[nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind

[John G. Heim]

Sorry, I'm not buying it. By your logic, the world would be a safer place 
without walk signals of any type -- visual or audible. Doesn't a visual 
signal  lull a  sighted person into a false sense of security? Are you 
suggesting that all these years where every city in the world has installed 
visual walk signals, they're actually making their cities less safe?

Every day, billions of people use traffic lights to cross streets. To one 
degree or another, they're alert to the oncoming traffic. Some people just 
go automatically when the light changes. Some look first. Blind people are 
no different. You don't have to just go like a robot when the audible signal 
starts beeping.

I've already crossed the street 6 times with audible walk signals. I'm still 
aware of when the traffic stops and what other pedistrians around me are 
doing. In fact, about the only way I can manage to *not* cross against the 
light is to wait for the audible signal because all of the students around 
here j-walk  like crazy.

I would be shocked if audible walk signals don't make a blind person much, 
much safer. I'm sure we've all the the experience where you've waited for a 
gap in the traffic and started across only to be nearly run down by cars 
that seem to come out of no where. And if you're crossing against the light, 
they usually feel no compunction about giving you a good scare.  That can be 
avoided with audible walk signals.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Evans" <drevans at bellsouth.net>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind


> Dear John,
>
> What a way to start a letter, "Dear John" that is.
> I agree that the signals I am talking about are indeed poor design.  I 
> have seen some signals that did work much better , but for the most part a 
> person's hearing has to compete with them to hear the suddal sounds of the 
> tires, drive train, brakes or engine winding down as cars slow down to 
> stop or make a turn.
> I am an engineer and a blind one with experience as a pro auto mechanic 
> and as an engineering student in the late 1960-early 70's, helped develop 
> the hybred technology that is being used today.
> I have just learned to place my safety in good skills of blindness and not 
> the technologies that some sighted person thinks is better for me.
> I do think that signals could be improved over what we have, and that some 
> disabled people could be helped to get across some more complicated and 
> troublesome intersections.   but they can not and should not be used as a 
> subsitute for good Orientation and mobility skills.
> The audible singals can not be everywhere and I have seen many times how 
> they can mislead and lull the untrained in to a false sense of security 
> bby their use.
> Audible singals tell you only that the color of the light has changed, 
> something that your ears can easily tell you by listening to the surge of 
> the traffic as it starts off from the light.
>
> The money spent on most audible signals would be better spent on skills 
> training for blind people who need it.
> You and I have had these discussions before.  You may have your position 
> and I will have mine.  I many times avoid audible signal crossings and 
> either don't press the button to activate them, instead letting the light 
> take its normal course, or just move on to another placewhere there are 
> none to have to deal with.
> I have stopped 3 blind people from getting run down at the audible signal 
> in front of the Palm Beach Lighthouse over the years, when cars did not 
> stop for the light and the audible signal which is in the middle of a 
> block on busy Federal Highway in West Palm Beach.
> There were 2 students struck outside the Florida State Orientation and 
> Adjustment Center in Daytona, who were using the audible signal right 
> outside the training center.  by the way, these students were trained in O 
> and M but admitted that they were talking and just trusted the signal to 
> stop the cars and did not hear the car running the light.  Also, the 
> audible signal there turns the lights red in all four directions and is 
> thereforesuppose to stop cars in all directions including right turns on 
> red.
>
> The noise, which can be heard 8 blocks away, gives a false sense of 
> security, and failure to use proper O and M skills along with a impation 
> driver led to a very preventable accident.  We can all write," I am sorry" 
> 500 times on each of their cast, or "I will never trust audible signals 
> with my life again."
> I will not get into a debate with you as I know from experience with you 
> that there will be no end to it.
> I will just agree that you can have your opinion and I will have mine.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> David, NFBF
> Nuclear/Aerospace Materials Engineer
> Builder of the Lunar Rovers and the F-117 Stealth Fighter
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu
>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>Date sent: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:47:30 -0600
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Crossing the Street for the Blind
>
>>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
>
>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
>