Leedy Diane Bomar

October 28, 2002

I hope that I am not too late in writing for support of the Access Board
recommendations for audible pedestrian signals and tactually detectable
warning strips for blind and visually persons.

I am a totally blind guide dog user who is also a software engineer and
mother of three children. Because I do not drive, I walk much more than the
average person. I have been blind since the age of two, and am now 48 years
old. For the past 30+ years I have needed to travel independently
throughout the United States, both in small towns and large cities,
including paved roads and unpaved one, sidewalks and dirt paths, hiking
trails etc.

The need for audible pedestrian signals is simply a need for equal access
to information. If a sighted person, who can see the traffic, and the color
of the traffic light needs a "walk" "Don't walk" sign, how much more than
does a blind person who cannot see the traffic or the color of the traffic
light need some type of audible signal that coincides with the "walk" sign?

The opponents of audible pedestrian signals base their opposition to
erroneous and outdated information. First of all, audio ped signals, as you
probably know, have come a long way from the days when they would
automatically make that annoying chirping sound every time the light
changed. Systems now can be set up to only make a sound when the button is
pushed in for several seconds. They include locator tones which are louder
or softer depending upon surrounding noise. They have tactile markings
indicating which direction one should face to cross the street. The sound
can be programmed to be a voice that says which street can be crossed.
These are helpful not only to blind/visually impaired pedestrians, but also
to the general population, especially children. My teenage son, who is
fully sighted, has commented to me that when crossing a street that has an
audible signal he has sometimes been goofing around with a friend, as boys
(and girls for that matter) will do, and not watching the light. The sound
of the audible signal lets him know when they can cross. This is much
better than noticing the light after it has been green for an unknown
amount of time, or at the end of the "walk" cycle.

Traffic has become increasingly heavy and confusing over the past 30 years.
When I first took Mobility and Orientation training in the 1960's it was a
simple matter of listening to the parallel traffic and crossing the street
with it. In the 1970's we got the law which gave permision for drivers to
turn right on a red light. Although the pedestrian is supposed to have the
right-of-way, vehicles are larger and heavier than people, and drivers
usually don't give pedestrians that right. Also, cars are much quieter now
than they used to be. Traffic lights have changed significantly in the past
30 years, and have become much more complicated, some being activated by
traffic, time of day, etc. There are more cars on the road than there used
to be, adding to the traffic congestion. We have turn lanes and traffic
islands that we did not have 30 years ago.

When I got my first guide dog in 1974, the dogs were trained for three
months. In the past ten years, the guide dog schools have added an extra
month, and now train the dogs for four months. This change was implemented
strictly because of the increasing traffic complications. Even with a
well-trained guide dog, it is essential for the handler to make the
decision regarding when to cross the street. Hopefully, the dog can protect
his/her handler from getting hit by a car running a red light or from
getting into the intersection.

Many of the opponents to audible pedestrian signals oppose them strictly
because leaders of their organization oppose them and they follow like
sheep never questioning or looking into the situation on their own. The
leaders of the organization are not very independent travelers, many
walking with a sighted person, or riding in cars for much of their daily
needs. I agree that all intersections probably do not need a complex
audible pedestrian signal, but the ones with high traffic, more than
two-lanes, turn lanes, and complex traffic signals definitely do. Also,
intersections where the "walk sign" comes on before the parallel traffic is
allowed to move, need audible signals. Even in situations where the traffic
patterns significantly change by time of day, there may be a need for some
type of audible signal. With no parallel traffic, and sometimes no
perpendicular traffic, it is impossible to judge the status of the light,
and on a wide road, it is not possible to hear oncoming cars that will be
in the far lanes by the time a pedestrian reaches them. n

As to the need for tactile detectable warning strips, it is again equal
access to information. If it is necessary to mark a curbcut to designate it
from the street, and obviously a sighted person can see where the street
actually begins, than it is important for a nonsighted person to have the
same information. I have never understood why this was so controversial
with regard to tactile warning strips on train and subway platforms. After
all, although a sighted person can see the tracks, or pit, there is still a
line drawn a few feet back to let them know to stand behind the line. A
blind person cannot see where the pit is, but if not for tactile warning
strips would not know where the pit was unless there dog stopped at the
edge or there cane tip dropped over the edge. Being that close to
the edge is much closer than anyone is supposed to be as designated by the
line.

There are many instances in which the slope of curbcuts is so subtle that
it is impossible to tell where the t=street begins. Also, for aesthetics,
many crossings have the same brickwork on the sidewalk, curbcut and street
making it impossible for a blind person to know when he/she has entered the
street. In cities, where there are lots of hills, just because the ground
slopes doesn't mean that one is on a curbcut. Sometimes there are curbcuts
for driveways, and it is impossible to tell if that is a street or just a
driveway, if one is unfamiliar with the area in question and there is no
traffic.

I apologize for the length of this letter and its lack of organization and
formality. This is a very important issue, and in my experience traffic
engineers are willing to comply when given the requirements and funds to do
so. The funds would be forthcoming if this were a requirement. Our city has
considered having developers include the cost of audible pedestrian signals
in their costs, but need some incentive to do that.

If I can help in any way with this process, please feel free to contact me
via email or phone.

Leedy Diane Bomar