[nfb-talk] Audible Walking Signals

[David Evans]

Dear All,

In general, I hold with the NFB view point on audible traffic signals.  They
are no safe guard against being hit when crossing a street.
The only information they are good for is just letting you know that the
light has changed and it is possible to cross, maybe.
I have experience with several such devices, here in Palm Beach County
Florida.
I have saved at least 2 blind people, at the light in front of the old
Lighthouse for the Blind, from becoming a road pizza on at least 3 different
occasions.
The light there sits in the middle of a block on a busy stretch of Federal
Highway where the street is 4 lanes wide and the traffic flies past.
Many blind people, who have little or no formal O and M training, get sucked
into the idea that the noisy signal stops all of the cars, but it doesn't.
I hear the signal there too and use it to cross the street, but I also
listen to the traffic too, in order to tell if they are stopping or not.
Most times they do, but sometimes they don't because the drivers are not
looking for a light in the middle of a block on a major street.
I have good hearing, but it is hard to hear the traffic sounds over the
noise of the light.
I listen for the soft sound of a car slowing down to a stop and the sound of
the engine at idle.
Some of the Blind people I have seen using this light find out, if they are
lucky, that you don't set foot off the curb as soon as you hear that darn
chirping.  It is best to wait just a little to let the late comers go on by
first.
I have seen cars miss blind people at this light by inches and keep on
going.
I would say this.  I have seen intersections where I thought that the
presents of an audible signal might be a help, but I still see this as the
exception and not the rule.
As for Deaf-Blind and Hard of Hearing Low vision people, I would say this.
If you can hear the audible signal sound and not the traffic sounds?  Which
is more important?
The noise from the light that tells you the light has changed or the sound
of the traffic surging forward and more importantly, that softer sound of
cars coming to a stop at the crosswalk?
For me, that more suddle sound of the cars stopping is more important than
just knowing the light changed.
For intersections where the layout is complex and something else is needed,
I would say that I would avoid these places if I could help it and cross
somewhere else or do so with the greatest amount of care.
I have been struck twice by hit and run drivers in the past.  Both times
were from behind I might add and before I had training.
I also deal with train platform edges and drop offs of about 3 to 4 feet.
I have never had a problem with the edges, even before the tactile warning
tiles were added.  I know that some people have and I know some of the
reasons for this.
Usually it is because of Blind people being in a hurry, not sweeping wide
enough with their canes, using the wrong grip on their cane because of
moving through a crowd or just being distracted or confused for that
critical moment.
Sometimes it is just because of a mistake on the Blind person's actions.
One case was the accident where a female guide dog user was approaching a
platform edge at an angle and her guide dog stopped and would not move.  The
girl reached out and did not find the problem the dog was pointing out to
her.
She got mad at the dog and came around in front of the sitting dog and began
to pull on the dog's harness and berate the dog.
She took a step backward and fell of the platform edge to her death.
The dog did its job, but the Blind girl made a mistake in a very dangerous
place and lost her life.
There were tactile tiles along the edge of the platform, but the girl just
failed to notice them and the angle of the edge was a contributor to the
accident too.
Any safety device is no better or worst than the person who uses it.
Audible signals and tactile warning strips are no substitute for just good
skills, judgment and common sense or senses as the case might be.
Just so you know.  I have been experimenting with some devices to help me
detect moving vehicles and judging to see if they are moving and how fast
they are moving.
I have had the most success so far with a small radar gun.
I am trying to get it modified to give out a rising sound as cars come
closer and a diminishing sound as they move away.  The trick here is to
somehow get the thing to read out set distances measurements too, so to
figure out if they are coming to fast to begin crossing or not.
It still has lots of bugs in it and I don't have the money to refine it
further at this point.  I do think that it may have some use as a travel aid
or some people.
Maybe the R and D Committee can take up the idea, we will see.

David Evans, NFBF

-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Wm. Ritchhart
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:53 PM
To: 'NFB Talk Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Audible Walking Signals

This Deaf-blind guy disagrees.
 


William
 

-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Milissa Garside
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 11:21 AM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: [nfb-talk] Audible Walking Signals

Hi Joseph,

I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that audible traffic 
signals do not help the blind. As a person who is totally blind and who
has 
a slight hearing impairment, audible traffic signals are extremely
helpful 
to me. Certainly, I don't think they need to be installed at every 
intersection but, I do feel that they are needed at a great deal of 
intersections and fighting the ACB on this issue is pointless.

I have found that in talking to NFB folks, it depends on where you live
and 
your experience traveling decides one's opinion on audible traffic
signals 
and tactile warning strips on subway platforms. For example, I live and 
Boston where we have crazy drivers, offset complex intersections, and
subway 
platforms which have 6 foot drop offs. I don't care how well someone is 
trained, some intersections around here are impossible to cross without 
audible traffic signals. In terms of the subways, we have subway
platforms 
that have trains coming in on both sides. Basically, there is a platform

that has a 6 foot drop off on both sides; there is no wall for a blind 
person to use as a guide to travel on the platform. I don't care how
much 
training one has but, maneuvering a platform which is open on both sides
and 
there is no tactile guide to follow is asking for trouble. I'm not
saying 
that it can't be done but, it is extremely dangerous.

Here is one area I do not agree with the NFB. If traffic lights are 
available to sighted people for a reason, why then should they not have
an 
audible signal for the blind? Also, since subway platforms have a visual

yellow line for sighted people, why not then make the yellow line
tactile so 
that blind people can have the same safety information? I think that the
NFB 
some times gets to carried away with what blind people can do with
proper 
training. If safety information is already there for sighted people,
there 
is no reason why it shouldn't be there for blind people. Obviously,
traffic 
lights and yellow lines on platforms are a safety measure for the
sighted 
and I find it piposterous when blind people say that we do not need the
same 
type of safety information simply because we can be trained to the point

where we don't need it. I find that most people who cling to the idea
that 
proper training can concor all are generally those who have not
experienced 
living in big cities like Boston and other big cities. When making
traffic 
lights and platform edges accessible for the blind, we are not asking
for 
"special treatment" we are entitled to the same safety measures that are
put 
in place for the sighted.

Milissa

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <tjcarter at bluecherry.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] NFB and ACB


> Mike,
>
> Of course we should fight their position when it is destructive.
>
> Squawking signals are the perfect example of what I mean about how we
do
> so being such a key point, however.  When we address these signals, it
is
> important that we discuss the merits in our position and the flaws in
> theirs.  For example, the fact that a walk signal does not in fact
mean
> that you can safely cross the street and that loud noises make it more
> difficult to judge the real cues of when it is safe to cross--namely
the
> sounds of traffic.
>
> What we should not do is say that the ACB is just whining that they
need
> something to tell them when to cross the street because they
apparently
> lack proper training necessary to cross a street without them.  This
kind
> of argument isn't helpful, even if it is offered as a means to vent
some
> steam about their stubborn insistence on putting these damned things
at
> every intersection in America.
>
> The former argument justifies our position in opposing these things.
The
> latter argument suggests that we have so little real support for our
> position that we must resort to attacking our philosophical opponents
in
> order to try and win the debate.  That simply isn't true--we have tons
of
> evidence to support that these signals are not needed and that when
they
> are used, they impede the skills of a competent blind traveler.
>
> My nearest city, good ol' sunny Salem, Oregon is a place where we have
> failed to be convincing in our arguments to that effect.  We either
did
> not or could not effectively compete against the combined lobbying
efforts
> of the ACB and AARP to push for these things to be installed all over
the
> place.
>
> I don't think we presently have the strength needed to get them
removed.
> Nor do I believe we can stop new ones from being installed.  We lost
that
> fight for the time being.  I do think we can influence what sort of
signal
> gets installed to ensure that this misfeature need not be forced upon
us.
>
> It still means the money to install them is going to be wasted.
That's
> very unfortunate.  I wish we had managed to prevent them adopting the
> policy to roll these things out whenever they service a traffic
signal,
> but we weren't able to do that.  At least they're doing it only when a
> signal needs to be serviced--that reduces the cost substantially.
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:28:21PM -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:
>> Joe:
>>
>> But it goes beyond what you call "the feud". If ACB truly is doing 
>> something we of NFB view as destructive, do we not have a duty to
fight 
>> it? Most assuredly, we cannot fight every battle. TYou don't see us 
>> saying much, for example, about ACB's "Video Restoration Act". It
won't 
>> pass. But if the currency suit has even the remotest chance of doing 
>> harm, do not we have a duty to at least consider responding?
>>
>> Let me assure you that ACB surely complains when we oppose audible 
>> traffic signals because we consider them dangerous and misleading.
What I 
>> am saying is that in saying we shouldn't deal with ACB and just let
it do 
>> its thing, what often effectively happens is that we abandon the
field of 
>> battle to them. Is this not an abrogation of our responsibilities as
an 
>> organization fighting for what we believe to be the welfare of the
blind? 
>> And let me assure you, ACB leaders are trying their darndest to keep 
>> alive the false notions they so cherish of what they believe NFB to
be.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> mailto:tjcarter at bluecherry.net T. Joseph Carter
>> To:
>> mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org NFB Talk Mailing List
>> Sent:
>> Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:46 PM
>> Subject:
>> Re: [nfb-talk] NFB and ACB
>> William,
>> It is then our responsibility to not reciprocate the cycle. I realize
>> that seems counter-intuitive--after all why should we not impede
their
>> operations if they impede ours?
>> We should not because we have better things to do with our time,
>> resources, and membership. If they try to function as the anti-NFB,
as
>> many here (myself included) believe has been the case, they won't
exist 
>> in
>> thirty years, because new members aren't going to want to get
involved
>> with that.
>> However, my point has been and remains that it holds true for the
>> Federation as well. Prospective new members like Corey have no
interest
>> in joining the feud. Those of us my age and younger who aren't too
>> self-absorbed to get involved with something bigger than ourselves
are
>> interested in seeing that things get done.
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:00:52AM -0500, Wm. Ritchhart wrote:
>> > Joseph,
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, what has occurred in South Carolina in regard to 
>> > Newsline
>> > has occurred in many places across the country. Here in Indiana
though,
>> > the NFB kept right on fighting until we got Newsline funded.
>> >
>> >
>> > William
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>> > On Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
>> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:25 AM
>> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] NFB and ACB
>> >
>> > I don't know the circumstances of that issue, but I think I would
be
>> > hard
>> > pressed to see the value in the ACB opposing Newsline. I've seen in
the
>> > past few years one or two people try to disrupt it in a few places
just
>> > to
>> > screw with the NFB on behalf of the ACB, and I hope that this was
not
>> > one
>> > of those instances.
>> >
>> > I would hope that the leadership of the ACB would consider such 
>> > spiteful
>> > attempts to undermine the Newsline specifically because of its
>> > connection
>> > to the NFB as disdainful as I do. That kind of behavior is beneath
>> > their
>> > dignity. As would it be for us to engage in the same kind of
behavior.
>> >
>> > If indeed the situation in South Carolina was political sabotage, I
>> > would
>> > consider it not a victory, but a shameful act to be neither
repeated 
>> > nor
>> > reciprocated. Neither organization can be totally successful
fighting
>> > for
>> > the blind if we distract ourselves by fighting against the blind
based
>> > on
>> > the initials they wear on their t-shirts.
>> >
>> > I have lived places where the NFB was not a strong organization. In
>> > California, the NFB is pretty weak. In Oregon, neither organization
is
>> > particularly strong at the moment. I maintain my membership in the
NFB
>> > because I generally believe in the NFB's approach. I know for
certain
>> > that if I wait for an accommodation from the powers that be, I'll
fail.
>> >
>> > Now, I could let myself fail and then try to fight for what was
denied
>> > me,
>> > or I can choose not to let them have the power to impede my
progress. I
>> > have enough experience to know that not only do they tend to drag
their
>> > feet at every turn, but that I am better at providing for myself
than
>> > they
>> > ever have been.
>> >
>> > The ACB simply does not reflect those values, so I have always 
>> > supported
>> > the NFB. To do otherwise would be like joining the dominant
political
>> > party in the area simply because they are more popular. The party
would
>> > surely welcome my support to increase their popularity, but that 
>> > doesn't
>> > mean they're going to vote the way I want when the bills come their

>> > way.
>> > (Of course, I believe that's true of both political parties, but
the
>> > analogy stands..)
>> >
>> > I know where the NFB will stand on most issues. Often, I understand
and
>> > agree with the Federation's position automatically. Sometimes, I
need
>> > to
>> > be convinced it's right.
>> >
>> > Sometimes I'm just going to disagree period--as in this case with
the
>> > currency thing. I think we should neither support nor impede the
ACB's
>> > legal action. We should prepare to combat the public misconception
that
>> > failure of this legal action means that blind people can't work
with
>> > money
>> > in the case that the ACB fails. At the same time, we should prepare
a
>> > proposal for the US Treasury Department both on what sort of 
>> > adaptations
>> > to the currency are pragmatically applicable along with a fiscally
>> > responsible transition plan in the case that the ACB succeeds.
>> >
>> > Our stated opinion in the NFB is that there are far more important
>> > things
>> > for us to worry about than whether our money is all the same size
and
>> > shape or not. I mostly agree with that. I think it cannot hurt to
be
>> > prepared for the outcome, but beyond that I would rather work on
the
>> > bigger issues of employment and education.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:35:17AM -0500, David W Bundy wrote:
>> > > Corey,
>> > > The power in both the NFB & ACB is a collective voice. When we
speak
>> > as either NFB or ACB, those to whom we are speaking hear us much
more
>> > loudly than if we speak as David and Corey & we are much more
likely to
>> > get what it is we are asking for. I recall once Dr. Jernagan saying
>> > that you should join which ever organization is more likely to get
you
>> > the results you seek--If you are in an area with a strong NFB
presence,
>> > then join NFB, but if you live in an area without a strong NFB
presence
>> > but a Strong ACB group, then by all means Join ACB--But whatever
you
>> > choose, join something so your voice will be heard. In South
Carolina,
>> > The NFB is a powerbul force with a strong track record while the
ACB
>> > presence is little more than token. NFB has two to three hundred at
our
>> > convention each year while I,m told that ACB's convention averages
15 
>> > or
>> > 20. NFB has been successful in passing a number of laws in SC,
>> > incleuding establishment of the Commission for the blind & several
de!
>> > fe!
>> > > ats of attempts to restructure it out of existance, as well as
bills
>> > to require that TVI's be trained in Braille to name a few. The only
ACB
>> > legislative victory for ACB in SC that I am aware of, aside from
those
>> > times when they joined with us for obvious things, was the
withdrawal 
>> > of
>> > funding for Newsline. So clearly, in SC, the wise choice would be
NFB.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfb-talk mailing list
>> > mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk 
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfb-talk mailing list
>> > mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk 
>> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> mailto:nfb-talk at nfbnet.org nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk 
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> 

_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk

_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007
8:30 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1155 - Release Date: 11/27/2007
8:30 PM