[nfbwatlk] Organizations (was Re: Alert about increase in audibletraffic signals)

[Alco Canfield]

How about a signal that just vibrates.  You could put your hand on the pole
and just feel it, thus eliminating distractions from chirping and burping
birds.

Alco

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Freeman
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:26 PM
To: NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List
Subject: [nfbwatlk] Organizations (was Re: Alert about increase in
audibletraffic signals)

Ben is correct. In 2006, a resolution at the NFB national convention 
ended in a 26-26 tie -- twice! I've never seen that happen in *either* 
organization, before or since.

Ensuring that everyone was in "lock step" would be too darn much work! 
<g>

Mike Freeman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Prows, Bennett (HHS/OCR)
  To: NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List
  Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic 
signals


  Dean,  Lighten up  just a bit. The first half of your post warrants 
some
  discussion, but the second half misses the mark considerably.   You 
have
  made some reasoned points, but laced with vitriol is not only
  unbecoming, but counter productive.

  First, I am a person in the NFB who helps make "those" decisions.  We
  vote on resolutions every year, and an overwhelming majority make the
  decisions.  We argue, discuss, work behind the scenes, (not unlike the
  legislature), etc, and then come up with reasoned, and often difficult
  to understand positions that surprise the public, and some blind 
folks.
  And, if you think we march in lock step, just attend our convention
  once, and you'll see that isn't the case.  So, don't paint us with a
  brush of unfairness or irrationality, since we at least believe that
  several thousand heads are better than one.

  That having been said, I have come to a point, where I can see the 
value
  in some noise at a street crossing signifying a walk signal in some
  cases.  I therefore am not unalterably opposed to strategically placed
  audible street signals.  In fact, NFB resolutions in recent years have
  allowed that in certain cases, audible pedestrian signals may be
  appropriate after careful consideration with representatives of the
  blind community and officials of a particular jurisdiction.

  Many, as you see from this list believe that these signals can be
  distracting, particularly when you are trying to listen for turning
  traffic.  And, I experienced this myself the other day at 6th and Bell
  Streets, when the signal was set at such a volume that it did 
interfere
  with my ability to hear traffic.  Others have hearing losses that are
  exacerbated with ambient chirping noises, etc, and create a more
  difficult time trying to hear the quiet cars of today.

  Another good point you made is that you and all of us have traveled 
for
  *many* years without these signals.  One wonders whether the expense 
to
  the tax payers, me included, is worth the comfort it gives to those of
  us who are insecure at street crossings.  And, I must say, there are
  street crossings that make me nervous, but some wouldn't be made 
better
  with a audible street signal.

  All that having been said, I think there is much to be discussed and
  debated without making ambient noise about alleged unscrupulous and
  self-serving blind folks, no matter what organization they support.

  Best,

  Bennett Prows-----Original Message-----
  From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
  On Behalf Of Dean Martineau
  Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:21 AM
  To: 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
  Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic 
signals

  I like audio traffic signals, and believe some of the blanket 
criticism
  of
  them is not well informed.

  I have lived in foreign countries, travel to many Us cities.  I go 
lots
  of
  places.  And doing so for me is a struggle.  Depending on what I'm
  carrying,
  as well as many other factors I can't ascertain, straight lines and
  being
  sure about traffic patterns happen, or they don't.  I've been as 
trained
  as
  opportunities allowed.  Maybe a year of immersion in mobility training
  would
  help, but I'm not convinced, and in any event, it isn't going to 
happen
  for
  many reasons.  So here I am, and here, I submit, are a lot of other,
  many of
  whom lack my training and perhaps some other attributes as well.

  So it is that when I encounter an audio signal, I breathe a little
  easier.
  I have a piece of environmental information I can use.

  Some of the comments on this subject are really humorous.  As if a
  person is
  going to ignore traffic and just focus on an audio signal!  So do we
  assume
  that sighted travelers are staring fixedly at the walk signal and
  disregarding the rest of the environment?  We should outlaw the walk
  signals
  as public dangers!  After all, all those sighted people are getting
  killed
  because they aren't watching the traffic!

  Near my home is an intersection where the light is short going in my
  direction.  The walk signal comes on a few seconds before the parallel
  traffic starts, as is typical.  Those few extra seconds would be very
  useful
  to be able to use to cross, and even more so because sometimes there 
is
  not
  parallel traffic.  So I look very impressive as a blind person, 
standing
  there while the walk signal is on, when there isn't parallel traffic.

  I understand that I am preaching to the anti-choir here, and that a 
few
  competent travelers, who are among those who set organizational
  philosophy,
  make all the decisions.  It is unfortunate that collaboration can't
  occur to
  support installation of some audible signals at certain intersections
  for
  the benefit of some of us horrible, bad, under-indoctrinated people 
who
  would love to have walk signals just like sighted people have, and for
  whom
  having such signals would probably enhance our safety.  In my
  experience,
  having audible signals, even the coo-coo ones that are not the best
  choice
  does not impair my ability to listen for people who might run the red
  light.
  And I'm sure that a goodly number of folks with vision loss of one
  degree or
  another would appreciate advances in this area if they were actually 
to
  be
  consulted.

  Note that I have traveled for decades without audible signals and will
  continue to do so.  I also give the party line to those who express 
the
  belief that I need audible signals to travel.  But in fact, I would 
love
  more audible signals, so I could tell parallel traffic from turn 
traffic
  on
  those days when I can't seem to do it very well myself, or for
  intersections
  like the one I described earlier.  And I know the vocal ones here will
  unitedly scream their rejection and ridicule of my feelings, but some
  less
  vocal members will agree and feel slightly affirmed.  It's a little 
like
  mandatory or automatic calling of bus stops.  Yes, I can survive 
without
  them, but I, and a lot of silent and invisible people, benefit from
  them.

  Dean

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


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



__________ NOD32 2548 (20070924) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com