Ann Parsons

October 22, 2002

I am writing to you concerning your investigation into the need for audible traffic signals and warning strips on subway platforms and other aids to safe pedestrian travel for those who are blind. It has come to my attention that there is a group of those who are blind which is against these aids to safe pedestrian travel. They claim that since they do not see a need for such aids, no one should have them or need them.

Sir, this vocal minority speaks only for itself and for those who are just blind and who are between the ages of eighteen and sixty. They do not speak for anyone else. I would like to call your attention to several other groups whose need for these aids is paramount if they are going to travel safely in our cities and towns.

The first group is the deaf-blind. These travelers can not hear the traffic patterns, and in order for them to cross streets safely, they need some kind of feedback in order to tell when the light has changed. There are vibrating traffic signals which would give this segment of the population the needed feedback they need in order to travel safely.

The second group, and possibly the most important one is the elderly. Our senior citizens move slower, do not hear as well, do not see as well, and also may not have mental abilities as sharp as they once were. An aid to travel which beeped or vibrated when it was safe to cross a street would be an aid which would encourage the elderly to leave their homes and interact in society again. Interaction with others and the ability to travel safely on streets would reduce the need for other services for this population. Confidence in travel would empower these people to attend day programs, to go shopping on their own, to become an active part of their communities. Denying them an aid to confident pedestrial travel is, I feel, disrespect for our elderly population. They deserve to interact with us daily, and their numbers are growing. They will also be with us longer because of the advances in medical technology. We can not ignore the needs of this population.

The third group for which these aids would be invaluable is that of those who have developmental disabilities. These people may have trouble concentrating, may have trouble remembering to look at lights and walk signs, or may not pay attention when they come close to the edge of a subway platform or down a curb cut to the street. They could use an added aid to travel, sir.

The fourth group is that of those who have multiple disabilities besides blindness. Some of these people are in wheelchairs, some are deaf, some have developmental disabilities. Some may not be blind at all, but may have problems of other kinds. Should these people be denyed the right to an aid for travel because a group of able-bodied, blind individuals says that since they don't need these things, others don't need them?

Some say that beeping traffic signals would cause pedestrians to rely on them and not on the traffic patterns. This is spirious reasoning. A sighted pedestrian not only looks at the walk sign, but also at the traffic. A pedestrian who is blind would do the same thing. He or she would gauge the traffic pattern and then move when it was safe, but would have the added confirmation of the beeping signal, especially on lightly traveled streets or when newer, quieter vehicles were waiting for the light to change. Assuming that an audible signal would be anyone's sole aid in crossing a street isn't thinking logically.

Finally, I would like to call your attention to the majority in this matter, the sighted. Walk signs and red lights were developed so that the sighted could travel effectively. If you took away walk signs from the streets, you would get a storm of protest from all quarters. If you decided to dispense with traffic lights, you would be laughed out of court, sir. All we are asking is that the blind and, the deaf-blind, those with multiple disabilities, the developmentally disabled, and our elderly have the same access to the everyday aids
which the able-bodied sighted take for granted. Those who are blind
who oppose the "beeping signs" may have their minds now, and they may have their legs now, and they may have their hearing now, but God forbid they should think in terms of the future. the man or woman who is standing outside your door now waving a sign may be unable to cross a street safely in thirty years because of his own careless and unthinking actions today. Prevent that, Sir. Act in favor of audible traffic signals, indeed for all types of aids to safe pedestrian travel so that the proud and the over confident will be sheltered and protected when they need it most. Act in favor of those who can not speak for themselves now, the voiceless ones, the ones who do not have the ability to write coherently, the little ones. Think of the future, see all the people, not just one group, see all the people.

Ann P.