July 25, 2008

Ronald L. Medford

Senior Associate Administrator

Vehicle Safety

Office of the Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety

NHTSA

Through Debbie Ascone

Office of the Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety

NHTSA

<Debbie.Ascone@dot.gov>

Re: Public Comment for Fed. Reg. Doc. E8-12041

Dear Administrator:

This is to submit the comments of the National Council for the Support
of Disability Issues during the notice of public meeting and comment
that is captioned supra. A representative of NCSD did not enjoy the
opportunity to provide a presentation on this critical issue on 24 June.
Consequently, this is to furnish timely remarks of NCSD during the
window for public comments that will close in August, 2008.

**The notice that appeared in the Federal Register indicated in
pertinent part that presentations and/or public comments should address
vehicle, people and infrastructure specific solutions to this issue.
NCSD will endeavor to address each of those, to the extent applicable.**

**Overview of the Issue**

Combustion engines for locomotion, and the issues posed by increasingly
complex intersections and highway design philosophies and practices,
combine to seriously threaten the safety and independence of pedestrians
with sensory disabilities. As an article that will appear in an
up-coming issue of Dialogue Magazine reflects, the issue of the affect
of quieter vehicles on people with sensory disabilities is
consequential.

Federal Highway Administration statistics indicate that an average of
5,000 pedestrians die annually on our nation\'s streets and 70,000 are
injured. According to a fact sheet produced by the American Council of
the Blind, individuals with vision impairments are struck and killed by
vehicles at an alarming and disproportionate rate.[^1] The number of
these catastrophic accidents will increase dramatically as our
population ages and visual impairments become more prevalent, as
intersections and high-speed highways become more complex, and as the
number of vehicles that cannot be detected audibly also increases.

Although each death or injury caused by a traffic crash is tragic, the
economic effects of motor vehicle crashes are also consequential. Your
Administration estimates that in 2000, traffic crashes cost citizens
millions of dollars in the form of property damage, lost productivity
and medical expenses. This figure does not include the cost of pain and
suffering or the non-monetary value associated with lost lives.

**With the continued usage of combustion engines to motor our vehicles,
and as ensuring the longevity of the environment has become a priority,
even among conservatives, many people contend that the so called quiet
car should be employed as a solution. The problem is that quiet vehicles
may pose grave safety issues for people with sensory disabilities when
crossing streets, even those who are partnered with dog guides.**[^2]
**Sound composes an integral component of mobility and orientation
skills for secure crossings. As such, to the extent that quieter
vehicles interfere with the ability of people with sensory disabilities
to be aware of their presence, then such vehicles interfere with
pedestrian safety. This is magnified when no other external
modifications to the built environment, such as, Accessible Pedestrian
Signals, exist to allow a level of safe crossing equal to that of the
able-bodied.**

**Proposed Approaches**

The percentage of the U.S. population affected by a condition that
constitutes a disability is expected to increase as the population ages.
With more and more people with disabilities living independently in the
community, and with more and older adults remaining in their homes, it
is critical, now, more than ever, for communities to ensure access to
the services or programs of Public-rights-of-way.

Any research conducted through the study and any recommendations that
are furnished in its findings must be balanced and must take into
account the view points of all parties concerned with the issue.

**The Passage of Congressional Resolutions H.**

Cong. Res. 235 (2006) and S. Cong. Res. 71 (2006) represent important
steps toward reducing the number of deaths and injuries experienced by
our citizens. These resolutions encourage states to require that those
seeking a driver\'s license demonstrate, as a condition for obtaining
such license, the ability to exercise increased caution when driving in
the proximity of an individual who uses a white cane or dog guide. This
legislation is supported not only by leading national blindness
organizations, such as the Blinded Veterans Association and the American
Foundation for the blind, but also by the Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. These resolutions represent productive statements of
national policy on pedestrian safety that, we believe, should be fully
implemented through collaboration among federal and state governments
and the public.

Once education is furnished to the able-bodied public, then additional
solutions must also focus on what steps the disabled can undertake to
ensure their own safety and independence. Of course, any steps that the
disabled can undertake as active participants in resolving the issue
must be counterbalanced against the extent to which state and local
governments must comply with applicable civil rights obligations and the
critical role they have to play in comprehensively addressing access
issues. The problem is that the existing potential solutions to the
issues, if any, posed by quiet vehicles are not fully promoted,
implemented, funded or employed by units of government and/or the
private sector.

**White Cane Law**

An important component of any solution that is to be studied by the
Secretary will consist of reviewing and evaluating the education about
and the enforcement of what are known as White Cane Laws. In some
instances, statutory schemes that may fall under the rubric of a White
Cane Law may possess a misnomer, as they are actually laws about the
rights of people with sight or other disabilities in employment,
housing, and public accommodation and liability for the access of and
the damages incurred by dog guides and other service animals. Under
these laws that are intended to ensure access to and the safety of
people with disabilities, especially and typically, people with sight
disabilities, drivers are required to yield to disabled pedestrians.
Drivers are also required to exercise due caution to avoid injury even
when they have the right-of-way. The problem is that drivers are often
unaware of these statutory schemes, thereby, causing them to be
feckless.[^3]

**Additional problems with these statutory schemes, as exists in
Maryland, \[[see]{.underline}, Md. Code Ann., Articles. 27A, 30 and 40A,
(Deaf, Mute or Blind), §33, \[Repealed and redesignated\] by Acts 2007,
Ch. 3, §1 (Oct. 1, 2007)\], is that law enforcement and/or prosecutors
are either untrained on, or are unaware of their existence. As such,
there is a continuing need to have a dialogue with the law enforcement
community about the White Cane Law and to find a mixture of ways by
which to educate them on its sundry provisions and to ensure they
actually enforce the aforesaid.**

**Dog Guides & Accessible Pedestrian Signals**

Working as whole, handlers of dog guides can utilize the skills they
acquire at school and learn through repeated exposure to the city
thoroughfares and streets to detect vehicles, no matter their noise
levels. The more information that such guide dog teams can assimilate
from the environment only improves their safety and ability to continue
to function as a partnership in independence. With the quieter nature of
vehicles, the crossing of dog guide teams across thoroughfare can even
pose a challenge from time to time. To address this issue and concern,
several schools that train and place dog guides with the vision impaired
have purchased quiet vehicles to utilize as simulations during traffic
training.

This is why our organization advocates the better view that all cities
and states should collaborate with the blindness community to install
Accessible Pedestrian Signals. With the omnipresence of APSs, which is
not the circumstance presently, and the ability of dog guides to engage
in what are called traffic checks, a blind pedestrian should be in as an
equal level of safety to cross the street as the able-bodied public.

NCSD believes that dog guides and APSs comprise viable solutions, or at
least, a set of viable solutions, to this issue. **To address this issue
in a way that ensures more secure street crossings and that tackles the
under-girding problem of access in navigating communities, NCSD agrees
with the principles to the final report of the Public Rights-of-Way
Access Advisory Committee.**[^4]

**Modification to Vehicles -- Minimal Sound Standards**

**The organization that has been a leader on the issue of quiet cars,
the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), contends that the potential
solution to this issue is safety-based, that is, modifications to
vehicles such that they omit some basic level of noise.**[^5] It is
curious that the NFB of Maryland successfully advocated the passage of
state legislation to study the issue of quiet vehicles.[^6] The Maryland
legislation that was recently enacted would establish a taskforce to
study the issue of quiet vehicles, specifying that task force members
are not required to specify certain technology that manufacturers must
employ to meet recommended noise levels as to supposedly eradicate the
issue posed by quiet vehicles.[^7]

Admitting that the data on which he captured his analysis may understate
the fatality rates of the blind by quieter vehicles, a researcher named,
Christopher Hogan, Ph.D., who issued a report that evaluated whether
quiet vehicles kill more pedestrians than other vehicles, stated that he
"found no evidence to support the hypothesis that hybrids are more
dangerous than other cars, either to blind pedestrians or to pedestrians
in general." He also concluded that, the harm caused by quieter
vehicles, if at all, should be the focus of any study, but that
"Congress should move with caution in mandating noise-making or other
devices on hybrid and electric vehicles."[^8]

While his report is not supportive of the perspective of the blind on
this issue, it does seem well-researched, and NCSD does believe it
emphasizes a good point that further study is required. The question
consists of what research should be conducted and what the ultimate goal
of that research should be in terms of a standard or approach to address
the issue of quiet vehicles.

**Another national advocacy non-profit, the American Council of the
Blind, posits it comprises a leader on this issue, supporting the
advocacy of the NFB for a national study and approach to the issue of
quiet vehicles.**[^9]

NCSD consequently disagrees that quieter vehicles cause no greater
problem than other vehicles. The report provides no commentary on how
people with sensory disabilities, especially those with sight
disabilities, ambulate the thoroughfares either with a white cane or a
dog guide. As noise that emanates from vehicles is likely to compose a
major factor in safe crossings as most cities either lack or have
undertaken little action towards the installation of Accessible
Pedestrian Signals, the extent to which quieter vehicles cannot be
detected by the sight disabled comprises a legitimate issue and barrier
to secure crossings. That being stated, this does not logically mean
that vehicles should be augmented to omit more noise.

**This also notes that, if the route the study is to undertake is that
of augmentation to vehicles, then a clear concern exists on how
increased noise by vehicles will affect the broader community. It would
be easy to surmise that most people desire quiet, and not louder,
communities in which to reside.**

**This additionally declares that the leaders of the blindness advocacy
organizations referenced in this comment would behoove themselves to
study the multi-year, if decade, struggle to have seat belts installed
in vehicles. Even if the study finds that vehicles should be augmented
to omit increase noise at some basic level of output; this does not mean
apriori that the vehicle industry will accept this without significant
additional advocacy, including, possible litigation.**

**NCSD thusly recommends that the study focus its research and its
ultimate findings on the extent of the problem and how the existing
legal framework and modification of the built environment can be
strengthened to address any safety concerns posed by quieter vehicles
and all vehicles in general.**

**Conclusion**

If not addressed in a comprehensive way that balances the interests of
the able-bodied and all facets of the disability civil rights movement,
then this issue will continue to pose grave concerns about the continued
and viable independence of people with sensory disabilities in the
community. As an organization that represents the interests of a range
of people with disabilities, including, people with vision impairments,
we are eager to engage in dialogue and collaboration with decision
makers and public administrators to promote the development of sound
public policy that can address these important safety issues. NCSD
supports the study by the Secretary, but the first conclusions arrived
at by the said study should neither be the augmentation of vehicles nor
the creation of a standard that would require those with sensory
disabilities to purchase and rely on additional adaptive equipment. NCSD
agrees with the question proposed in an Op.-Ed. Published in the Braille
Forum regarding forcing blind people to carry additional gadgets about
their personages as a solution to quiet vehicles. The author
rhetorically propounds the following: "Why should we blind people have
to carry a venerable plethora of gadgets just to get the same
information everyone else can get without them?"[^10] It is axiomatic
that when seeking to address an issue, no new means or mandates should
be employed and instituted to address said problem. Issues do not exist
in separate and divergent spheres. The problem is that myriad solutions
currently exist to address this issue. For instance, a useful set of
guidelines for highway safety programs could be reviewed during the
course of the study to evaluate the success of states, if any, with
doing driver education related activities and initiatives, especially,
those targeted at drivers' knowledge of the rights of pedestrians with
disabilities.[^11] NCSD consequently urges that, to the fullest extent
possible, the approaches that are proposed supra be an integral part of
the study.

NCSD constitutes a non-profit, IRS registered 501(c) (3) organization,
dedicated to educating about the abilities of and advocating for the
full participation of people with a wide range of disabilities. The
board of NCSD is composed of myriad attorneys and other professionals
with disabilities who can furnish valuable comment as the study
progresses forward. Please do not hesitate to telephone me at (410)
241-6745.

Sincerely,

Gary C. Norman, Esq.

CC: Jason Perry, President

National Council for the Support of Disability Issues

Trish Fink, Executive Director

NCSD

Pat Sheehan, President

American Council off the Blind of Maryland, and

Board Member of the ACB

Cecelia Warren, Vice President

Maryland Area Guide Dog Users, Inc.

[^1]: Am. Council of the Blind, Pedestrian Safety Fact Sheet,
    <http://www.acb.org/pedestrian/factsheet-copy1.html> (Visited July
    21, 2008)

[^2]: [See]{.underline}, Letter from Gary C. Norman, Esq., Vice
    President, legal Counsel and Spokesperson, National Council for the
    Support of Disability Issues to Marcia A. Ways, Taskforce on Clean
    Air & Energy Policy (Dec. 2007),
    <http://www.ncsd.org/Newsletter/quietcars.htm> (Visited July 17,
    2008)

[^3]: Dona Sauerburger, Rules of the Road, Metropolitan Wash.
    Orientation & Mobility Assoc. News'l. (Sept. 1999),
    <http://www.sauerburger.org/dona/roadrules.htm> (Visited July 17,
    2008)

[^4]: Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee Final Report (Jan.
    2001), <http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/commrept/index.htm>
    (Visited July 17, 2008) ^?^

[^5]: Nat'l. Federation of the Blind, Res. 2003-05, as reprinted in The
    Braille Monitor (Aug.-Sept. 2003),
    <http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm03/bm0309/bm030910.htm>
    (Visited July 17, 2008)

[^6]:

[^7]: [Id]{.underline}.

[^8]: Christopher Hogan, Ph.D., Analysis of Blind Pedestrian Deaths and
    Injuries from Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2002-2006 (Apr. 21, 2008),
    <http://priuschat.com/forums/attachments/prius-main-forum/9524d1212108122>
    (Visited July 17, 2008)

[^9]: Monroe County Council of the Blind » Update on Quiet Car
    Legislation, <http://mccbonline.org/?p=42> (Visited July 17, 2008)

[^10]: Michael Byington, Blind-Borgs, The Braille Forum (Feb. 2007),
    <http://www.acb.org/magazine/2007/bf022007-5.html> (Visited July 17,
    2008)

[^11]: Uniform Guidelines For State Highway Safety Programs,
    <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/402guide.html>
    (Visited July 17, 2008)