RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
                         by Mike Freeman

     From the Associate Editor: Mike Freeman is the first vice
president of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington. He
is thoughtful and alert to the nuances of daily life and social
interchange. Here (with comments of mine concerning an Ohio
incident) is a brief article he recently sent to the Braille
Monitor: 

     The legal doctrine of contributory negligence, as applied to
the blind, held that if a blind person travelled outside his or her
home and became involved in an accident, the blind person, simply
by being present, was automatically considered to be negligent, no
matter what the circumstances of the accident. For example, if a
blind person were to cross a street in a pedestrian crosswalk in
accord with the traffic signal and were to be hit by a car, the
driver might not be held responsible even though the car had
disobeyed the traffic signal. This doctrine severely restricted the
independent movement of blind persons. It was a prime reason for
the long struggle of the National Federation of the Blind to secure
passage of White Cane laws in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia. With the enactment of these laws, the doctrine of
contributory negligence was specifically negated, and the blind
gained the right to travel freely in the world on an equal basis
with the sighted.
     While the doctrine of contributory negligence, as applied to
the blind, and the underlying presumption that blind people are
necessarily unsafe travelers have been eliminated from the law of
the land, they have not yet been eliminated from the public mind.
This was brought home to me sharply by a recent incident.
     I work at the Ross Substation complex of the Bonneville Power
Administration in Vancouver, Washington. In order to get there
every workday I must cross Highway 99, a busy four-lane highway.
There is a pedestrian crosswalk with a traffic signal operated by
a push button. When the proper button is pressed, the traffic comes
to a halt, and a pedestrian can cross the road in safety.
     On a recent foggy morning a colleague at work remarked that it
must have been more dangerous than usual for me to get to work,
inasmuch as the Highway 99 traffic would have found it more
difficult than usual to spot me crossing the road. Initially, I
replied with some sort of flippant remark such as: "Well, no more
than you." Upon a moment's reflection, however, I decided that a
further explanation was in order. "There is a good traffic light at
that spot," I said. "Assuming that both the vehicular traffic and
I obey it, it doesn't really matter whether it's foggy or not. When
the cars stop, I go. My safety is my responsibility; and, anyway,
it's no more risky for me than it is for any other pedestrian
crossing there."
     My colleague hesitated, then agreed. I got the impression,
though, that he was not completely satisfied with my answer. The
notion that the risks I take are my responsibility seemed a bit
novel to him. Moreover, even if he were prepared to grant this
assumption, I got the distinct impression that he didn't buy my
argument that I, a blind pedestrian, was as safe a traveler (with
or without adverse conditions such as fog) as a sighted pedestrian.
     This is the crux of the matter. Although we have virtually won
the battle against insurance companies that discriminate against
the blind, we still have a long way to go in convincing the general
public that we the blind, as a class, pose no higher risks to
ourselves and others than does the public at large, and that we
can--indeed we must--assume responsibility for ourselves and our
actions in order to take our places on an equal basis with the rest
of the public in the continuing adventure of human existence.

     From the Associate Editor: Mike Freeman is absolutely right
when he identifies his acquaintance's remark as one of the more
benign but still dangerous manifestations of the conviction that
sighted people must always assume responsibility for the safety of
blind pedestrians because, of course, we can't possibly take care
of ourselves. I am reminded of this truth every time a motorist
leans out of a passing car to inquire of me when I am walking along
a street in my small town, "Where are you trying to go?" First of
all, it is none of his--it is almost always a man--business.
Second, I am not trying to go; I am going. When I am lost, I take
responsibility for asking directions. 
     But there is still a malignant manifestation of the
contributory negligence of blind pedestrians doctrine floating
around in the public mind. It may have vanished from the law books
with the passage of the White Cane statutes, but there are plenty
of people who have not yet got the word. 
     Early in March of 1991 an Ohio Federationist who uses a dog
guide was crossing a busy street in her small town. She had the
green light, so she and her dog stepped out boldly to cross the
intersection. A young man, who was not watching carefully, turned
right on the red light and struck both the woman and the dog guide.
Neither was hurt badly, but the woman was taken to the emergency
room, where her husband, a physician, eventually got to her. 
     The incompetence of the officials who dealt with the case is
demonstrated by one question the police officer who wrote up the
accident report asked the victim's husband: "Can the dog read
traffic signs?" No one from the district attorney's office ever
contacted the woman to determine how serious her injuries had been.
These two things should have prepared her for what happened in
Mayor's Court a few weeks later when the case came up for hearing. 
     Pronouncing it as his opinion that no blind person could
independently cross streets in safety, the mayor fined the driver
$10 and warned the blind woman not to travel alone in the future.
No one knew or cared about White Cane laws or protection. It was
obvious to the mayor, the district attorney, and the defendant that
somehow the blind woman had caused the accident, even if she did
have the right-of-way--and nothing she could say would change their
minds. She is herself an attorney by training, and you can be sure
that she did not remain silent. 
     After this travesty of justice was carried out, she attempted
to interest area newspapers in her story. They were not interested.
She and the NFB of Ohio wrote letters to the mayor, the district
attorney, and the police, urging inservice education programs for
public officials. They could not be bothered. The woman is still
deciding whether or not to bring a civil suit against the driver
for damages. 
     This is an unpleasant little reminder to us all that it is not
enough to be in the right. Sometimes it is not even enough to have
the law on your side. It is important to remember that we are
farther along the road to freedom than we have ever been, but we
are not there yet.