I am writing to state my objection to the proposed regulations. I am a blind person who worked for three years as an orientation and mobility instructor. I taught dozens of blind people of varying ages and mental abilities to travel safely in an urban environment using a long white cane, their hearing, and other alternative techniques. While some intersections with irregular geometry and auditorally ambiguous turn signals may be more easily negotiated by blind travelers if a audible signal were in place, at least 95% of the intersections I have encountered in Minneapolis, Des Moines, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and other urban environments do not meet this description. Therefore, mandating audible signals at all intersections is a pointless waste of taxpayer money. Furthermore, the additional noise created by the locator tones can distract or disorient blind pedestrians. The greatest asset of a blind traveler is her/his mental awareness and concentration. Disruption of this concentration puts a blind traveler in danger. Thus, audible traffic signals are often not only superfluous, but hazardous. It seems incongruous to me that a government entity established to promote public safety would mandate equipment that would endanger those it presumes to keep safe. Similarly, detectable warnings on slopes greater than 1-15 are not only superfluous, but also dangerous. They can cause pedestrians, particularly those wearing heels, to stumble toward traffic. In conclusion, I am opposed to the proposed regulations on two accounts. I am opposed to them as a blind traveler whose freedom of movement and personal safety would be endangered by their enactment. I am also opposed to the regulations as a tax payer who does not want to see the federal government waste large amounts of taxpayer money on an endeavor that harms the citizens it was trying to protect.

Sincerely,
Emily Wharton