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
index
previous comment
next comment