Breaking News

Group opposes downtown crosswalk

By Derek Zarda

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Crosswalk signals should be seen and not heard.

That’s the sentiment the local area chapter of the National Federation of the Blind plans to express in an upcoming meeting with city officials August 15. Their concern is the recently installed Accessible Pedestrian Signal at the intersection of Sixth and Massachusetts Streets.

The city installed the automated voice APS in April after a blind citizen requested it in writing for the northeast crosswalk at the intersection.

Jim Canaday, vice president of the Douglas County Area Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, said the APS was hurting citizens who were blind more than helping them.

“A blind person who is travelling independently uses his or her ears to tell when its time to cross and when it’s safe to cross,” Canaday said.

He said the traffic light may turn green but someone may be doing a right turn on red or may not be stopping on a red light. The automated noise masks the vital information he and other blind individuals use to keep themselves from being hit by a car, Canaday said.

Currently, an automated voice repeats the phrase “Crosswalk is on” when the walking signal turns on at the intersection.

Accessible Pedestrian Signals have been mass marketed since the mid-1970s for use in the U.S. as well as in parts of Europe and Asia, according to the National Cooperative Highway Research Project. The types of APS models available range from chirping and beeping noises to automated voices to vibrating surfaces, all of which are designed to provide additional information to the blind community. Canaday disagrees.

“It also gives a negative image about blind people,” Canaday said. “The general public see that signal and they think that blind people need that.”

Kayla Richardson, Wichita sophomore, is blind said she had used the crosswalks that had APS devices that beeped when the walk signal was on, but only every once in a while.

“I think they are useful but sometimes they can’t be as reliable,” Richardson said.

Richardson said that although she also preferred using her ears to determine when it was safe to cross streets, she did not agree with the NFB’s stance on the issue of the APS.

David Woosley, a traffic engineer for the city Lawrence, said this was the first time the city had received this kind of accessibility request, but said that his department was aware of the type of equipment available. He said he had heard from the individual who made the request that it did make crossing the street easier at that particular intersection.

Canaday said he had no ill will toward the city and said he believed they were doing a good thing in accommodating a citizen’s request.

“It surprises a lot of people that the organized blind people are opposed to this and have been fighting this for years,” Canaday said.

— — Edited by Jason Baker

Comments

habeogladium (anonymous) says...

The argument about APS use seems to have an easy solution. Make the APS system user activated. Then, if you need assistance crossing and want auditory cues, you can push a button and get the voice telling you what the signal is doing. If you don't want it, don't push the button. As long as consideration is given to the placement of the activation button, it should not be difficult for a blind or visually impaired user to find and push. All or nothing is rarely the best answer to questions like these, but in all the arguments I've seen between those who like APS devices and the NFB, I've never once seen user activation given as a possible solution.

July 31, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

cosmokramer (anonymous) says...

At your normal intersection the APS is not needed. Has anyone ever crossed this intersection? Now shut your eyes and do it! Could you tell what traffic was running parallel and perpendicular, take into consideration the multiple turn lanes that exist. Now, take your first step into traffic and just hope it’s not at the end of a cycle. THIS IS NOT A NORMAL INTERSECTION! How often do the members of the NFB use this crossing? Why do they feel they can govern other visually impaired person’s accessibility requests? I will agree that a visually impaired person needs to use their mobility skills and not rely on the device. But the added security of knowing the light is on and when the cycle started makes a difference.

July 31, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

habeogladium (anonymous) says...

Last night I checked out the APS just out of curiosity. I was standing on Mass St. facing north listening for the APS. At first I thought I had the wrong intersection, because I didn't hear anything and the APS systems I'm familiar with produce a steady beeping while the light is green. Then, finally, when the light on Mass changed to allow traffic to cross 6th St., the APS stated that the light had changed. It was a brief statement and did not at all interfere with the ability to hear traffic. In addition, the APS at this intersection only states when the signal has changed so you can cross 6th St., not when you can cross Mass St. It seems to me that this APS signal is the best of both worlds. It is providing information on the status of the lights without all the noise common in APS systems that can interfere with the ability to read traffic patterns by sound. Has the NFB actually used this intersection? Now that I've actually seen the system at this intersection, I have to say that it seems the NFB is opposing the installment of this APS simply because it is an APS, not because it is actually a problem. Would the NFB care to respond to these comments?

August 12, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement