Patrick Allen Barrett

October 18, 2002

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to go on record as opposing, for the most part, special detectable warnings, such as electronic beepers or raised truncated domes for the blind at street crossings. If the grade from the sidewalk to the curb is so slight as not to be detected by a cane, dog guide, or found with the foot, then that would be an exception.

With proper training in alternative techniques of blindness for independent travel (using and training hearing to recognize traffic patterns and being aware that a sidewalk has a definite slope), the detectable warnings are unnecessary and should not be a burden on taxpayers. In fact, audible traffic signals not only add to the already noisy environment, but inhibit listening for the traffic, which is more reliable. Traffic surge on a parallel street means that the street in front of the blind person can be crossed, as long as the person has had the proper training to recognize that and is aware of any turning cars into the perpendicular street. Traffic signals can fail--traffic is more reliable.

The truncated domes can interfere with folks using strollers, walkers, high heels, or wheelchairs.

Please do not take a blanket approach, and one that is without the experience of the largest and oldest group of blind persons in the country, the National Federation of the Blind. input into it. 50,000 members of this organization had a strong base of experience. Do not place audible signals and tactical domes at street crossings, unless it is with the exception I mentioned above. It also will serve to segregate the blind from the rest of society. There is currently a 70% unemployment rate amongst the nation's blind, in large part due to lack of understanding about the capabilities of the blind to raise families and go to work, traveling independently without extra and intrusive travel modifications.

Thank you.

Patrick Allen Barrett
Member, National Federation of the BLind of MN, Metro Chapter