In the UK we have signs (though not common ones) that just say "SLOW POLICE". The ones I've seen are temporary signs where the police are stopping drivers for some reason.
I feel it really needs a comma if it doesn't mean that the police themselves are slow.
I never wanted a road sign before.
Though I guess they would be the hardest one to get as they are pretty much only used right next to police.
I'm generally very law abiding but this is up there with wanting to steal a riot shield.
I was sitting outside a cafe when there was something going on down the road which caused increasing numbers of police to turn up and then wait around doing nothing (not complaining about that - they do generally try to de-escalate as they should). Eventually someone appeared and unloaded riot shields and then just left them sitting there. That car got called away and everyone else was at the other end of the road.
I'm not that stupid but...
(I think in this respect I'm my mother's daughter. She was the trainer for a two day course held at the police college, where she also stayed overnight. And she stole finger print ink for me. I collect ink. It was very out of date even then, and sadly eventually the packing broke down, but I did like it very much).
The Deaf Children At Play signs became a target for thieves a few decades ago in my town. The city kept replacing them, and a local band that named themselves after the sign kept stealing them again to hang in their practice space. Good times.
There is one of these on my grandparent's block. The kid was away at college by the time I was old enough to read the sign. I'm 44, my grandparents are dead, and the sign is still there. It's been there since the 70s.
Although I'd never thought before about how a blind kid went to college before the ADA. Wow. Now I have questions.
The university I attended had a disability support office before the passage of the ADA or any similar legislation in our state. Some people don't need legislation to do the right thing. Also it wouldn't surprise me if there is a university for the blind given there are ones for the deaf.
There were definitely historically universities for the blind - Mary Ingalls (from the Little House on the Prairie books) went to the Iowa College for the Blind in Vinton.
I just Googled it to see if it was still in operation and it apparently closed in 2011 after 150 years. As accommodations got better in the mainstream, enrollment fell.
I'd suspect more schools for the Deaf have survived than schools for the blind, since it feels like screen readers, voice to text, and modern technology have made it easier to accommodate. Also, ASL being its own language and Deaf culture seeming like a more unified community feel like they might contribute to why Gallaudet is still a thriving school where I couldn't name a blind equivalent. (I'm too tired and feel like I'm not articulating this idea as well as I want, but hopefully it makes sense, and as I'm neither blind nor deaf, idk if my impressions are correct.)
We have a school for the deaf and blind in the district where I went. At the time, they were known for having an absolutely dominant wrestling team (probably still the case).
California used to have a School for the Blind and Deaf. It started in 1860 as the “Society for the Instruction and Maintenance of the Indigent Deaf and Dumb, and the Blind in California.” For a long time, it was in Berkeley, right on top of a major earthquake fault.
Now, there are two state schools for the deaf, one each in Northern & Southern California.
The School for the Blind still exists. It has programs for low vision and for deaf-blind students (Helen Keller herself dedicated the Helen Keller building). It’s aimed at students whose disability is severe enough that regular schools don’t work. Curriculum includes academics and life skills.
Besides educational programs, they have short term programs and workshops both for students and teachers.
That said, the federal government slow-walked writing the regulations to implement the new law for as long as they could, and attempted to make it as weak as possible. The Section 504 sit-in is one of the finest points of American disability activism history: https://disabilityrightsflorida.org/blog/entry/504-sit-in-history
Helen Keller went to college, she got a BA from Radcliffe. Basically, before the ADA people had to bring their own accommodations with them (for example, Helen Keller already had Anne Sullivan to help her, so Anne filled the role that the university's ODS would fill today, plus a ton of other roles).
Some of the first activists who campaigned for accommodations on college campuses were polio survivors who were in wheelchairs. Many of them already had personal aides. But there were things that were effectively cutting them off from their education that the aides couldn't help with, like classes on upper stories in buildings with no elevators, or no accessible sidewalks, or no dorm rooms that could accommodate a wheelchair. A lot of the very early activism was basically, "Look, I can do the fucking classwork, I'm smart enough for this degree, but if you tell me I can't study at your school and get a degree because of the fucking sidewalks, then we have a problem."
This is still a lot of disability activism! Simple physical access to buildings or specific parts of buildings is still a huge ongoing issue for many, many disabled people. It's a major reason why many disabled people who would otherwise be able to work, cannot work - they cannot physically enter the workplace and too often employers would rather give the job to the second best person than spend money to make sure the best person for the job can actually get inside.
Yes! I definitely didn't mean to make it sound like that was where it started and then we finished and moved on to other things. Even with the ADA, the fight is ongoing.
The sheer fact that the ADA didn't mandate refitting for all buildings means a lot of high need problem locations never got touched because they hid behind the exclusions.
I'm in the UK and the law here is that businesses etc have to make 'reasonable adjustments' to allow access. What is 'reasonable' depends very much on the situation, and historical buildings who make no physical changes are often still seen as being 'reasonable' in that situation. It's a very vague law. New buildings have to be accessible in general but we don't have much land for new buildings most of the time!
Getting the sign up is probably a simple enough process. Contact some entity in your city, might need to submit some sort of medical note and it goes up.
I have trouble imagining anyone in any official capacity objecting to it.
The flip side of it is a very good question that I don't think there can be an answer for.
Kid grows up and moves out.
Now what?
Do the parents have any sort of civil or legal obligation to contact the town? I mean, maybe. Maybe there is a some sort of binding contract involved when the sign is put in. I do have trouble imaginging it cause I am having trouble of any one involved in the putting in the sign process really giving a shit about taking it out.
It isn't like the sign is a yearly reocurring cost.
And if the parents don't have a legal/civic obligitation - does that mean someone from code enforcement has to check every year that the kid still lives there?
Now turn all this over and consider a very pratical effect of the signs-
The point of the signs is to get you to slow down and drive more cautiously..... the signs effectiveness doesn't actually have any bearing on if it is a lie or not.
From a safety standpoint you are better with it in then out.
Well, the "Deaf Child" sign in my neighborhood has been up for at least 29 years. Kind of amazing no one's messed with it in all that time. Had multiple stop signs in the area stolen/defaced along with yields and speed limit signs, but that one has been left alone. Maybe a sign there's hope for humanity after all.
Not a traffic engineer, but I work adjacent to several of them. They hate these signs and will not put them up. Drivers really do not respect signs, and if too many signs clutter up the roadside drivers just tune them all out. Just like 'SLOW' signs that used to be put up at the start of a construction zone, a DEAF CHILD sign or a BLIND CHILD sign will not magically compel drivers to behave, be safe, and not speed.
I work in traffic engineering and my jurisdiction does not install these signs anymore because they can cause the children in the area to feel safer playing in the road. The drivers don't respect the signs but kids may expect them too.
There are still a dozen or so up around the city because we don't actually know where they all are. But when we stumble on one it gets taken down.
Yeah I think there's just no benefit to taking them down. I bet driving is safer around them for anyone new to the area for whom it doesn't just blend in from experience seeing it there... but that effect doesn't work if they're all over town!
What happens to "Blind Child Area" signs after the child grows up?
In areas where there is a blind child, there's usually a sign in the neigborhood so that people driving through don't think "that kid will move out of the way of my car, I don't have to slow down" (or at least that's my interpretation, I'm not a lawyer which is why i'm asking you guys)
What happens to those signs after the child is no longer a minor? Does it get removed? Does it get replaced with a "blind adult area" sign? Do they just leave it up?
Bug Fact: Disney's A Bug's Life and Dreamworks' Antz came out within a month of each other, worsening the feud between the two companies.
Everyone MUST make a joke about the "slow children at play" signs correct?
This whole post immediately made me think of the “Caution: Special Dad” bit from Family Guy
https://preview.redd.it/no4x85gg4o7g1.jpeg?width=310&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=910185b938251f43a751a57cd016c58f63df42d2
Are you asking for a Slow BOLArina At Play flair?
I leave all of my flairs in the hands of the Almighty mods
That is certainly a choice ...
Danger, Will Robinson
If the children who yearn for the trees are also slow children at play, would that make them sloths?
h a h a h a
edit: aw man it didn’t take the extra spaces in the formatting.
We have a “Slow Deer” sign near me and I make a joke every time
In the UK we have signs (though not common ones) that just say "SLOW POLICE". The ones I've seen are temporary signs where the police are stopping drivers for some reason.
I feel it really needs a comma if it doesn't mean that the police themselves are slow.
I never wanted a road sign before.
Though I guess they would be the hardest one to get as they are pretty much only used right next to police.
I'm generally very law abiding but this is up there with wanting to steal a riot shield.
I was sitting outside a cafe when there was something going on down the road which caused increasing numbers of police to turn up and then wait around doing nothing (not complaining about that - they do generally try to de-escalate as they should). Eventually someone appeared and unloaded riot shields and then just left them sitting there. That car got called away and everyone else was at the other end of the road.
I'm not that stupid but...
(I think in this respect I'm my mother's daughter. She was the trainer for a two day course held at the police college, where she also stayed overnight. And she stole finger print ink for me. I collect ink. It was very out of date even then, and sadly eventually the packing broke down, but I did like it very much).
There's been ones around my area that say "POLICE BURGLARY OPERATION IN PROGRESS", which seems rather brazen of them if you ask me.
I mean - who would you report it to ? No wonder they're brazen.
That's a good one.
At least they let you know with a sign.
That's when you find the most heavily armed (non-state operated) gang.
Nothing to see here, just some good old civil forefeiture in action.
The Deaf Children At Play signs became a target for thieves a few decades ago in my town. The city kept replacing them, and a local band that named themselves after the sign kept stealing them again to hang in their practice space. Good times.
There is one of these on my grandparent's block. The kid was away at college by the time I was old enough to read the sign. I'm 44, my grandparents are dead, and the sign is still there. It's been there since the 70s.
Although I'd never thought before about how a blind kid went to college before the ADA. Wow. Now I have questions.
The university I attended had a disability support office before the passage of the ADA or any similar legislation in our state. Some people don't need legislation to do the right thing. Also it wouldn't surprise me if there is a university for the blind given there are ones for the deaf.
There were definitely historically universities for the blind - Mary Ingalls (from the Little House on the Prairie books) went to the Iowa College for the Blind in Vinton.
I just Googled it to see if it was still in operation and it apparently closed in 2011 after 150 years. As accommodations got better in the mainstream, enrollment fell.
I'd suspect more schools for the Deaf have survived than schools for the blind, since it feels like screen readers, voice to text, and modern technology have made it easier to accommodate. Also, ASL being its own language and Deaf culture seeming like a more unified community feel like they might contribute to why Gallaudet is still a thriving school where I couldn't name a blind equivalent. (I'm too tired and feel like I'm not articulating this idea as well as I want, but hopefully it makes sense, and as I'm neither blind nor deaf, idk if my impressions are correct.)
There is definitely more of cohesive Deaf culture then there is a blind culture due to the Deaf having a unique language from the general population.
And you're communicating perfectly fine 🙂
We have a school for the deaf and blind in the district where I went. At the time, they were known for having an absolutely dominant wrestling team (probably still the case).
California used to have a School for the Blind and Deaf. It started in 1860 as the “Society for the Instruction and Maintenance of the Indigent Deaf and Dumb, and the Blind in California.” For a long time, it was in Berkeley, right on top of a major earthquake fault.
Now, there are two state schools for the deaf, one each in Northern & Southern California.
The School for the Blind still exists. It has programs for low vision and for deaf-blind students (Helen Keller herself dedicated the Helen Keller building). It’s aimed at students whose disability is severe enough that regular schools don’t work. Curriculum includes academics and life skills.
Besides educational programs, they have short term programs and workshops both for students and teachers.
Equal access to education is a right guaranteed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/section-504
That said, the federal government slow-walked writing the regulations to implement the new law for as long as they could, and attempted to make it as weak as possible. The Section 504 sit-in is one of the finest points of American disability activism history: https://disabilityrightsflorida.org/blog/entry/504-sit-in-history
Helen Keller went to college, she got a BA from Radcliffe. Basically, before the ADA people had to bring their own accommodations with them (for example, Helen Keller already had Anne Sullivan to help her, so Anne filled the role that the university's ODS would fill today, plus a ton of other roles).
Some of the first activists who campaigned for accommodations on college campuses were polio survivors who were in wheelchairs. Many of them already had personal aides. But there were things that were effectively cutting them off from their education that the aides couldn't help with, like classes on upper stories in buildings with no elevators, or no accessible sidewalks, or no dorm rooms that could accommodate a wheelchair. A lot of the very early activism was basically, "Look, I can do the fucking classwork, I'm smart enough for this degree, but if you tell me I can't study at your school and get a degree because of the fucking sidewalks, then we have a problem."
This is still a lot of disability activism! Simple physical access to buildings or specific parts of buildings is still a huge ongoing issue for many, many disabled people. It's a major reason why many disabled people who would otherwise be able to work, cannot work - they cannot physically enter the workplace and too often employers would rather give the job to the second best person than spend money to make sure the best person for the job can actually get inside.
Yes! I definitely didn't mean to make it sound like that was where it started and then we finished and moved on to other things. Even with the ADA, the fight is ongoing.
The sheer fact that the ADA didn't mandate refitting for all buildings means a lot of high need problem locations never got touched because they hid behind the exclusions.
I'm in the UK and the law here is that businesses etc have to make 'reasonable adjustments' to allow access. What is 'reasonable' depends very much on the situation, and historical buildings who make no physical changes are often still seen as being 'reasonable' in that situation. It's a very vague law. New buildings have to be accessible in general but we don't have much land for new buildings most of the time!
Yeah I'm pretty burnt out on 'reasonable' meaning 'no meaningful change will happen and you should feel bad for trying to insist on it'.
Well tbf the guy is blind, he probably doesn't even know the sign is there.
No one is touching the beuracracy of any of this.
Getting the sign up is probably a simple enough process. Contact some entity in your city, might need to submit some sort of medical note and it goes up.
I have trouble imagining anyone in any official capacity objecting to it.
The flip side of it is a very good question that I don't think there can be an answer for.
Kid grows up and moves out.
Now what?
Do the parents have any sort of civil or legal obligation to contact the town? I mean, maybe. Maybe there is a some sort of binding contract involved when the sign is put in. I do have trouble imaginging it cause I am having trouble of any one involved in the putting in the sign process really giving a shit about taking it out.
It isn't like the sign is a yearly reocurring cost.
And if the parents don't have a legal/civic obligitation - does that mean someone from code enforcement has to check every year that the kid still lives there?
Now turn all this over and consider a very pratical effect of the signs-
The point of the signs is to get you to slow down and drive more cautiously..... the signs effectiveness doesn't actually have any bearing on if it is a lie or not.
From a safety standpoint you are better with it in then out.
30 years ago? sure! today? that sign is promoting woke DEI policies. no way in hell we'll let my tax dollars pay for that!
Well, the "Deaf Child" sign in my neighborhood has been up for at least 29 years. Kind of amazing no one's messed with it in all that time. Had multiple stop signs in the area stolen/defaced along with yields and speed limit signs, but that one has been left alone. Maybe a sign there's hope for humanity after all.
So is this family pumping out deaf babies, or do they have a 30yo failure-to-launch type that likes to play outside?
More likely the town/county just doesn't prioritize taking it down (or maybe even remember it).
Now I want to put up a "Bland Child Area" sign just to see the reactions.
That sounds like a very modest proposal.
Perfectly spicy, thank you for this
I try to make sure my advice is both sage and thymely.
Redditors like you are a pleasure to dill with.
With a beige rainbow!
Not a traffic engineer, but I work adjacent to several of them. They hate these signs and will not put them up. Drivers really do not respect signs, and if too many signs clutter up the roadside drivers just tune them all out. Just like 'SLOW' signs that used to be put up at the start of a construction zone, a DEAF CHILD sign or a BLIND CHILD sign will not magically compel drivers to behave, be safe, and not speed.
I work in traffic engineering and my jurisdiction does not install these signs anymore because they can cause the children in the area to feel safer playing in the road. The drivers don't respect the signs but kids may expect them too.
There are still a dozen or so up around the city because we don't actually know where they all are. But when we stumble on one it gets taken down.
[removed]
Yeah I think there's just no benefit to taking them down. I bet driving is safer around them for anyone new to the area for whom it doesn't just blend in from experience seeing it there... but that effect doesn't work if they're all over town!
“The sign’s down guys, we can drive like dicks again”
like those "no baby on board, it's okay to hit me" bumper stickers
LocationBug:
What happens to "Blind Child Area" signs after the child grows up?
In areas where there is a blind child, there's usually a sign in the neigborhood so that people driving through don't think "that kid will move out of the way of my car, I don't have to slow down" (or at least that's my interpretation, I'm not a lawyer which is why i'm asking you guys)
What happens to those signs after the child is no longer a minor? Does it get removed? Does it get replaced with a "blind adult area" sign? Do they just leave it up?
Bug Fact: Disney's A Bug's Life and Dreamworks' Antz came out within a month of each other, worsening the feud between the two companies.
LAOP could just find a local child to feed one day blinding stew to each day.
First time i've ever seen my own post get crossposted lol
Why doesn't the blind child, the largest child, not simply eat the other five?
My weight is appropriate and attractive
Leaving things unattended is part of human nature.
Kind of pointless, as how is the child going to know where to go?
Horrific!