Jarrell M. Lyles

October 29, 2002

I write as a member of the National Federation of the Blind to register my views on the proposed modifications, that would include audible traffic signals and tactile edgings in every city and municipality across the land. First, I do recognize and appreciate the good intentions motivating this project. There can be no doubt that these and other safety devices can be of great benefit for blind pedestrians everywhere. However, we of the National Federation of the Blind would urge the Access Board to take note of a few cogent points.

1. Blind persons travel the streets of major cities throughout this country without the use of expensive and potentially distracting alterations to the existing environment. We are a pragmatic and resourceful people, who have long found ways to negotiate the obstacles, real and imagined, on the public streets. Often our sighted peers marvel that we manage to make our way along crowded sidewalks and through busy traffic, aided only by a guide dog or the long white cane. And yet, as we would hasten to explain, there is nothing remarkable about our methods. They are the result of trial and error, of hard-earned experience; and these same methods permit us to travel with a fair sense of confidence wherever we need to go. Thus, we of the NFB observe that blind persons are even now traveling successfully without help from technology, which may or may not prove reliable.

2. In addition, blind persons object to the scale of the project. A common sense evaluation must show that all intersections and curb cuts do not pose risks to blind persons. Many are at crossings with only light and occasional traffic. Others are at intersections where only one of the streets involved carries heavy traffic. Installing audible signals and tactile strips at such crossings is quite simply unnecessary, a flagrant waste of public funds.

Certainly there are places where conditions combine to pose significant challenges to a blind pedestrian. Where multiple lanes or traffic converge or where intersections are off-set or where traffic is especially heavy -- these are circumstances under which a blind person might welcome some additional cues that conditions are right for crossing. We reject the notion that any amount of technology can render the travel altogether safe, either for us or for sighted pedestrians. There are simply too many variables, such as inattentive and reckless drivers. However, travel we must. Our skills and vigilance are the only absolutely essential prerequisite, without which no blind person has the right to annoy the public. But with good training by well-equipped professionals, blind persons may travel in tolerable security. Audible signals and tactile strips, therefore, confirm for a good traveler that he/she has judged correctly when and where to cross. And yet, he/she must never rely solely upon the presence and good operation of imperfect technology. Experience proves that such trust in technology is equally dangerous..

3. It is our hope that, should anything like the proposed legislation to install audible signals, etc., be adopted, that the regulations will take into account the views and concerns of the blind people involved. Let the blind community in particular areas decide if and where expensive modifications will do them most good. We have our pride and resent the misinformed notion that, without significant modifications, we are both unable to walk the public streets. It pains us that such taxing measures seem necessary to the Access Board and related civil agencies. Please remember to seek and to heed the judgment of those members of society, for whom the tax-payers' dollars may be spent.

Respectfully,

Jarrell M. Lyles
Yale Divinity School