[nfbwatlk] Alert about increase in audible traffic signals

[noaprlfoo at aol.com]

Ben,



Your comments were well stated and on the mark.? To many times that "broad brush" paints only in black and white.? It would be great if just by being a member of the NFB could make people?*super travelers*.? We have members who have all degrees of travel skills and abilities.? Perhaps some day Dean could have the opportunity to see our kind of democracy in action as we vote on?the resolutions, which are voted? in public at open sessions for all the world to witness.

KB











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


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
Ben,
 
Your comments were well stated and on the mark.  To many times that "broad brush" paints only in black and white.  It would be great if just by being a member of the NFB could make people *super travelers*.  We have members who have all degrees of travel skills and abilities.  Perhaps some day Dean could have the opportunity to see our kind of democracy in action as we vote on the resolutions, which are voted  in public at open sessions for all the world to witness.
KB
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? 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
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970 AOL Mail
!