Jim Shaffer

October 28, 2002

To the Access Board:

I am writing to express my ideas on the proposal regarding audible traffic signals to assist the visually impaired. First, I believe such signals are sometimes useful in conditions where many streets come together, creating a complicated and hard to interpret traffic flow. They might also be quite useful in circumstances where there is a crosswalk and no cross street, (i.e.) no cross traffic flow to be able to tell when the signal has changed.

However, I see some problems with simply placing audible signals at all intersections, or only placing them at certain intersections where the traffic flow is well defined.

It has been observed that, when audible signals are placed at some intersections and not others, a condition which may result due to a lack of funds, blind people are expected to use the intersections with the audible signals as opposed to intersections without them. This results in a discriminatory situation in which the blind are routed into certain paths as opposed to the general public. This has been observed to happen in other countries such as Japan.

It should also be noted that traffic signals constantly emitting noise into the environment point out to everyone that here is a service for the blind who are unable to navigate without special adaptations in the environment. This is simply not true given that the blind have proper training in the use of the white cane or guide dog.

Audible signals are more expensive to implement than today's signals. Since any society has limited funds to spend on the blind, a minority of its citizens, Such funds as are available should, I feel, be spent first on adequate rehabilitation of the blind, teaching them adequate travel skills. Having good travel skills is, I feel, much more important than providing audible traffic signals. Good travel skills are useful in getting around in shopping malls, airports, and places of business, as well as walking on the streets. In other words, proper mobility training is universally useful, where audible signals only assist when getting around in traffic.

Moving to another topic, it is thought to be necessary to have some sort of tactile warning when there is a street coming up. It has been shown to be beneficial to have such tactile warnings where the change from sidewalk to street is very slight, but it should not be necessary to have such accommodations at every approach. There can especially be problems with the truncated domes. People can trip on them, and they can make it difficult for persons using wheel chairs.

In summary, I feel that audible traffic signals are good to have where traffic patterns are hard to interpret. Similarly, tactile warnings should be used sparingly, when it is unclear where a street begins. The overuse of audible signals and tactile warnings will cost a great deal, and serve to give the public the impression that the blind are incapable of independent travel.

Sincerely,

Jim Shaffer