Jarrell M. Lyles
|
October 29, 2002 |
I write as a member of the National Federation of the Blind to register my views
on the proposed modifications, that would include audible traffic signals and
tactile edgings in every city and municipality across the land. First, I do
recognize and appreciate the good intentions motivating this project. There can
be no doubt that these and other safety devices can be of great benefit for
blind pedestrians everywhere. However, we of the National Federation of the
Blind would urge the Access Board to take note of a few cogent points.
1. Blind persons travel the streets of major cities throughout this country
without the use of expensive and potentially distracting alterations to the
existing environment. We are a pragmatic and resourceful people, who have long
found ways to negotiate the obstacles, real and imagined, on the public streets.
Often our sighted peers marvel that we manage to make our way along crowded
sidewalks and through busy traffic, aided only by a guide dog or the long white
cane. And yet, as we would hasten to explain, there is nothing remarkable about
our methods. They are the result of trial and error, of hard-earned experience;
and these same methods permit us to travel with a fair sense of confidence
wherever we need to go. Thus, we of the NFB observe that blind persons are even
now traveling successfully without help from technology, which may or may not
prove reliable.
2. In addition, blind persons object to the scale of the project. A common sense
evaluation must show that all intersections and curb cuts do not pose risks to
blind persons. Many are at crossings with only light and occasional traffic.
Others are at intersections where only one of the streets involved carries heavy
traffic. Installing audible signals and tactile strips at such crossings is
quite simply unnecessary, a flagrant waste of public funds.
Certainly there are places where conditions combine to pose significant
challenges to a blind pedestrian. Where multiple lanes or traffic converge or
where intersections are off-set or where traffic is especially heavy -- these
are circumstances under which a blind person might welcome some additional cues
that conditions are right for crossing. We reject the notion that any amount of
technology can render the travel altogether safe, either for us or for sighted
pedestrians. There are simply too many variables, such as inattentive and
reckless drivers. However, travel we must. Our skills and vigilance are the only
absolutely essential prerequisite, without which no blind person has the right
to annoy the public. But with good training by well-equipped professionals,
blind persons may travel in tolerable security. Audible signals and tactile
strips, therefore, confirm for a good traveler that he/she has judged correctly
when and where to cross. And yet, he/she must never rely solely upon the
presence and good operation of imperfect technology. Experience proves that such
trust in technology is equally dangerous..
3. It is our hope that, should anything like the proposed legislation to install
audible signals, etc., be adopted, that the regulations will take into account
the views and concerns of the blind people involved. Let the blind community in
particular areas decide if and where expensive modifications will do them most
good. We have our pride and resent the misinformed notion that, without
significant modifications, we are both unable to walk the public streets. It
pains us that such taxing measures seem necessary to the Access Board and
related civil agencies. Please remember to seek and to heed the judgment of
those members of society, for whom the tax-payers' dollars may be spent.
Respectfully,
Jarrell M. Lyles
Yale Divinity School