[nfb-talk] Audible Walking Signals

[T. Joseph Carter]

Melissa,

As a person with a hearing impairment, even if only a slight one, you
should understand the importance of not having some squawking thing impede
what hearing you have.  The NFB has developed a tactile signal which might
be installed at difficult intersections if the need arises.  It does make
some noise right at the beginning of a cycle, but is then silent after
that so you can focus on the cars.

The standard chirping signal is dangerous because it is very loud and
blocks the sound of cars.  It is basically unnecessary because at the sort
of intersection they tend to install the thing--at crossings of really
large roads--it's pretty easy to tell when the cycles start and stop.
They start with the roar of many accelerating engines.  If you didn't hear
that roar, you wait for the next cycle because you probably don't have
enough time to cross.

Of course, the ACB opposes our tactile signal saying that some people are
blind, have a significant hearing loss, and have no ability to feel the
signal.  I am sure it's possible to cross a street safely in that state,
but the ACB insists that a squawking box will let them do it, and our
tactile signal wouldn't.

And my experience is that train platforms usually are tactile.  This is
done ostensibly for us.  The NFB would argue we're capable of figuring
that out ourselves, and we are.  A sighted person doesn't need the yellow
line to know to stay back a bit from a moving train either.  They put it
there in case someone isn't paying close attention to where they're
standing when they notice an oncoming train.  And sometimes, these sighted
people notice it with their feet, not their eyes.  So really, these things
serve everyone.  Not strictly necessary, but not a bad idea either.

The difference here is that the standard APS is a bad idea because you
cannot hear a quieter car over it.  If drivers all obeyed the traffic
laws, that wouldn't matter.  They don't.  If I can't see the car coming,
I'd at least like a shot at hearing it coming.  I don't much care if the
signal tells me that the light has changed if it does so and then shuts up
so I can hear the cars to cross.

In fact, there are two at Portland State University that easily prove my
point.  They are T intersections both where the main street gets a lot of
traffic, and the intersecting street gets very little.  You can wait ten
minutes for a car on the intersecting street.  This kind of intersection
is easy to cross using perpendicular traffic cues since you haven't got
any parallel.  Of course, crossing with perpendicular traffic cues is
considered to be an advanced travel skill because you've got far less
information than with parallel.

That doesn't matter when crossing these intersections, but there are many
just moderately skilled travelers out there who have been told to NEVER
use it by their instructors.  They're going to be nervous and have pretty
high anxiety standing at these corners, and when you're like that you make
mistakes.  Mistakes crossing streets tend to make you go splat.

An APS can make this a little easier to do for such a person.  However,
the signals are so loud that they can be heard blocks away from the
intersection.  In fact, if you are just one block away, you might--and I
have--misinterpret the signal from that intersection as telling you the
state of the light where you're standing right now.  These things, in this
place, installed as an assistance to blind people, are creating a hazard.

I have some doubts that we in the NFB will win the fight on this one.  I
think we could handle the ACB, but they're not even the driving force
behind these things being installed everywhere.  The AARP is.  We simply
don't have their lobbying budget.  In cities where we have already lost
the fight, the best thing we can be doing is damage control to make sure
that the signals that those crews install are models that provide
non-visual indication of light changes, but do not impede our ability to
hear traffic in the process.


I take a very pragmatic approach to these things.  At some point, a
platform edge is going to be serviced--painted or whatever.  At that time,
you might as well install the yellow rubber truncated domes I have run
into several places now.  They last a few years, just like new paint
would.  Of course, they cost a lot more than paint, but the real cost of
painting or installing domes is really the labor.

So if they say they're going to install these things as a safety measure,
I say go for it.  If they say they're going to have to allocate room in
their budget to go and systematically upgrade every platform in the city
so blind people will know where the edge of the platform is, I'll speak up
and tell them that I'm quite capable of figuring out where the edge of the
platform is, thanks.  I might suggest that the domes are still a good idea
to prevent looked but failed to see accidents on the platform, and they
should be installed as part of the platform maintenance.

The same applies to an APS.  The APS costs a whole lot more than bumpy
yellow mats do, but when you install an APS you're talking about paying
road crews and redirecting traffic to do it.  If you've got to do that
anyway, feel free to install one--as long as you install one that isn't
likely to get me run over by a mad minivan driver trying to get to the
last must-have consumer item this generic secular holiday consumer season.

The former is most likely a good idea whether I need it or not.  The
latter is probably a waste of money.  But then, that's what governments
do.  As long as they don't waste it trying to get me killed, I'm not
going to try and change their opinion.  Besides, the AARP paid good money
for that opinion, and a loyal politician will stay bought.  Besides, I'm
carrying about $2.25 and a piece of dryer lint.  I don't think I can
afford much influence without a stop at the ATM.  *grin*


On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:20:32AM -0500, Milissa Garside wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
> 
> I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that audible traffic 
> signals do not help the blind. As a person who is totally blind and who has 
> a slight hearing impairment, audible traffic signals are extremely helpful 
> to me. Certainly, I don't think they need to be installed at every 
> intersection but, I do feel that they are needed at a great deal of 
> intersections and fighting the ACB on this issue is pointless.
> 
> I have found that in talking to NFB folks, it depends on where you live and 
> your experience traveling decides one's opinion on audible traffic signals 
> and tactile warning strips on subway platforms. For example, I live and 
> Boston where we have crazy drivers, offset complex intersections, and subway 
> platforms which have 6 foot drop offs. I don't care how well someone is 
> trained, some intersections around here are impossible to cross without 
> audible traffic signals. In terms of the subways, we have subway platforms 
> that have trains coming in on both sides. Basically, there is a platform 
> that has a 6 foot drop off on both sides; there is no wall for a blind 
> person to use as a guide to travel on the platform. I don't care how much 
> training one has but, maneuvering a platform which is open on both sides and 
> there is no tactile guide to follow is asking for trouble. I'm not saying 
> that it can't be done but, it is extremely dangerous.
> 
> Here is one area I do not agree with the NFB. If traffic lights are 
> available to sighted people for a reason, why then should they not have an 
> audible signal for the blind? Also, since subway platforms have a visual 
> yellow line for sighted people, why not then make the yellow line tactile so 
> that blind people can have the same safety information? I think that the NFB 
> some times gets to carried away with what blind people can do with proper 
> training. If safety information is already there for sighted people, there 
> is no reason why it shouldn't be there for blind people. Obviously, traffic 
> lights and yellow lines on platforms are a safety measure for the sighted 
> and I find it piposterous when blind people say that we do not need the same 
> type of safety information simply because we can be trained to the point 
> where we don't need it. I find that most people who cling to the idea that 
> proper training can concor all are generally those who have not experienced 
> living in big cities like Boston and other big cities. When making traffic 
> lights and platform edges accessible for the blind, we are not asking for 
> "special treatment" we are entitled to the same safety measures that are put 
> in place for the sighted.
> 
> Milissa