by Donna Smith
Recently, in an e-mail exchange on ACB's e-mail discussion list (ACB-L), I had the opportunity to outline my thoughts regarding accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and the need to support their use and installation. A number of points typically used by opponents of APS were posed to the list in the form of well-worded questions which invited list members to respond. What follows is the second attempt of this ACB member to address those issues in a Q&A format. I will state from the start that I am a strong supporter of APS, and I do not attempt in this article to find a compromise position. I can find no compelling reason to seek compromise by bartering with access, safety and the lives of people who are blind or visually impaired. Q: What are the reasons why ACB promotes policies in favor of APS? A: We promote policies in favor of APS because we promote equal access. If a community deems it important for safety to install visual signals at an intersection for sighted pedestrians, then pedestrians who are blind should have the same consideration for safety as all other members of that community. My safety is not of less importance than my neighbor's based on the fact of who can see or not. Incidentally, there is research that indicates that all pedestrians cross more quickly at intersections where APS are installed. Q: Statements have been widely circulated that blind and visually impaired people have died or been severely injured due to the lack of APS, and if so, where may one find the official statistics depicting the overwhelming circumstances where the benefits would undeniably outweigh the costs? A: This question truly offends me, but if it needs to be asked, then perhaps I should attempt to answer it. There are several web sites both private and federal which give statistics about pedestrian accidents involving people both with and without disabilities. Just use your favorite search engine and put in the words "pedestrian safety" and sit back and do some reading. You can also check out ACB's web site for the testimonies written by friends and loved ones of blind and visually impaired people who were killed or injured in such accidents.
As for statistics showing the benefits outweighing the cost, what is the number that would satisfy this request? Are we expected to put a price tag on the lives of the people who have died or to estimate the loss to society based on a reasonable projection of what they might have contributed monetarily had they been able to live out a reasonable life span, and then to balance this against the cost of installing APS? Is this how we determine the need for visual signals? I can tell you that the installation of an APS at the major intersection I cross coming home from work has seriously reduced my stress in making that crossing, but I don't know how to put a dollar amount on that, and fortunately Arlington County, Va., didn't ask. All they needed to know was that I cross that street regularly and that installing an APS would afford me the same ease and safety of travel as the existing visual signal affords all other county residents making that crossing -- in a word, accessible. Q: To what extent are the APS going to be implemented? Are we talking every intersection in America, or are we just talking major streets in major cities? A: The Access Board is proposing that where it is determined that new pedestrian signals are needed, accessible pedestrian signals shall be installed. There is no recommended template for retrofitting existing signalized intersections with APS. There are materials that give guidance on how to determine at which intersections APS would prove most useful, but mostly their installation is accomplished because a local resident in the community requests it. Such requests constitute reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In no discussion made up of any group of reasonable people have I ever heard it proposed that every intersection should have an APS. For more information about what is actually proposed, check out the full PROWAAC report and the proposed guidelines on the Access Board's web site. (See resources at end of article.) Q: What is the projected cost to undertake the installation of APS, and which resources are tapped for the necessary funding? A: The average cost of adding APS to the installation of a new visual signal is $4,000. Let's put this in perspective. The overall cost of signalizing a four-legged intersection is around $200,000. The cost of the visual pedestrian signal is about $50,000 or 25 percent of the overall cost. To make that visual signal accessible is $4,000 or 2 percent of the overall cost. If the signal is a fixed-time signal, meaning that the walk cycle is activated by a push-button, then the cost of making it accessible is even less. Another comparison to consider is that the cost of the new countdown signals, the signals that give a visual display of the time remaining to cross the intersection, is around $43,000 and that's using existing equipment already in place at the signalized intersection, and the cost of adding voice message APS is about $12,000.
The general answer to the question about where the funding comes from is that it comes from the source that funds the visual signals. In addition, there are federal funds available to help a municipality increase the accessibility of the pedestrian environment and particularly so if modifications increase access to public transportation. Q: What has ACB done over the years to promote the use and installation of APS? A: Much has been done at the national level by ACB to promote awareness of the need for APS. Information about such activities can be found in "The Braille Forum," "News Notes from the National Office," "The Washington Connection," and in resolutions from many years past. ACB has also written the "Pedestrian Safety Handbook" which is an excellent resource document on the topic, and has created a web page with links to pertinent information on other sites. The ACB environmental access committee has been very proactive in seeking access to information which is provided visually to pedestrians, and the ACB transportation task force has recognized accessible environments including accessible intersections as a key factor in blind pedestrians' utilization of public and private transportation. Still more has been done by special-interest affiliates and state and local chapters of ACB to promote APS, and these efforts are documented in their board/business meeting minutes, resolutions and newsletters. Q: Who has worked with the ACB to change the regulations and increase awareness of this issue? A: The Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER), especially the division for orientation and mobility professionals, the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), and a number of local agencies and organizations including an increasing number representing seniors and parents. Several organizations have taken a proactive position toward access to information on the streets, including The Seeing Eye and other guide dog schools. Q: Who, aside from the NFB, are its most adamant opponents, and why? A: I can't think of any group other than NFB who has openly opposed the use of APS. As for why they oppose it, I can't think of any rational answer. I think that's a very good question. Why would anyone want to make it more difficult for a person who is blind to cross an intersection? Why would anyone want to jeopardize the safety of any person who is blind by openly fighting against access? It's beyond me to answer such questions. Q: Would one go so far as to say that crossing signalized intersections without APS is impossible? A: This is similar to the question regarding should there be an APS at every intersection in America, in that it attempts to diminish the importance of the issue by posing an extreme interpretation of what's been discussed. Generally statements like this are thrown out in an attempt to make people feel ridiculous for supporting APS. Again, no one in any group I've ever heard or read about has suggested that people who are blind can't cross lighted intersections unless there is an APS. No one is suggesting that making an APS available is the only tool or skill a blind or visually impaired person needs to make a safe crossing. In the example I gave above about the intersection I cross coming home from work, I made that crossing for a year before the installation of the APS. Some days I misjudged it and had to turn around and go back to the sidewalk and try again. Some days I had to wait through a couple of cycles before feeling comfortable enough to make the crossing. Some days the light at the next intersection a block away kept traffic going in one direction so backed up that it was not possible to tell whether traffic on the parallel street was stopped because it was time to cross my intersection or just because of the backed-up traffic conditions. And some days I came very close to being hit by turning traffic from the far lane that I couldn't hear over other traffic noise. So could I cross it? Yes. Did I cross it? Yes. Can I cross it with greater ease and certainty now that the APS is available? Yes. Have I discarded all my other training regarding traveling independently just because this signal makes a noise when it's flashing the walk sign? No. Q: Assuming that blind people have been able to travel through lighted intersections up to this point, would APS not serve as a blow to the image of independence the ACB claims to uphold? A: Do I feel less independent because I just paid my bills online rather than by using the Optacon and a check-writing guide? Would I have wanted to use that web site for paying my bills if it had not been made accessible by its developers? Do I feel less independent because I needed them to make it accessible? If they refused to make it accessible, would I have still paid my bills? How is the accessibility of the online bill-paying environment different from the accessible pedestrian environments I travel through each day? Q: How has the blind population been able to largely cope without APS? A: How did we cope before any assistive technology? Years ago as a state employee I used to handle large volumes of print paperwork without a scanner or a computer, but do I want to give away my computer or scanner now? I don't think so. The intersections of my youth were plus sign structures with predictable and static control lights, and the cars were rumbling on eight loud gas- combusted cylinders. Today, many intersections are variable and dynamic, controlled via computer in accordance with real-time traffic flow. Add to this today's silent, stealthy cars, and one might reasonably wonder how anybody is expected to cross safely under such conditions. Q: The ACB's web site indicates that: "The American Council of the Blind (ACB) is a national organization of blind, visually impaired and sighted individuals whose purpose is to work toward independence, security, equality of opportunity, and improved quality of life for all blind and visually impaired people." This said, could it not be argued that by implementing truncated domes on every street corner as well as audible signals we are feeding the stereotype that blind people cannot be as competent when they travel as their sighted counterparts? A: No. And no one's advocating for detectable warnings on every street corner either. Do yellow warning strips on train platforms feed the stereotype that sighted travelers are not as competent as their blind counterparts? Q: Could it not be further asserted that taking such steps is in direct violation of the goals guaranteed by the objectives listed above? A: Not by any rational person. Q: Will the ACB negate the fact that pedestrian accidents can happen anywhere and may involve anyone? A: Certainly not. Again, this is an example of using the most extreme point of view possible to interpret what's being promoted. We're proposing that all reasonable effort be made to limit accidents, that if society considers that the presence of visual signals helps to minimize accidents for people who can see them, then it is reasonable to assume and only fair to promote the tenet that audible signals will do the same for people who can't see the visual ones, and vibrotactile ones will do the same for people who can't use the visual or audible ones. Q: If the problem of pedestrian safety is as astronomical as the ACB claims, would it not be the teaching methods of the orientation and mobility instructor which should be called into question? A: It is not the teaching methods of my O&M instructor from 28 years ago that are at issue when I'm trying to hear whether there is traffic turning from four lanes over, while the sound of idling vehicles some of which have music playing at volumes which would accommodate the fans at a rock and roll concert intrude upon my ability to hear. It's not the teaching methods of my O&M instructor that are in question when traffic flow sounds are masked by the delivery truck idling at the curb. It's not the teaching methods of my O&M instructor in question when I'm trying to judge when exactly my 11 seconds to cross at a traffic circle begin. Do we have visual signals because parents weren't good enough at teaching their children to look both ways before crossing the street?
In summary, good travel skills are crucial to everything we do and so is making our environment accessible. Many people have excellent travel skills and put them to the test every day, but I for the life of me can't understand anyone opposing the provision of basic equal access in the built environment that would create a safer travel environment for people with disabilities. What about the differences that exist between individuals? What about the fact that some people are just more timid than others? What about the fact that some people have additional disabilities other than blindness? What about the fast-growing senior population and the fact that seniors are twice as likely to be killed by an automobile as younger members of the general public? What about the fact that the real skill comes from repeated practice, which puts newly blinded people at an automatic disadvantage? What about factoring in being tired or distracted? What about factoring in loud noises? And why on Earth would anybody advocate for less than equal access?
The concept of the congenitally blind, 20-something, exquisitely trained individual, able to leap complex intersections in a single bound, is much more theoretical than real. There are very real, very average, very alive people who are blind, who will not remain so alive unless we all wake up to what all pedestrians need from their environments in order that they might traverse them safely. The technology is here. The legislation is here and the guidelines have been written and proposed. I could accept it, if not really understand it, if the NFB chooses based on their philosophy to not make environmental access one of their priorities, but that they actively advocate against it is unconscionable in my opinion!
When I walk out my front door, I don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody. I have work to do, business to transact, errands to run, and when I stand at the corner waiting to cross the street, there's no one standing in judgment of my skill at traveling independently. It's just me and all those cars. I'm not diminished at all by the fact that the signal now makes a sound that lets me know the walk sign is on. It's just one more piece of information helping me to make the best judgment I can about putting my body in front of all those cars. Similarly, it doesn't diminish my independence to use a talking alarm clock that I can set for myself, a color detector to match my socks, screen reading software to use my computer, braille to read and write, little stick-on dots to label my washing machine or sighted assistance in the store to find just the right shampoo. Can I use an elevator that doesn't give an audible signal when it passes a floor? Can I improvise a method of finding my hotel room when there is no braille signage? Can I eat in a restaurant if there is no braille menu? Is it possible for me to figure out where to get off the bus if the operator won't call the stops? It's not a giant test of how well I can pass when access doesn't exist. It's not about one-upmanship between me and the sighted world. It's about equal access. It's about upholding my civil rights as an American citizen. It's about being one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Resources Pedestrian Safety Information American Council of the Blind http://www.acb.org/pedestrian/index.html Draft Guidelines for Public Rights of Way and Public Comments The U.S. Access Board http://www.access-board.gov/news/prowupdate.htm Technical Report on APS The U.S. Access Board http://www.access-board.gov/news/aps-report.htm Synthesis on APS Ped/Bike Information Center funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation http://www.walkinginfo.org/aps/home.cfm