Paul Carver
|
October 15, 2002 |
To: The Access Board
I am writing in opposition to portions of the proposed guidelines. Specifically,
the proposal to require audible signals and tactile warnings. Such modifications
to the environment are unnecessary, expensive and dangerous.
Thousands of blind Americans travel safely every day through large and small
cities using a long white cane. Proper training in the use of a correctly fitted
white cane is all that is required for a blind person to cross most streets
safely. There are a small percentage of intersections that could benefit from an
on-demand type of signal. Tactile warnings on zero slope curbs or on islands of
very wide streets would be useful. However, signals that provide unsolicited
beeps or chirps, and tactile warnings at every corner are simply not needed or
wanted.
In these days of tight budgets and over taxed public resources I believe it is
unfair and fiscally irresponsible to require blanket installation of expensive
modifications that serve very few and are wanted by even fewer. In the city of
Sacramento where I live the Public Works department identified over 30,000
locations where signals and ramps would need modification to meet the proposed
guidelines. At a cost of $6,000 per location it would cost the taxpayers of
Sacramento $180 million to satisfy the requirements of these guidelines.
Further, the number of residents of Sacramento who would use such signals is
small, fewer than 500 my recent estimates. This means a cost of $360,000 per
beneficiary. Proponents would say that's a small price to pay if it saves a
life. I would agree if there were evidence that proved that audible signals and
tactile warnings would save lives. No such evidence has been provided
As part of any quality cane travel instruction a blind student is taught to
listen to traffic sounds and to identify signal patterns and traffic flow based
on this information. For busy or complex intersections this requires a fair
amount of concentration and the ability to hear the movement of vehicles. Now
the guidelines propose to introduce additional noise into this mix. Rather than
making it safer to negotiate an intersection I submit that such devices make it
less safe. Beepers and buzzers, chirps and clicks would tend to mask the traffic
sounds that are so very important to a safe crossing. Furthermore, as with any
technology, failure, or worse yet, malfunctioning units that result in out of
sync signals, are real a real possibilities. Finally, they tend to lull blind
pedestrians, and others I suspect, into a false sense of security. Reliance on a
chirping signal rather than ones own faculties is likely to get more people
killed, not less.
In most situation audible traffic signals and tactile warnings are unnecessary,
unwanted and dangerous. I urge the Access Board to reconsider the proposed
guidelines and work with the leadership of the National Federation of the Blind
to draft guidelines that better meet the needs of the blind of America.
Paul Carver
Sacramento California
index
previous comment
next comment