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

Thu Apr 24 18:29:06 CDT 2008

Jerry, I noticed that you quoted from an ACB article on white cane
laws below.  Here's the link I found, and it's the same stuff you
posted on MT-Blind:

http://www.acb.org/pedestrian/whitecane.html

Wouldn't it be cool to quote from the people who drafted the state
laws and the national proclamation?  That of course would be the NFB.
I'll cut and paste a different version of the history soon.

Thanks!

Jim Marks
blind.grizzly at gmail.com

On 4/24/08, Jerry Hutch <modrepro at mt.net> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
Jim Marks
blind.grizzly at gmail.com