Blind and Vision impaired People to Demonstrate at Dublin City Council

by Eddie Bourke - n/a Mon Jun 27, 2005 05:25 eddie.bourke at iol dot ie 22 Willbrook, Rathfarnham, D14 Rathfarnham 4945830

A few points re. Dublin Pedestrian Crossings:

This is an in-your-face deprivation of visually impaired and blind people's right to mobility, and thus of their right to live their lives as close to normal as circumstances allow them. The people behind this decision have decided to reduce these people to effectively begging for, and relying on, the charity of strangers to be allowed to move from A to B. In effect they're being told that they do not deserve to be allowed to leave their places of residence to lead meaningfully fulfilling lives. THEY DO NOT MATTER A SH*T. Something must be done by all (both they and the rest of society) to put a stop to this discriminatory policy. Action must be taken by:

1: Threatening the Corpo IN ADVANCE with multi-million claims for every single accident involving the visually impaired at ANY of their crossings, particularly those stripped of beeper status by this policy. Add the threat of asking for the addition of extremely high special punitive awards onto these cases as a result of having been pre-warned repeatedly of the endangerment of the visually impaired INDIVIDUALS and choosing to ignore and insult them.

2: Prosecuting on the basis of the MANY E.U. directives on equal opportunity to live a meaningful life; not blocked by the WILFUL negation of personal GUARANTEED rights.

3: Targeting specific individuals (specifically re their status as INDIVIDUALS; NOT letting them hide behind their their dependant corporate status as 'employees' of the Corpo, where the blind get to pay a part of these guys' legal bills whilst being discriminated against by them). Pin their responsibility to their own ass's, not yours'. If they want to hide behind what's ultimately our skirts (we pay the bills) disabuse them of that notion, remind them of THEIR responsibilities to us for once and for all, especially those in anyone in senior posts, particularly the relevant official(s) in this case (Owin Feley, etc.).

4: I'm sighted, but when the bip-bip-bip sounds I know what the difference is; funnily enough the red guy changes to green when it's safe; has the corpo folded on this fact; if so let them explain why to the Equal Opportunities Commission; if they haven't let them put up a sign that says they'll sue anyone who is sighted who is hit whilst crossing against a red light. Every twat knows the red is not the right time to move; or has this changed as a part of official policy and if so why? Again hold any official upholding such an attitude should be PERSONALLY culpable for their decisions. Don't allow them to pass on the costs of cynical abuse of the measures designed to protect the visually impaired to you; these people are negligently failing to honour their responsibility TO YOU. Let them pay for their wilful 'mistakes'.

There's another aspect to this issue; either this has been approved by the elected members of the Corpo; in which case they should be held responsible; both legally and electorally (meaning you never vote for them ever, ever again, and they get to know it); or, if they didn't decide it, why is it policy AND why aren't they holding the relevant official(s) (Owin Feley et al.) responsible?

5: There's an Equality issue here; funnily enough this is a certain senior (and balding) minister's stated area of responsibility; one whose constituency includes or borders the now-closed girl's school for the visually impaired; the same kids of which many failed to get their Braille Leaving Cert English papers on the 8th of June this year (apparently because the responsible school in the past has seemingly been closed down for development potential and is no longer available to assist them and NO agency is now responsible for their welfare), whilst the boys in THEIR dedicated school had no such problems. Is legislation as laughably unenforceable as ever, or is it being saved for yet another tribunal in the future that makes predictably useless decisions decades in the future (whilst feeding our ever-fattening legal friends). What happened to Gender and Personal equality related measures. WHO is responsible and what are they doing?

Does our 'glorious(ly incompetent) government' give a goat's turd about their visually impaired constituents; or are the latter just an inconvenient shower of expendables who are less important than the ambulance chasers and developers who can afford (or seem to be able to do so) to buy influence with money that's appears to be worth a lot more than their owner's apparent civic rights vis-à-vis those of ordinary decent citizens? Who carries responsibility for what seems to be a deliberate (and thus a knowing) effort to undermine the rights of a large group of disabled and disadvantaged members of our society, by a cabal that seems to think it is not answerable for the consequences of its decisions; a clique who feel they are insulated from their responsibility for such issues.

What's next? A repeat of the pedestrian-crossing buttons out in Blanchardstown; where the lights marked with 'bubble' pavement have 'flush' buttons on their pedestrian crossing boxes, so visually impaired people cannot ever use them? Points for each blind person impaled on your bumper (saves the state disabled payments; thus makes these guys' productivity records look good). When do WE call a halt, when do WE feck these idiots into the prison cells they deserve?

Eddie Bourke.

by concerned Fri Jun 24, 2005 03:14

city hall is at the top of parliament st but I assume you are talking about the civic offices on the quays

can we have more details please? street name etc

by RobbieS Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:06

could you be more specific about the accessibility difficulties you mean, and post it on the newswire; it's not much use hanging like that here.

See y'all on June 27th - but will the Corpo offices not be closed at 18:30?

by David Blunkett's Dog Sat Jun 18, 2005 01:58 woofwoof at anabels dot ie

I agree this is an issue for the disabled. However, when is indymedia.ie going to make their website accessible to the disabled?

by Robbie Sinnott Fri Jun 17, 2005 23:10 seorobbie at yahoo dot ie 17 Mountshannon Road, Rialto. 01.4547424

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

I contacted the engineering dept. of Dublin Corpo back in October 2004, to ask why there were no bleepers at Parliament Street-Capel Bridge junction. The relevant person, they said, wsa not in, but they'd call me back. They never did.

I was shocked to hear in January, that they planned to actually scale back on bleeper-lights. Apparently, it’s because it confuses sighted people. If this is true, they should look at the Danish system where alternate bleeps occur at different sets/crossings.

To date, pedestrian victims of Dublin’s traffic have tended to be the elderly. Since many people from their 60s on begin to lose vision, the provision of bleepers would have immediate benefits for many more than you might think.

Another dangerous aspect of traffic lights for VIP, is the use of railings, especially where lights are at the centre of a crossing. Imagine – your way from the road to the central aisle is blocked by a railing, with no indication of how to circumnavigate it. The wrong way will bring you right into the path of danger; although you’re not exactly safe where you are.

Presumably these railings are designed to stop people from rushing out into the path of traffic, but no thought whatsoever is given to blind and visually impaired people. Guide dogs don’t suit everyone.

LUAS

Apart from thinking the Luas was a waste of money because a bus-service could’ve been provided along the same route, I was worried about the quiet menace of the Luas itself. This is still the case, but navigating around, to and from the Luas tracks and stops can be dangerous. Rialto and St. James’ Hospital are two particularly hazzardous areas.

O’CONNELL STREET REGENERATION

Last Tuesday night I crossed the road from the Royal Dublin Hotel to where the taxi-rank should be at the top of O’Connell Street. Instead, there were hoardings, and no indication of which way a person should go. A woman came across the road to guide me because she said that the hoarding tapered out into the path of traffic, and this was the direction I was headed.

The taxi-driver thought it would all be for the best and the ‘inconveniences’ would be worthwhile, but I disagree. Millions spent on doing up O’Connell Street, and things have got worse for the VIP. There may be studs at the road’s edge, but the colour of the road , is much more like that of the foot-path, generally speaking, than it used to be. So, it’s sometimes hard to know whether you’ve reached the other side, or whether you’re still in the line of fire so to speak. In the early days, I came close a few times. You think you’re waiting for the lights to change, and a bus comes straight for you…

EVERYBODY ISSUES

Fair play, Martin, for running with this. Blind and visually impaired have traditionally been stereotyped as plucky victim, or have been fed conservative values through ‘Blind Schools’, so it’s a brave person who tries to lose a stereotype or label, and campaigns at the same time. Many blind people just try to show how ‘normal’ they are, and don’t perceive the strucured and structural inequalities around them – a microcosm of society, really.

But, more than anything, such campaigns belong to everyone. Resolutions to problems of disability, generally enable or provide facility for all if they’re done right. Barriers tell us more about society than about our 'natural' condition.

For starters, this campaign is a test of how accountable our unelected city managers are. Everyone who visits Dublin should be interested.

by Dermot Lacey Fri Jun 17, 2005 18:01

As a general supporter of what Owen Keegan is trying to do in the City I think he is wrong on this one.

I have submitted a motion on the matter for the Traffic Strategic Policy Committee.


Dermot Lacey