Richard C. Davis
|
October 28, 2002 |
I am writing to express my opposition to the Access Board's draft
guidelines for Audible Traffic Signals (ATS) and Detectable Warnings. I offer my
comments from the perspective of a person who has worked with blind people for
almost 32 years, first as a travel instructor, then a rehabilitation teacher,
rehabilitation counselor, rehabilitation area supervisor, orientation center
administrator and director, and director of a state agency for the blind.
In my professional opinion, the proposed guidelines are both unnecessary and
harmful. ATS produce sounds which block ambient traffic sounds that blind
persons use to determine when to safely cross streets. In addition, they create
a false sense of security that can actually cause accidents. In order for a
blind person to safely cross a street, that person must be able to tell what the
traffic is doing and determine if a car or truck is moving through the
crosswalk. People turn right on red and run intersections on a regular basis,
and knowing that the walk light is on may cause a blind person to venture out
into them. There are also serious liability issues for municipalities when the
devices fail to work or when blind pedestrians interpret them incorrectly.
Detectable warnings are slippery when wet, and the bumps on them can accumulate
ice in Northern climes. Blind persons trained in the use of white canes and
guide dogs and listening to the traffic will have no problems detecting
intersections. Again, there will be liability problems for municipalities when
people slip on the detectable warnings or misinterpret their message.
The cost of installing detectable warnings at all intersections and ATS at all
intersections with traffic signals will be prohibitive. Because of that, I
believe if the guidelines are put into law, municipalities will file lawsuits to
challenge the ADA. The sheer cost of implementing the draft guidelines will
require that they challenge them. Based on recent court decisions, I
think the ADA will lose, and be further watered down.
A more reasonable approach would be for the draft guidelines to be modified to
require that ATS and Detectable Warnings be installed only at intersections in
which the construction of the intersection or traffic patterns make it difficult
for a trained blind person to negotiate the intersection. This is the approach
proposed by the National Federation of the Blind, which takes a more moderate
stance on these issues.
I suggest that the Access Board revise the proposed guidelines along the lines
proposed above. If that is impossible, I think the Access Board should vote not
to accept the guidelines as unnecessary and unworkable. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer these comments.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Davis