[bct] Re: descriptive video and a couple other things

  • From: "Jamie Pauls" <jamiepauls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:53:24 -0600

I respectfully disagree with the sentence below.

If you're paying attention to those other things than you don't need the
signals and if you need the signals than you shouldn't be crossing streets

As long as you don't totally depend on audible signals, disregarding all
other feedback, and as long as the signal doesn't keep you from perceiving
the other information around you, what can it possibly hurt?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai" <kaixiong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:42 AM
Subject: [bct] Re: descriptive video and a couple other things

> Greetings Tim et al.
> Tim, I fully agree with you on this point. I live in a small town, and 
> our streets aren't quite as beepy as Larry's. We've got about four 
> streets which have the auditory signals built into the lighting.
> We need to remember that the audio cue from these traffic lights is as 
> much to us as the colors are to the sighted. Just because the light is 
> green, doesn't mean the driver should just put the pedal to the metal.
> He must first look around to make sure that no one's making turns on 
> red lights, or if a pedestrian is still crossing the street, etc.
> The same applies for the auditory signal. Just because the light 
> beeps, telling us that it's safe to cross, doesn't mean it actually is 
> yet. You have to listen to the traffic, make sure no one's going to 
> make a turn on their green light, you need to position yourself 
> correctly in the crosswalk (our streets aren't equipped with brick 
> crosswalks), and any other variables which might occur from such a random
> With all these factors in mind then: How can anyone assume that 
> someone will become solely dependant on the sound cues from properly 
> equipped traffic lights? There are still dozens of factors the blind 
> person must pay attention to.
> The cues are an aid, not a replacement for sensory awareness. I think 
> that these organizations need to keep that in mind.
> The same applies to DVS. While I'm not much of an avid movie or TV 
> watcher, I will watch both types on the occasions that I do sit down 
> for some brainwiping. Again, the audio description is an aid, so why 
> do they rail against it?
> Kai
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Cross
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:42 PM
> To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bct] Re: descriptive video and a couple other things
> I find the arguments regarding things like beeping road crossing 
> signals being bad because we would become too dependent on them 
> ridiculous. It seems these sorts of arguments are often dragged out 
> when talking about people with a disability. However, if we argued 
> that zebra crossings and traffic lights were bad for the sighted 
> because they would become too dependent on them and wouldn't be able 
> to cross the street without them, we would be told we were being 
> silly.
> The obvious point is that traffic lights are expensive and they are 
> only put in when the volume of traffic requires it. Surely it follows 
> that if sighted drivers and pedestrians require assistance to navigate 
> busy roads, why shouldn't we!
> I agree with the stance that we spend a lot of our lives adjusting to 
> a sighted world and if its no big impact for the sighted world to 
> adjust for our needs, why the hell shouldn't it.
> Tim

Other related posts: