Anil Lewis

October 28, 2002

Dear Access Board:

First of all let me state that I sincerely appreciate the intent behind your broad recommendation of requiring audible traffic signals and detectible warnings. And while I respect your efforts to help, I feel compelled to inform you as to how your recommendations are serving to put more blind people at risk of injury.

I think that it is important to state that audible traffic signals, like the “Walk / Don’t Walk” signs, only tell when the light changes, not when the intersection is safe to cross. Furthermore, a person with poor mobility skills will have poor mobility skills even at an intersection with audible traffic signals. I have witnessed sighted individuals, when starting across the street at the command of a “Walk” sign, get bumped and bounced by vehicles running red lights. I have also, with the installation of some of the audible traffic signals in the Atlanta area, witnessed blind individuals blindly walking out into an intersection because a beeping pole has informed them that the light has changed. These beeping tones, by bouncing off of near by buildings, or by being misdirected from their source have caused those with poor mobility skills to walk directly into the middle of the intersection rather than safely to an opposite corner. In addition, I have heard of instances where the beeping tone was cued on the wrong signal, causing them to beep on red and the pedestrian to cross against the light.

I have reviewed many of the comments provided so far. There are many comments from individuals that profess to have good travel skills, but express fear in crossing familiar streets. They remind me of a friend that was determined to have truncated domes installed at the edge of the platforms of the public transportation rail systems because he had fallen on the tracks. He fell again, even after the installation of the truncated domes, because he did not address the real issue of developing and using good mobility skills. Instead, he placed more emphasis on altering the environment and with that alteration, he developed a false sense of confidence. This is the same false sense of confidence that will be acquired by those that demand audible traffic signals at every street crossing. This false sense of confidence, which is based on a dependence on audible traffic signals, and not on proper orientation and mobility skills, will place these individuals at greater risk, and surely result in more accidents.

It is my opinion that many intersections already have detectible warnings. Curbs, properly constructed curb cuts, textured contrast between concrete and asphalt all serve as existing detectible warnings at most of the intersections I have had to cross. However, I am not opposed to the installation of detectible warnings at intersections where the existing construction does not provide sufficient information for a blind person to cross effectively.

I am by no means under the illusion that if these recommendations become law, that they will be appropriately enforced. In fact, I have noticed that even with the existing construction requirements, I have seen how difficult it is to get a basic curb cut installed. I would be more interested in the enforcement of existing requirements for the construction of accessible intersections, which if done correctly will greatly reduce the need for the other proposed changes.

Out of no disrespect to those that feel the additional information provided by audible traffic signals and detectible warnings would assist them in traveling safely through their environment, I agree with those that believe too much information can be distracting and dangerous. Moreover, I feel it is important to understand the greater potential risk it will present for those without proficient mobility skills.

I sincerely hope these comments are taken into consideration when making your final recommendations.

Yours truly,

Anil Lewis