Jennifer Wenzel

October 29, 2002

As the stay-at-home mom of two small boys and the president of the Rock County chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin, I have many opportunities to travel with my cane each day. I walk and use public transportation to do errands and to take my sons to activities. I do so safely by relying on my hearing to determine when to cross streets, and on my cane arc to avoid objects in my path and to tell when I am approaching a street. I strongly oppose the current draft of federal guidelines, which would mandate installation of detectable warnings at all intersections and the installation of audible traffic signals, (ats) at all intersections which have walk signals. I oppose these guidelines for three reasons: these signals and warnings will create new problems for blind travelers, they are a needless expense, and they will keep blind people from achieving our goals as equal members of society.

Detectable warnings and audible traffic signals will not make it easier or safer for blind people to travel. Instead, they will create many new challenges. I often pull my baby in a stroller, and doing so over raised detectable warnings would be very difficult. These raised warnings become slippery in winter weather, a concern to those of us who live in a state where the winter never seems to end. These raised warnings can be a danger when an edge comes lose and can catch on a heel, sending a person sprawling into the street. It is easy to tell where a sidewalk ends and the street begins at almost all intersections. My cane finds a curb or sloping wheelchair ramp without difficulty. In rare cases where there is no slope, I can see that a detectable warning might be needed. In these cases, blind members of the community can request detectable warnings. This is already being done under current access guidelines.

Audible traffic signals would also cause needless problems for blind travelers. I rely on my hearing for much of my travel information. Travel has never been easy for me, so I need to concentrate. I listen carefully to the traffic at intersections to determine the safest time to cross. The constant beeping from locator tones at two poles near me and other poles around the intersection would be very distracting. This beeping and the sound of the signal itself could prevent me from hearing a speeding car running a red light. Drivers do not watch for pedestrians. They often rush through a light, even if the walk sign or an audible signal is working. A signal cannot guarantee that it is truly safe to cross. I need to hear what is going on, not a symphony of beeps. These signals would only add to the many distractions such as blaring radios and honking horns. The constant beeping of locator tones and the beeping signals would camouflage the noises blind travelers need to hear to precede safely across the street.

These signals and warnings are a needless expense. The money that would be used to install them could be spent in many other ways, which would help blind people travel more safely and become more productive members of society. Money would be better spent teaching blind people to travel safely without relying on technology or raised tiles. Money could also be used to give job training and assistance to help combat the 70 percent unemployment rate among blind people. Relying on a raised bump and a beeping pole to cross streets will not help a blind person get or keep a job. The staggering cost of these poles and warnings is not justified. It will not solve the very real problems of unemployment and poor travel training for blind people.

Finally, these signals and warnings will keep blind people from achieving their goals as equal members of society. I am a property owner and a taxpaying citizen. I teach my children that although I may do some things differently as a blind person, such as use a cane, I am still an equal member of society with the same rights and responsibilities as sighted people. I vote, donate to charity, and help friends when they need me. The cost of audible traffic signals and detectable would be more than higher taxes. They are a glaring symbol of inequality. They give the impression that blind people need special concessions to survive in our society. Installing these signals and warnings will create a dangerous slide of more special concessions and supposed aides for blind people. When I return to the workforce, I want a prospective employer to look at me as an equal who can do a job, not as a helpless person who cannot travel safely without a beeping pole or raised tile for assistance.

Blind people are intelligent enough to decide when an intersection is truly dangerous. If an intersection poses real dangers for blind travelers, the blind of the community can work with the city to make this intersection safer. Every intersection does not need special signals and warnings. Blind people are not helpless and needy. We are intelligent, equal members of society, and need to be treated as such. Audible traffic signals and detectable warnings will cause many needless problems for blind travelers, needless expense for taxpayers, and keep us from achieving equal membership in American society.
 

---

Jennifer Wenzel, President
Rock County Chapter
National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin


I have written comments for myself on this issue, but would now like to bring the concerns of our chapter to your attention. We are concerned with the cost of detectable warning and audible traffic signals, and with the challenges they will present to us as blind travelers.

Our city of over 50 thousand has 75 intersections with pedestrian signals. It is estimated that installing audible traffic signals would cost $4000 per intersection. This means that it would cost taxpayers in our city $300,000 to install these signals. There are approximately 300 intersections in the city. It is estimated that it would cost $2400 per intersection to install detectable warnings. This would mean that it would cost our city $720,000 to install these warnings. Taxpayers would pay a total of $1,020,000 to install the proposed signals and warnings. The above mentioned costs do not include installation or maintenance. Our property taxes are already high, and many taxpayers could not withstand this substantial new cost.

Our city has many other expenses that need urgent attention. We currently have two fire stations without ambulances. Sidewalks are not present along many major streets. Both of these concerns are more pressing to us as blind members of this community, as well as to the general citizenry of Janesville. As taxpayers, we do not wish to see our money spent on these needless amenities when we can better use our money to help the community meet other important needs.

We are also concerned that the warnings and signals will create more problems than they will solve. The warnings will be a hazard during winter months and during spring and fall rains when they will be slippery. Their raised edges can be a tripping hazard. They will be difficult for those who use walkers or pull strollers to negotiate. Audible traffic signals will create needless noise, which will mask the traffic noises we need to hear. The constant beeping from locator tones and the erratic beeping of the walk signal will make it hard to hear a quiet car which might decide to run a red light. Cars are becoming quieter as drivers become more careless, and we need to hear cars, not beeping to know if it is safe to cross. Some of our members wear hearing aids, and are very concerned that the beeping as background noise will drown out the traffic noise used to determine when to cross the street. Vibro/tactile signals would be a much more reliable way for those with hearing issues to know when to cross. This would allow them to have their hands on a vibrating arrow, not guess which beep was the right one for crossing.

These audible traffic signals would make it much more difficult for blind travelers to negotiate street crossings safely. They would not make us feel safe or help us to travel more freely. They would create new dangers and put more obstacles in the way of our safe independent travel.

Our membership decided by a unanimous vote to voice our concerns on this issue. Below please find their names and addresses.

Roger Behm

Jan Lind

Leola Little

Linda Mentink

Sylvia Monsen

Mark and Melissa Riccobono

Donna Thompson

Dan and Jennifer Wenzel