was used merely as a tool for travel and it 
was not until the twentieth century that the cane, as we know it today, 
was promoted for use by the blind as a symbol to alert others to the 
fact that an individual was blind.

This new role for the white cane had its origins in the decades between 
the two World Wars, beginning in Europe and then spreading to North 
America. James Biggs of Bristol, England, claimed to have invented   the 
white cane in 1921. After an accident claimed his sight, the artist had 
to readjust to his environment. Feeling threatened by increased motor 
vehicle traffic around his home, Biggs decided to paint his walking 
stick white to make himself more visible to motorists.

Also in 1931, in France, Guilly d’Herbemont recognized the danger of 
blind people in traffic and launched a national “white stick movement” 
for blind people.  She donated 5,000 white canes to people in Paris.

In the United States, the introduction of the White Cane is attributed 
to Lion George A. Bonham (Peoria Lions Club).  In 1930, he observed a 
man who was blind attempting to cross the street with a black cane that 
was barely visible to motorists against the dark pavement.  The Lion 
offered to paint the cane white to make it more visible.  By 1931, the 
Peoria Lions Club approved the project and white canes were made and 
distributed.  The Peoria City Council adopted an ordinance giving the 
bearers the right-of-way to cross the street.  The news of the club’s 
activity spread to other Lions Clubs, and the white cane became known by 
the blind and sighted alike as a means of identifying the safe mobility 
needs of the visually impaired.  In 1931, Lions Clubs International 
began a program promoting the use of White Canes for people who are blind.

In the United States, laws vary from state to state, but in all cases, 
those carrying white canes are afforded the right of way when crossing a 
road and when in a public place

For further information about white can and O&M;

http://www.aerbvi.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=44 
<http://www.aerbvi.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=44>

Now, Jim, please explain to me and to the list, just how the white cane 
is a matter of civil rights and not about safety.  The beginning history 
of the white cane in Europe and the United States did not start and 
never was a civil rights issue, it started about safety.  And it 
continues to be about safety!   Safety for the blind or low vision 
individual who has the right to use the sidewalks and to cross 
roadways.  Every state in the United States mandates that drivers, all 
drivers, are to yield to persons carrying a white cane and to all 
pedestrians who wish to cross a street or roadway.  Check the law!

The problem is that we make the laws but we can not get drivers to be 
courteous, attentive drivers who will take the time and yield to those 
pedestrians who by law have the right of way.   Drivers continue to kill 
and injure pedestrians around the state and throughout the country 
because the drivers are not obeying the law.  And the laws are not being 
enforced!

And by the way, this issue is not just about the blind and those with 
low vision, it is a matter of safety for all pedestrians, sighted or 
vision impaired, young and old alike.

Only by strong and active enforcement of the laws that are currently on 
the books against poor judgment in driving practices by those who have 
no respect for others and do not pay attention to situations around them 
while they drive, can we who use white canes feel safe when we travel.

Again, how is this a civil rights issue?

Jerry Hutch

Jim Marks wrote:

>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/modrepro%40mt.net
>
>
>
>  
>