Jeffrey T. Altman, MA, NOMC
|
September 27, 2002 |
I am writing to you as both a blind person, and as
a professional providing Orientation and Mobility services to blind persons
here in the state of Nebraska. I have also worked as a professional O&M
instructor in the Philadelphia area, with extensive experience with both mass
transit, including both trains and light rail systems, and complex traffic
light controlled intersections. I hold a Masters degree in Orientation and
Mobility, from Louisiana Tech University, and National Orientation and
Mobility Certification.
It is my understanding that at the current time
there is a strong effort to establish Federal regulations that would extend
and more firmly enforce existing regulations regarding detectable warning
strips, and also require "accessible traffic signals" for blind pedestrians. I
have several serious concerns in this regard, and I believe that such
regulations would, in spite of their superficial appearance, prove very
detrimental to the quality of life for blind persons.
In regard to detectable warning strips, the
comment has been made that large numbers of blind persons are being injured,
or even dieing by falling off of train and subway platforms, and that it is
well documented that these deaths have resulted from the lack of detectable
warning strips. While this claim has been made repeatedly,, the "documented
evidence" is yet to be brought forward to support this claim. Yes several
blind persons in recent years have fallen from platforms, and a few have even
died. These are truly tragic occurrences; however, I believe some perspective
is needed to fully understand this issue. The question should be posed, is the
rate of accidents of this type involving blind persons actually greater than
those occurring among persons without disabilities? To my knowledge they are
not.
Those that promote the installation of detectable
warning strips and accessible traffic signals state that for proper safety of
blind travelers such devices are essential. If we accept the proposed theory
that blind persons have a greater need for safety measures than the general
public, then we must also accept the misguided belief that blind persons face
a far greater degree of difficulty and danger in their daily lives.
Should we accept this notion that blind persons
face an above average level of difficulty and danger, then we must consider
what creates these conditions for blind persons. There appears to be the
implicit belief that blindness itself so significantly reduces an individual's
awareness of the environment that functioning in the world without
modification is simply unreasonable. Given this supposed truth regarding
blindness, then how is it possible to explain the thousands of blind persons
that live full and productive lives, including utilizing public
transportations systems of every description and cross even the most complex
of intersections independently on a regular basis. Also, if such threats to
our personal safety truly exist, then why would so many blind persons prefer
that such devices only be installed in those rare circumstances where blind
persons themselves have determined they would be of benefit?
Some might argue that living with the resultantly
increased levels of frustration, anxiety, and fear faced by blind persons that
result from the numerous environmental challenges they confront in the course
of daily travel, it should be expected that the average blind person will also
face a significantly increased level of depression. Certainly sources of
danger that would create these emotional conditions can not be considered to
be limited to curbs, intersections, and the edges of train platforms, surely
under this belief system the world must be a virtual death trap for the
hapless blind traveler. It should be further pointed out that Some of the
results of depression can include fatigue and a reduced quality of health, and
therefore potentially a decreased degree of both physical function and perhaps
even a reduced ability to attend to critical environmental factors, resulting
in less effective judgment. Therefore should we accept this very misguided
stereotype of blind persons, then we must assume that a greater than average
number of the accidents that befall blind persons are the result of depression
induced dysfunction, such as a lowered level of awareness or possibly alcohol
or substance abuse, or even suicide. It is well known that the majority of
accidents occurring on train or subway platforms, which involve the general
public, are associated with fatigue, alcohol or substance abuse, or even
suicides. Given the probability, based upon this mythical approach to
blindness, that blind persons are even more likely to live with a reduced
level of awareness, abuse alcohol or other substances at above average levels,
or more frequently resort to suicide, the likelihood that detectable warning
strips will have any meaningful impact upon the number of blind persons being
injured or killed in these situations is minimal at best, and the installation
of such devices will do very little to alleviate the purported excessive
levels of stress created by the myriad of environmental hazards that blind
persons reportedly confront in the course of independent travel.
Should we rationally examine the reality of life
for the majority of blind persons, we find that in fact it differs very little
from the life of the average individual who is not blind, except in the manner
in which the tasks of daily living are approached. With proper training and
the utilization of proper techniques, blind persons manage the environment
with an equal degree of awareness and effectiveness as compared with their
normally sighted counterparts. Given this fact, then it is clear that there
are no outstandingly greater sources of difficulty or danger in a blind
person's life. It can be expected that such individuals represent a cross
section of society, with no greater tendency to experience frustration,
anxiety, or fear, and therefore are no more likely to feel depressed.
Therefore blind persons are no more likely to fall from train or subway
platforms, or enter dangerous situations unaware of the circumstances, than
are any other persons. They will also have no lesser or greater tendency
toward those behaviors that will increase the likelihood that they will be
injured or killed through fatigue, intoxication, or their own intention.
In addition, there is no evidence to support the
implicit belief that detectable warning strips will in fact improve a blind
person's awareness of the environmental conditions they are associated with.
What is critical in safe independent travel is the utilization of effective
techniques, and the appropriate level of awareness necessary to the conditions
through which the person is traveling. An individual traveling in or around a
train or subway platform certainly should be aware the somewhere nearby there
is an edge, and where these warning strips are to be placed in regard to
traffic, there are certainly many available environmental cues that should
alert anyone that is paying even the most minimal degree of attention to the
nature of the situation. Should these individuals fail to be aware of their
circumstances based upon the abundant environmental information, including a
high volume of auditory cues, not to mention relatively significantly obvious
drop offs at the edge of the platform, that should be detected by the same
sort of cane techniques utilized in locating a detectable warning strip, is it
truly reasonable to expect that they will be able to recognize a warning
strip, even if that is the only thing they are focused upon finding?
It may be argued that these strips are necessary
to provide additional information to persons with secondary disabilities. In
deed some of these individuals may benefit from these devices; however, it has
been my experience in nearly fourteen years of teaching, that those
individuals that can locate these devices reliably usually do not need them,
and those that most need this type of information simply cannot make use of it
due to being easily disoriented and overwhelmed by the level of information
they must process to travel in these high demand situations. Therefore only a
very small group of people are likely to benefit from such devices.
Similar issues exist with regard to "accessible
traffic signals". It is argued that these systems permit blind persons to know
with certainty when the traffic light has changed in their favor, and this
will increase their personal safety. This is an over simplification of the
process of crossing a street. Any pedestrian has many other matters to attend
to while crossing a street at an intersection with a traffic light. There is
the possibility that cars may pass through the light very late in the cycle,
even after the light has turned green for the cross traffic. Cars moving
parallel to the pedestrian may turn across the persons path of travel while
they are in the process of crossing the street. also, the pedestrian must
cross in a direct path to the correct corner, without entering the parallel
flow of traffic, or otherwise interfering with the flow of traffic through the
intersection. A blind traveler can very successfully accomplish these tasks
through the utilization of auditory and, to a lesser degree, tactile
information available in the environment, without modification. In fact, at
the majority of intersections controlled by a traffic light, determining when
the light has changed is the least difficult of the activities involved in
crossing a street. There are some intersections that present conditions that
maybe best addressed by accessible traffic signals; however, this decisions
should not be made by traffic engineers, who have no direct knowledge of
blindness, but rather by persons having the appropriate experience and
expertise, that are among, or have been appointed by, members of the organized
blind themselves. There may even be some situations in which detectable
warning strips are appropriate; however, again this is a decision that can
only be made properly by the blind themselves.
Why should I express such a level of concern
regarding the improper or excessive utilization of such devices in regard to
blind persons? There are several reasons. First, these devices for the most
part address a perceived need, rather than a real one. Therefore they waste
resources, and reinforce the myths and misconceptions about the ability of
blind persons. They create a dependency upon devices that may fail when they
are needed most, for example, warning strips can become snow or ice packed in
winter creating, a condition in which a blind traveler who has come to depend
upon the information they provide will be unable to access the feedback the
warning strip normally presents. The packing of ice and snow into the warning
strips will likely also present a more serious hazard to pedestrians, and
interfere with efforts to properly clear pedestrian pathways. These strips
also may increase the probability that women wearing high heels, or other
persons relying on orthopedic devices, such as support canes, will stumble or
fall more easily. Accessible traffic signals, as with any mechanical device,
can break down, and who other than the unsuspecting blind traveler is likely
to notice that there is a problem. Should the individual have developed a
significant dependency upon such devices, this could leave that person either
with no options, or even in danger. Even when such devices are in proper
order, if the blind individual does not have the other necessary skills to
function safely in the world, then little is gained.
This is a very serious matter, since the funding
of programs providing rehabilitation training are often the target of budget
cutting efforts, on both the state and Federal levels. The misconception that
detectable warning strips and accessible traffic signals are an effective
replacement for good Orientation and Mobility training could easily be
accepted by persons that are unfamiliar with blindness, especially when some
blind persons promote these devices as essential to safe and effective travel
for blind persons.
There is also another fact that should be
considered in this matter. Many of the people that are promoting these
devices, are individuals that refuse to utilize appropriate adaptive devices,
such as the long white cane, preferring in stead to rely upon their very
limited and unreliable vision. Certainly, should a motorist that is determined
to need corrective glasses to safely operate a motor vehicle, and chooses not
to do so, resulting in a collision ending in either injury or death, will not
inspire a national effort to modify the roadway and highway system to
accommodate such irresponsible behavior. There are also a number of these
blind persons that have refused to receive proper training in order to travel
safely, and although they do carry a white cane, they often lack the skills to
utilize them effectively. Again, our society would have little tolerance for
those that would attempt to operate motor vehicles without proper training,
and it is unlikely that efforts would be made to modify the environment to
meet the needs of such untrained drivers. Our society clearly takes the
sensible course of action in these matters related to motor vehicle operators,
we require those persons with correctable vision to wear corrective glasses
when driving, and when they fail to do so we hold them responsible for their
actions. We provide a variety of training programs for people to learn safe
methods of driving, and we hold those individuals refusing to obtain such
training responsible for the results of their actions. I am not suggesting
that blind persons that refuse to use an appropriate mobility device, or
refuse training should be punished, or in any way restricted, but rather that
like any other member of our society, they should be expected to accept
responsibility for their choices and actions.
It will be pointed out that the situation is not
this simple, since many states do not offer blind persons access to proper
training. This statement is both correct and fair; however, since the issue of
installing such environmental modifications also involves a very great
investment of taxpayer dollars, then why not use this money where it will do
the most good. The funds necessary to make such extensive modifications on a
national scale could easily afford every blind person in our country, that
wishes to receive such services, the sort of proper training that would allow
them to function safely, and would also likely lead to them becoming more
effective and productive members of society.
I hope that you will give consideration to the
issues I raise here, and that the information I have provided to you will
assist you in better understanding the inappropriateness of installing
detectable warning strips and accessible traffic signals in all but a very
rare number of situations. Please recognize that my statements, in spite of
the responses from those that would be critical of them, are not motivated by
either arrogance or a disregard for the safety of blind and visually impaired
persons, but rather by the desire to make certain that valuable, limited,
resources are devoted to activities that will provide blind persons with the
greatest benefit, and not those that are both unproven, and likely to
reinforce the negative stereotypes of blind persons held by so many members of
our society.
Sincerely
Jeffrey T. Altman MA NOMC
index
previous comment
next comment