[nfbwatlk] Organizations (was Re: Alert about increase inaudibletraffic signals)
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Tue Sep 25 00:38:08 CDT 2007
Makes some sense to me although I can hear our observation wondering how
we'd find the poles! <g>
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Alco Canfield
To: 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Organizations (was Re: Alert about increase
inaudibletraffic signals)
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
_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
-------------- next part --------------
Makes some sense to me although I can hear our observation wondering how we'd find the poles! <g>
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From:
mailto:amcanfield at comcast.net Alco Canfield
To:
mailto:nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org 'NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List'
Sent:
Monday, September 24, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject:
Re: [nfbwatlk] Organizations (was Re: Alert about increase inaudibletraffic signals)
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: mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org 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: mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org 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
mailto:nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
mailto:nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
__________ NOD32 2548 (20070924) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
mailto:nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk
More information about the nfbwatlk
mailing list