[nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind

Mon Nov 24 14:47:30 UTC 2008

Come on, Dave, if an audible signal is so loud that you can't hear the 
traffic, that's just ridiculously poor engineering. I mean, you could create 
a walk light that shines a bright light in people's eyes but nobody would be 
against walk lights in general if some traffic engineer was stupid enough to 
set one up that way. They'd just get the traffic engineer to fix the light.

If some traffic engineer screws up and makes the signal too loud, that's 
just a mistake. It doesn't invalidate the entire concept of audible walk 
signals.

Those audible signals are usually no louder than a cricket and they're 
usually quieter than a cicada or a katydid.  If you're at an intercection 
with a cicada is it unsafe for you to cross? If there's a dog barking is it 
unsafe for you to cross? Construction? Somebody playing a radio or talking 
on their cell phone? Honestly, I think the audible signal is far less 
troublesome than any of those things.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Evans" <drevans at bellsouth.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind

>
> Dear Dar,
>
> Most areas have a traffic safety committee that is made up from citizens 
> and city or county traffic officials that have the responsibility to 
> examine and make suggestions and changes to local traffic situations 
> including modifing intersections, configurations, signal timing and more.
> If you talk to them about any problems you have, with a particular 
> crossing, such as needing more time to cross, these are the people who can 
> make it happen.
> I think that anytime someone presses the crossing buttons, the signal 
> should give a little more time for some one to cross for the next two 
> light changes and then go back to its regular light timing to preserve the 
> coordinated light timing that traffic engineers figure into the system to 
> promote the smooth flow of traffic.
>
> Audible traffic signals have both good and bad to their use.
> The only good thing is that they tell you that the light changed.  This 
> could be useful where you are crossing at a street that sometimes has 
> little traffic volume to give you a clue as to who's turn it is in the 
> traffic sequence.    Audible signals do not really stop the traffic.  That 
> is what our ears are suppose to tell us so we are sure before we step off 
> the curb.  Cars run the red lights all of the time.  That is why audible 
> signals, that make so much noise are really a hazard to the blind as your 
> hearing has to compete with their sound, the traffic noise of the vehicles 
> that are moving and this makes it harder to hear the softer sounds of a 
> car slowing down to make that right turn on red.
>
> I am not totally against audible traffic signals, but most of them make to 
> much noise and can be heard blocks away.  Making enough sound to let you 
> know the light has changed is okay, but then they should be quiet or make 
> very little sound to avoid masking the sounds we need to pick up on to 
> avoid getting hit by a car coming through the intersection a little late. 
> After all, the cars are governed by the color of the lights, not the 
> sound.  Many cars are so well insulated today that drivers can not even 
> hear most sudible signals until they are in the intersections anyway.
> As 69.4% of all blind people are over the age of 65 years and that number 
> will rise to 74% in just 8 more years, traffic accidents may rise among 
> seniors if steps are not taken to provide better protection for them.
> Audible signals can be both a help and a threat to them.
> Seniors, who are losing their eye sight and their hearing can both make 
> good use of good signal designs,but can also be lulled into a false sense 
> of security by audible signals and begin placing too much trust in them 
> for their personal safety instead of using their own senses and common 
> sense to keep them safe.
>
> The signal, and how we use it and respond to its use, is very important 
> and it must work for everyone and especially the most vunriable.
> I am not sure that being distracted by the use of our cell phone is such a 
> good idea any more than I think that talking on the cell phone when 
> driving is such a good idea.  Distracted drivers are accounting for more 
> and more accidents today.  Add distracted pedestrians using their cell 
> phones is just another factor that can lead to a deadly accident, wouldn't 
> you agree?
>
> Most accidents are caused by carelessness, lazyness or impacians on the 
> part of one or more of the parties involved.
>
>
> David Evans, NFBF
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: "dmgina" <dmgina at qwest.net
>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>Date sent: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:29:22 -0700
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind
>
>>I understand watching the traffic as always,
>>just thought it was a swell idea if a cell phone could stop the
> traffic for
>>us to get across and many others.
>>Even seniors would like more time with lights.
>
>>--Dar
>>www.mypowermall.com/biz/home/5779
>>Every saint has a past
>>every sinner has a future
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "David Evans" <drevans at bellsouth.net
>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:48 PM
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind
>
>
>
>>> Dear Dar,
>
>>> The cell phone approach will not work and is very impracticle
> and would
>>> leave many other pedestrians exposed.
>>> The best way is just to be able to hear them coming the same way
> we judge
>>> the approach of all other vehicles.
>>> The cell phone method just will not let you judge how fast and
> from what
>>> direction a hybred car is coming like your hearing does.
>>> You would have to walk around trying to pay attention to your
> phone and
>>> all of the other things at the same time.
>>> Cars just need to sound like cars, that's all.  Cars, most of
> them anyway,
>>> already do this and we can handle them.  It is just the hybred
> electric
>>> ones that mostly don't follow the rules.
>
>>> David Evans, NFBF
>
>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "dmgina" <dmgina at qwest.net
>>>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>Date sent: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:21:40 -0700
>>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind
>
>>>>I am for what they want to do.
>>>>Many of us have cell phones, and I wouldn't be with out mine.
>>>>I will keep reading.
>
>>>>--Dar
>>>>www.mypowermall.com/biz/home/5779
>>>>Every saint has a past
>>>>every sinner has a future
>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Alicia Richards" <alicia716 at msn.com
>>>>To: "NFB Talk" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:08 PM
>>>>Subject: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind
>
>
>>>>> The following was just posted to the Colorado Association of
>>> Blind
>>>>> Students mailing list.  I'm curious to know what you guys have
>>> to say
>>>>> about it.  I wonder, does the NFB know of this technology, and
>>> do we plan
>>>>> to do anything about it?
>
>>>>> For the 21.2 million Americans who suffer from vision loss,
>>>>> crossing the
>>>>> street can be a stressful and potentially dangerous proposition.
>>>>> Thanks to engineers at the University of Idaho, many visually
>>> impaired
>>>>> individuals soon may have a greatly reduced risk thanks to a
>>> tool
>>>>> already in their pockets - their cell phone.
>
>>>>> The statistics for vision loss, provided by the American
>>>>> Foundation for
>>>>> the Blind, include anyone reporting difficulty seeing, even
>>> while
>>>>> wearing glasses or contact lenses. No matter the level of visual
>>>>> impairment, many conditions - including visual noise, walking at
>>>>> night
>>>>> and irregular intersections - can result in missing a crosswalk.
>
>>>>> Regardless of conditions, the new system being developed in
>>>>> Moscow,
>>>>> Idaho, will make intersections safer and easier to navigate.
>
>>>>> "Minute for minute on the road, any pedestrian is 150 percent
>>>>> more
>>>>> likely to
>
>>>>> be injured by a car than somebody driving one," said Richard
>>>>> Wall,
>>>>> professor
>
>>>>> of electrical and computer engineering. "But it is pretty
>>>>> apparent that
>>>>> the
>
>>>>> blind pedestrians are the ones most at risk at intersections.b
>
>>>>> The new technology utilizes features already available in many
>>>>> cellular
>
>>>>> phones, including communications, Global Positioning Satellite
>>>>> (GPS)
>
>>>>> functions and magnetic compasses to help visually impaired
>>>>> pedestrians.
>
>>>>> Specialized software allows these pedestrians to activate the
>>>>> crossing
>
>>>>> signal remotely without having to locate the physical button.
>
>>>>> Then, the GPS system monitors the position and direction of
>>>>> travel while
>>>>> crossing. As long as the crosser stays within the crosswalk,
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> happens. But stray outside the lines, and an audible warning
>>>>> activates
>>>>> alerting the pedestrian of their danger. It then provides
>>>>> directions on
>>>>> how to get back within the safety zone. Should the walker
>>> somehow
>>>>> end up
>>>>> in the middle of the intersection, the system automatically
>>> would
>>>>> turn
>>>>> every light red, stopping traffic and averting a potential
>>>>> disaster.
>
>>>>> "It's true that this would disrupt the timing of the signal
>>>>> patterns
>>>>> when it gets activated," said Wall. "But we would much rather
>>>>> disrupt
>>>>> them for a few seconds than for a half hour while an ambulance
>>>>> assists a
>>>>> traffic victim."
>
>>>>> To ensure people don't trigger the alarm just for fun, only
>>> those
>>>>> who
>>>>> need the help would be able to acquire the necessary software.
>
>>>>> The system requires more than software, however. It also
>>> requires
>>>>> the
>>>>> installation of new hardware in thousands of lights across the
>>>>> country.
>>>>> Luckily, Wall and his team have found a solution that not only
>>> is
>>>>> cost
>>>>> effective, it simplifies the existing system.
>
>>>>> Many crosswalks currently have handicapped-Many crosswalks curre
>>>>> provide
>>>>> help such as audio tones indicating when it is safe to cross.
>>>>> However,
>>>>> the box that controls the intersection contains a massive amount
>>>>> of
>>>>> wiring. This is necessary to connect each actuator with each
>>>>> signal so
>>>>> at any given time, the control box knows each state.
>
>>>>> Wall's new system simplifies each box to only two wires, both
>>>>> already
>>>>> required to power the signals. It uses a technology called
>>>>> Ethernet over
>>>>> power line, which allows information to be broadcast over power
>>>>> lines.
>
>>>>> The future is clear for Wall and his research team. They have
>>>>> established dates to deliver the engineering and expect field
>>>>> trials to
>>>>> commence in June. They are building prototypes supported by
>>> funds
>>>>> from
>>>>> the University Transportation Centers program, Idaho's Higher
>>>>> Education
>>>>> Research Council and their commercial partner, Campbell Company,
>>>>> who
>>>>> currently makes the accessible pedestrian signals that chirp and
>>>>> talk
>>>>> for the handicapped.
>
>>>>> "The signals we're building are more than prototypes. These
>>>>> devices
>>>>> actually can go into the field and work today," said Wall.
>>> "We're
>>>>> using
>>>>> existing infrastructure and communicating intelligence over it.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> cost effective, it simplifies the connection to two wires and it
>>>>> can be
>>>>> immediately installed in all the existing crosswalks in the
>>>>> country."
>
>>>>> If you would like more information, or to speak with the people
>>>>> involved, please let me know.
>
>>>>> Ken Kingery
>
>>>>> Science/Research Writer
>
>>>>> University of Idaho
>
>>>>> Office: 208-885-9156
>
>>>>> Cell: 614-570-3942
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
> 