index previous comment next comment

My name is James Nyman [...]. I am retired director of the State services for the blind for the State of Nebraska. I would like to comment briefly on the the Report and Recommendations of the Public Rights of Way Advisory Committee. I have not recently read the full report, but have some acquaintance of the lines of argument on several sides of the issues of detectable warnings and accessible pedestrian signals. The American Council of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind have taken opposing positions on many of the questions. The American Council of the Blind is right in believing that some detectable warnings and accessible signals can be helpful and contribute to the safety of blind travelers. The National Federation of the Blind is right in believing that, unless the blind person has reasonable skills and confidence in traveling, these are of little use. Thus, if a blind individual does not know how to competently interpret the tactile signals provide by a cane when encountering a truncated dome or warning strip, he/she will be in even greater danger because he/she believes that the existence of the warnings will, in themselves, assure safety. In other words, it is still necessary to understand and interpret information that is generated by the use of the cane or a dog guide. Some of the audible traffic signals I have encountered have been so intrusive as to constitute a dangerous distraction at crossings, but some discussions I have had with city traffic engineers on some of these questions makes it clear that they are more interested in engineering issues rather than end-user benefits of various options. Blind individuals who travel about make use of whatever information they are able to glean from the environment by competent use of a navigation aid, cane or dog, and artificial enhancements can provide some of that information in the form of detectable war5nings and audible signals, but it is misleading to communicate the expectation that safety, access and convenience are guaranteed by the mere existence of these modifications. The extreme positions taken by the two national organizations of the blind obscure these reasonable conclusions and blind persons or governmental entities who buy into either extreme do no service to the blind.