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

  • From: "Kai" <kaixiong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 04:42:25 -0800

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 environment.

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: