James Nyman
|
September 13, 2002 |
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.
index
previous comment
next comment