Transportation Accessibility: Exploring the Input of Individuals Who are Blind to Create an In-Service Training for Bus Drivers

By Danene K. Fast

Danene K. Fast, PhD, is a manager and instructor for the Programs in Visual Impairments in the Department of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University.

Abstract

The interactions, attitudes, and knowledge of bus drivers are factors that can affect service delivery for consumers who use public transportation. For consumers who are blind, these factors play a vital role in accessibility to public transportation. While experts in the field of orientation and mobility (O&M) can collaborate with transit systems to provide blindness training to vehicle operators and other transit personnel, specifics from blind passengers of what should be included in this training are not traditionally addressed within training programs.

In an effort to develop a training module that informs bus drivers of the needs of passengers who are blind, this research investigates the opinions of blind consumers on topics they feel are important for transportation workers to know when interacting with and assisting these individuals on public buses.

Based on results, consumers want bus drivers to recognize: (a) individuals who are blind will use alternative techniques for travel purposes; (b) they are able to speak for themselves, using a normal conversational tone; and (c) passengers who are blind will not always need additional assistance when using public transportation. In addition to looking at the attitudes, experiences, and knowledge of drivers in creating in-service training programs, the inclusion of feedback from consumers who are blind within this process empowers these individuals to share personal insights that inform topics and impact training outcomes.

Keywords

Bus driver training, blindness, accessibility, consumer input, empowerment

Introduction

Whether a person is sighted or blind, accessible public transportation is essential for independence. Bus drivers are an important part of providing access to consumers who use public transit. Their initial interactions, attitude, and knowledge are all factors that can impact services. For consumers who are blind, bus drivers play a vital role in accessibility. To do this, drivers must first understand the needs of these passengers when they use public transportation.

In an effort to improve services for consumers who are blind, orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists can collaborate with transit systems to provide quality training to vehicle operators and other transit personnel in an effort to increase driver sensitivity to customers who are blind (Dodson-Burk, Park-Leach, & Myers, 2010). While experts in the field of O&M can collaborate with transit systems to provide blindness training to vehicle operators and other transit personnel, specifics from blind passengers of what should be included in this training are not traditionally addressed within training programs.

By sharing personal knowledge, experiences, and expertise with others who may not have a concept of visual impairments, consumers who are blind who use public transportation can impact the interactions and services that occur between themselves and bus drivers. This research study was designed to investigate the opinions of consumers who are blind on topics they feel are important for transportation workers to know when interacting with and assisting these individuals on public buses, in an effort to develop training that will inform all drivers of these needs.

Bus Drivers and Accessibility

Bus drivers play a vital role in accessibility for consumers who are blind, as these individuals feel less fearful, more self-confident, and perceive that they are accepted by the community when transit operators demonstrate patience and understanding (Corn, 1990). Research from Gallagher, Hart, O’Brien, Stevenson, and Jackson (2011), indicates that travelers with visual impairments report common barriers to public transportation as (a) bus drivers who provide limited feedback to the inquiries of passengers who are blind and (b) drivers who do not allow time for passengers to locate a seat, once they have boarded a bus. In an effort to improve services, in-service training for bus drivers is a means of reinforcing appropriate services, with one specific goal of teaching drivers the important role they play in facilitating travel for passengers who are blind or visually impaired (Uslan, 1990). 

Accessibility to public transportation is essential for independence; human interaction is an important part of access. Without provision of good services and positive driver attitudes towards consumers who use public transportation, vehicle accessibility will not make a difference (Human Rights Commission, 2005; Tillmann, Haveman, Stöppler, Kvas, & Monninger, 2013). In-service training for bus drivers is a way to teach drivers about passengers who are blind and how to interact with these consumers when they ride public transportation. While O&M providers can partner with transit systems to provide blindness training to vehicle operators and other transit personnel in an effort to increase driver sensitivity to customers with visual impairments (Dodson-Burk et al., 2010), there are no research-based training protocols to address what should be included in this type of training. In an effort to establish a well-rounded training for drivers, this research seeks the input of blind consumers to inform the process.

Importance of Consumer Feedback

Ferguson (2001) attests that constructed beliefs about individuals who are blind have saturated society in such a way that even attempts to support this population can reinforce a notion that people who are blind are inferior. One reason for this is, “an absence of opportunity for the blind to voice their opinions or to take a functional role in the formation of policy and procedure” (Kinash, 2002, p. 136). The inclusion of feedback from consumers who are blind in this research gives a voice to the population of consumers it is being designed to assist.

As the first blind attorney ever hired by the National Labor Relations Board, James Omvig describes the importance of consumer input by noting, traditionally, individuals who are blind have been thought of by society as a group apart, often seen as helpless without ability to earn personal self-respect (Omvig, 2002). In his writings, he reiterates the importance of individuals who are blind to empower themselves, in an effort to change societal views. By including the feedback of individuals who are blind or visually impaired, participants in this research are provided with opportunity to share their own opinions and views on their rights as consumers of public transit systems.

In looking at accessibility, individuals who are blind who use public transportation, note that both drivers and the public must be informed about their needs and abilities in order for services to improve (Gallagher et al., 2011). In order to inform about the needs and abilities of individuals who are blind–and create a training to address these needs—it is important for consumers who are blind to be involved in the process of in-service development by sharing their experiences and emphasizing the importance of accessibility from personal perspectives. 

Rationale

This study was designed to gather the opinions of consumers with visual impairments concerning what topics they feel are important for bus drivers to know when interacting with and assisting persons who are blind consumers of public transportation. Specifically, consumers were asked to rate, using a Likert-based scale of one to five, components of proposed in-service training topics. At the conclusion of the rating scale portion of the survey, consumers were provided with the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback to address additional topics and/or comments regarding training for public transportation workers. 

Participants

Participants for this survey research were recruited through the use of email and social media associated with consumer advocacy groups for individuals who are blind, rehabilitation programs, and professional associations dedicated to serving populations who are blind or visually impaired. Based on responses to a recruitment announcement, a researcher-created database of 70 adult volunteers from various consumer organizations, including members of the American Council of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind, was created and the survey was sent via email to respondents.  

Seventy individuals with blindness or visual impairment were sent an anonymous survey link and were asked to participate. Of these 70 distributed surveys, approximately 34 individuals began the survey; 27 completed surveys were registered through the Qualtrics system, indicating a 38.57% return rate. Within these returns, participants (n = 27) ranged in age from 21 to 54 years, with a mean average of 36 years; 73% of respondents reside in the state of Ohio. Of these respondents, 21 individuals report that they possess no usable vision, beyond light perception; 7 respondents report legal blindness, with some usable vision for travel purposes. All respondents report that they currently use, or have used, public bus transportation for mobility purposes. For the purposes of reporting, all participants are identified as “blind.”

Survey Instrument

The researcher-created instrument used within this study was created using the Qualtrics software system. Prior to the start of the survey section of the instrument, participants were provided with directions and a consent script, indicating consent for participation.

The survey began with three open-ended demographic questions, including age, location, and visual impairment. The second section contained a total of 37 statements considered for driver trainings; these statements were divided into three sections including (1) background information, (2) driver expectations, and (3) human guide technique. Participants were asked to read each statement and respond using a standard five-point Likert scale; response options included: 1 = no value, 2 = little value, 3 = neutral/unsure, 4 = valuable, and 5 = very valuable. The final section of the survey provided an open-ended response area with the directions, “Please feel free to provide additional thoughts, topics, comments, or suggestions for training development.”

A draft of the survey was pilot tested with blind people to gather feedback on content and accessibility. Both the pilot test and the official survey distributions were completed using electronic formats, through the use of email correspondences with an anonymous survey link to the Qualtrics site. Pilot testing resulted in no changes to content; however, substantial modifications were needed within formatting to facilitate accessibility for participants using screen reading programs.

Data Analysis

A mixed-methods research design is a procedure that collects, analyzes, and mixes both quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study to understand a research problem (Creswell, 2015; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This method assumes that the use of both quantitative and qualitative measures, in combination, provides a better understanding of the research problem than either method by itself (Creswell, 2015).

Quantitative data were gathered through Likert surveys. These data were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and interpreted across the participant sample. Analysis methods for individual questions included central tendency, summarized by presentation of overall mean response rates. Qualitative data, reported through the open-ended survey question, were analyzed to look for themes and patterns. Major themes pertaining to open-ended questions and responses to in-service training are reported.

Results

Results are presented in order of the four survey subcategories, concluding with a discussion that merges common themes within these responses for the purpose of informing the use of consumer feedback with respect to in-service trainings for public transportation drivers. Because participants were permitted to skip questions and/or respond with more than one answer to open-ended inquiries, the number of responses and respondents vary across outcome data. The four survey subcategories were: Background Information (See Table 1), Driver Expectations (See Table 2), Human Guide Technique (See Table 3), and Open-Ended Survey Feedback.

Background Information

Table 1 shows the mean Likert scale rating results of the 9 survey statements related to the provision of background information regarding vision loss to bus drivers. Based on response data from this section, of the nine statements asked, the highest ranked statement was, “Two of the most common adaptations that you will see as a driver who encounters a person with a visual impairment may include a long cane or a dog guide.” Twenty-six consumers who are blind responded to this statement, with 96.15% of these respondents indicating that this fact is “valuable” or “very valuable” for drivers to recognize when working with clients who are blind (M = 4.62; SD = 0.56). The next highest ranked statement by consumers who are blind was, “Individuals who use a long cane or dog guide may or may not have some usable vision.” Twenty-four of 26 consumers (M = 4.54; SD = 0.75) indicated this fact is “valuable” or “very valuable.” Consumers want drivers to know that they may be using adaptations such as dog guides or canes when traveling; however, they also want drivers to know that using one of these mobility devices does not necessarily mean a traveler has a complete loss of vision.

Of the statements within background information, the lowest ranking items pertained to the technical teaching of O&M skills. The fact that O&M is taught by professionals specifically trained within this field (M = 3.77; SD = 1.22) and the fact that O&M is a profession specific to blindness that addresses travel skills (M = 3.73; SD = 1.26) rated as the bottom two statements within this section of the survey.

Table 1. Background Information

	N	M	V	SD
There are several types of visual impairments.	26	4.00	1.46	1.21
Individuals with visual impairments often utilize special adaptations to assist with independence skills.	26	4.19	1.16	1.07
Two of the most common adaptations may include a long cane or dog guide.	26	4.62	0.31	0.56
Individuals using a cane or dog may have some usable vision.	26	4.54	0.56	0.75
Not all individuals who are blind choose to use an adaptive device.	26	4.23	0.79	0.89
O&M training is used to teach travel skills and the use of adaptive mobility devices.	26	3.77	1.02	1.01
O&M is a training specific to blindness and low vision, used to teach travel skills to individuals of all ages.	26	3.73	1.58	1.26
O&M instructors may accompany travelers with visual impairments who utilize public transportation.	26	4.08	1.07	1.03
O&M is not taught within occupational or physical therapy.	26	3.77	1.49	1.22

Note. N = number; M = mean; V = variance; SD = standard deviation.

Driver Expectations

Table 2 shows the mean Likert scale rating results of 19 survey responses related to what is expected of drivers when interacting with passengers who are blind. Response data from 19 statements indicated that information relating to the use of dog guides was at the top of the list of what consumers want drivers to know – including the fact that a dog guide should never be petted, fed, or distracted when working (M = 4.88; SD = 0.32) and that a dog guide is considered a “working dog” (M = 4.80; SD = 0.49).

Further analysis of survey results indicates that the next highest ranked areas for respondents included statements addressing driver and consumer interactions, unrelated to public transportation accessibility. Specifically, consumers want drivers to: recognize that normal conversational tone is acceptable (M = 4.72; SD = 0.53); ask first, before rushing to assist a passenger who is blind (M = 4.68; SD = 0.55); know that people who are blind do not need someone else to speak for their needs (M = 4.65; SD = 0.68); and, if a mobility device is placed in such a way that it affects the safety of others, inform the consumer so that it can be positioned safely (M = 4.64; SD = 0.48).

Table 2. Driver Expectations

	N	M	V	SD
Attitudes of bus drivers impact individuals with visual impairments.	25	3.88	1.87	1.37
As a driver, always introduce yourself.	25	3.68	1.90	1.38
Saying “hello” or “good day” is important for orientation purposes.	25	4.28	1.48	1.22
If you are on a first-name basis with the traveler, state your name so that your voice can be identified.	25	3.72	1.80	1.34
Do not direct conversations to someone other than the person to whom you are speaking.	26	4.65	0.46	0.68
A person who is blind does not need someone else to speak for him.	25	4.68	0.70	0.84
Use of eye contact is appropriate when speaking to a person with a visual impairment.	25	4.24	0.90	0.95
Speak in a normal conversational voice; there is no need to shout.	25	4.72	0.28	0.53
Do not avoid words such as “blind” or “see.” These are part of everyday conversations.	25	4.52	0.65	0.81
Gestures or nods may not be noticed.	25	4.48	0.49	0.70
Ask first. Before you rush to provide assistance, ask if your help is warranted.	25	4.68	0.30	0.55
Preferred seating for a traveler who is blind is the seat next to the door, positioned diagonally from the driver.	25	3.44	1.85	1.36
It is important to confirm that the traveler is boarding the correct bus and disembarking at the correct destination.	25	4.40	0.88	0.94
Do not be afraid to speak to the traveler who is visually impaired; verification of the bus route or bus number before boarding prevents travelers from boarding the wrong bus.	25	4.68	0.70	0.84
Ask the traveler if there is a specific destination in mind; if so, announce this destination upon arrival.	25	4.44	0.81	0.90
If a person has a dog guide, know that the dog is working and should never be disturbed.	25	4.80	0.24	0.49
Do not pet, feed, or distract a working dog.	25	4.88	0.11	0.32
If a traveler’s cane is positioned in such a way that it impairs the safety of others, it is appropriate for the driver to ask that the cane is held close to the body for safety.	25	4.64	0.23	0.48
If a traveler’s dog is positioned in such a way that it impairs the safety of others, it is appropriate to ask that the dog be repositioned under the traveler’s seat.	25	4.56	0.33	0.57

Note. N = number; M = mean; V = variance; SD = standard deviation.

Human Guide Technique

Table 3 shows the mean Likert scale rating results of nine survey responses related to the use of human guide technique when a passenger who is blind requests physical assistance from the bus driver. Survey responses from participants within this section indicate that teaching drivers the hands-on skills needed to effectively guide consumers who are blind rank as a highest priority within in-service training goals. Specifically, the statements, “Say right and left when giving directions” (M = 4.64; SD = 0.48) and “If a person with a visual impairment asks for your assistance for guidance, allow the person to hold your arm just above your elbow” (M = 4.56; SD = 0.90), are the two highest priorities noted by respondents.

Table 3. Human Guide Technique

	N	M	V	SD
Some passengers may ask for assistance to locate a seat or a landmark; however, this is not always the situation.	25	3.96	0.76	0.87
If asked to provide assistance, human guide technique is one of the most efficient ways of walking with a person who is visually impaired.	25	4.40	0.40	0.63
Human guide refers to a method by which a person who is visually impaired can comfortably walk with another person.	25	4.40	0.24	0.49
If a person with a visual impairment asks for your assistance, allow the person to hold your arm, just above the elbow.	25	4.56	0.81	0.90
The traveler will follow a half step behind you at a pace that is comfortable for both of you.	25	4.36	0.47	0.69
Say right and left when giving directions.	25	4.64	0.23	0.48
Identify drop-offs, stairs, or other obstacles you may encounter when walking.	25	4.36	1.03	1.02
If you need to leave, put the person in contact with a stationary object and inform of your intent; never let someone stand alone in an empty space.	25	3.72	1.40	1.18
Human guide is sometimes referred to as “sighted guide.” These are the same technique.	25	4.00	1.68	1.30

Note. N = number; M = mean; V = variance; SD = standard deviation.

Open-Ended Survey Feedback

In addition to Likert-based rated questions, this survey concluded with an open-ended, qualitative feedback section that allowed respondents to provide additional information regarding topics they would like drivers to know when working with individuals who are blind. Ten of 27 survey participants provided additional feedback, establishing three emergent themes that include (1) seeing a “person first” versus a disability, (2) different passengers will have different needs, and (3) incorporation of universal design into service provision on public transportation systems.

One survey respondent stated, “People with visual impairments want to be treated like every other passenger who uses public transportation.” Despite the fact that individuals who are blind may navigate the world in a manner that is different from individuals who use vision for travel, it is important to recognize that individuals who are blind are not defined by this trait. Respondents indicated that drivers who recognize that good customer service for all passengers, regardless of disability, contribute to accessibility.

Another survey respondent stated, “It is important to stress asking and taking each person who uses the bus as an individual.” All consumers who have visual impairments do not require the same accommodations when using public transportation. Drivers who are sensitive to this fact recognize that, “the simplest thing to do is to ask if someone needs assistance and take ‘no’ for an answer if that is the answer given.” In-service training that provides both (1) accommodations for consumers who are blind and (2) sensitivity training to address the fact that not all travelers will require, need, or want these accommodations is appreciated.

One survey respondent asserted, “It is important to recognize that all major stops should be announced for all passengers who use the public bus system,” indicating that universal design is necessary in providing accessible transportation. Universal design refers to legislation that ensures public transportation systems are accessible to the majority, with an objective to create an environment where persons with disabilities can function as natural members of society. A guiding notion of this practice is that accessibility solutions benefit everyone, not just those with disabilities (Aarhaug & Elvebakk, 2015). 

Survey responses indicate that passengers who are blind do not want drivers to use an unnecessarily loud voice to communicate; however, one respondent pointed out that, “there may be instances when a driver does, in fact, need to modulate his/her voice to speak loudly in a loud vehicle.” Another respondent indicated, “Many blind people I know do not wish to provide exit stops out loud. I do not do this because I don’t want others to know where I plan to exit for safety reasons.” Use of universal design – including voice modulation, when needed for all passengers, or announcing stops for all passengers to hear – makes travel easier for all public bus riders, including those with visual impairments.

Discussion

People who are blind have reported problems with transportation in a variety of studies (Bjerkan, Nordtømme, & Kummeneje, 2013; Crudden & McBroom, 1999; Crudden, McDonnall, & Hierholzer, 2015; Montarzino et al., 2007). One particular barrier to transportation includes the knowledge of bus company personnel about blindness and persons who are blind (Wacker, 1990). Experts within the field of O&M can collaborate with transit systems to provide quality training to vehicle operators and other transit personnel in an effort to address this barrier (Dodson-Burk et al., 2010); however, specifics of what should be included in this type of training are not traditionally addressed. This survey explores the opinions of consumers who are blind on topics they feel are important for transportation workers to know when interacting and assisting passengers with visual impairments on public busses, in an effort to improve trainings provided by O&M personnel.

Based on survey outcomes, consumers indicated that it is important for bus drivers to recognize that individuals with visual impairments will use alternative techniques – including a long cane or a dog guide – for travel purposes. The fact that these skills are taught through a skill set recognized as orientation and mobility (O&M) training was not rated as highly as practical, hands-on content material. One participant elaborated on this fact stating, “Drivers do not need to know theoretical concepts such as ‘orientation and mobility’ or ‘structured discovery,’ as they usually lack the education to understand such things. They do, however, badly need the hands-on kinds of questions in the latter part of the survey, such as driver expectations and how to support passengers who request assistance.”

In line with research by Uslan (1990), indicating that difficulties tend to arise when drivers do not understand the needs of consumers who are blind, survey outcomes rank drivers’ skills in social interactions as more important than bus-specific skills and knowledge. Consumers want drivers to know that they are able to speak for themselves, using a normal conversational tone. Drivers should know that additional assistance is not always needed when a passenger who is blind boards a bus; however, asking if assistance is needed is an appropriate question. In the event that a mobility aid, such as the travelers’ dog or cane, is positioned in such a way that it impairs the safety of others, it is ok for a driver to alert the traveler to this fact and ask for a reposition. Common sense and sensitivity are guiding principles that can help transit personnel successfully interact with consumers who have visual impairments (Corn, 1990).

In addition to being conscious of passenger needs relating to comfort levels and social interactions, there are also adaptations for consumers who are blind specific to public transportation of which bus drivers should be aware. According to Uslan (1990), drivers need to inform passengers of the bus number when boarding, to call out major cross streets and transfer points, remember to call out requested stops, and suggest seating next to the door, diagonally from the driver, so they will not forget to call out requested stops. Within survey responses, these skill sets did not rate as high as those involving social interactions; however, scores were consistently high (M = 3.44 to 4.68). Open-ended feedback indicated that, “All of these points are important, as the more that bus drivers know, the easier it is for passengers with visual impairments to ask for assistance, if needed.”

Regardless of the mobility techniques used by blind travelers, in situations that require visual orientation – including the use of public transportation, travelers must be taught to think critically, strategically, and derive answers to unique problems (NBPCB, 2018). In these instances, travelers may require direct assistance. Human guide is one of the most efficient ways of walking with a person who is visually impaired (Jacobson, 2013). There are aspects to effectively using human guide technique, therefore, it is important to teach individuals who interact with people who have visual impairments how to perform these techniques (Rosen, 2014) so that hands-on interactions are appropriate, in the event that assistance is requested from a consumer who is blind. Survey respondents indicated that, although all consumers who are blind do not necessarily use human guide assistance, instruction on the appropriate use of this skill is a valuable technique to address within in-service trainings for drivers.

In partnering with transit systems, O&M instructors can provide in-service training to vehicle operators and other transit personnel in an effort to increase driver sensitivity to customers who are blind or visually impaired. Applying consumer feedback from passengers who are blind who use public transportation to O&M knowledge will assist in creating in-service training that is meaningful to both drivers and consumers.

Limitations

One limitation to the implementation of this study was the fact that it used a nonprobability-based sample of participants. Individuals who chose to complete the research study were volunteers who learned about this study through electronic means, indicating that the survey participants represented a subset of individuals who have access to both accessible technology and internet access for connectivity to the survey. Individuals without access to technology or internet access were omitted from this sample. Furthermore, 73% of the respondents within this research were from Ohio, a state with only one model of orientation and mobility instruction. 

A second limitation to the study was the limited amount of qualitative research noted within Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols. Respondents were provided with opportunity to submit feedback and comments regarding additional suggestions for in-service training; however, this study design did not allow for individual follow-up with participants to expand on these initial suggestions. In reconsidering the research design, the addition of follow-up interviews with participants may have strengthened feedback and yielded additional topics to be considered for in-service programming.

A third study limitation was survey accessibility across software programs. After the initial creation of the survey using the Qualtrics platform, a draft of the survey was pilot tested with three volunteers who are visually impaired to gather feedback on content and accessibility. Results of this initial testing resulted in substantial formatting modifications to ensure access using Voice Over software programs; the survey was administered with modifications, based on this feedback. After the survey was launched, minor accessibility difficulties with other screen reading programs, including Job Access with Speech (JAWS) and Non-Visual Desktop Access (NVDA), yielded some accessibility concerns; within these programs, radio buttons were affected, instruction output omitted directions, and – in advancing pages, NVDA software did not indicate when pages were loaded. Due to the fact that the survey had already been launched and accessed by 12 individuals by the time these accessibility concerns were noted, any attempts to modify the survey could have compromised data collection. For this reason, as well as limited time constraints for this project, modifications were not made to this survey, but will be considered for future projects.

Conclusion

Bus drivers are an essential part of the social support system of persons with disabilities who access public transportation and assessment of bus drivers’ attitudes, experiences, and knowledge is necessary to develop specific training programs (Tillmann et al, 2013). In addition to looking at the attitudes, experiences, and knowledge of drivers in creating training programs, the inclusion of feedback from consumers who are blind within this process empowers individuals who are visually impaired to share personal insight that informs topics within training.

Implications for Practitioners

Because the interactions, attitudes, and knowledge of bus drivers are factors that can affect service delivery, this research explored the opinions of consumers who are blind on topics they feel are important for transportation workers to know when interacting with and assisting these individuals on public buses. Sharing personal knowledge and expertise with others, who may not have a concept of these needs, can create opportunities for improved interactions and services. As a result of this study, several topics emerged that can be considered for future research.

As this was the first research of its kind, replication studies can expand initial findings. Recognizing that this study had a relatively small sample size, results of future studies may be enhanced by expanding the geographic diversity of the sample and surveying a larger population of participants.

Because the research components of this training were not validated, work to examine and validate the researcher-created survey instrument will be beneficial in conducting future studies that continue expanding research that supports and improves access to public transportation for blind consumers. As part of this validation process phrasing of the questions within the instrument should be considered; questions may be adjusted and tested for clearer interpretations.

Finally, based on the input of the consumers who participated within this study, future research on preferences about person-first or disability-first language may be a valuable contribution to future research in this area. While there is a large body of research in both directions, direct consumer input on this topic may assist with planning and implementing driver training.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Mindi Rhoades from The Ohio State University for her guidance and support in the research process.

References

Aarhaug, J., & Elvebakk, B. (2015). The impact of universally accessible public transport – A before and after study. Transport Policy, 44, 143-150.

Bjerkan, K. Y., Nordtømme, M. E., & Kummeneje, A. M. (2013). Transportation to employment. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15(4), 342-360. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2012.735199

Corn, A. L. (1990). The blind or visually impaired traveler’s perspective: The challenges of mass transit. In M. M. Uslan, A. F. Peck, W. R. Wiener, & A. Stern (Eds.), Access to mass transit for blind and visually impaired travelers (pp.13-18). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.

Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Crudden, A., & McBroom, L. W. (1999). Barriers to employment: A survey of employed persons who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93(6), 341-350.

Crudden, A., McDonnall, M. C., & Hierholzer, A. (2015). Transportation: An electronic survey of persons who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 109(6), 445-456.

Dodson-Burk, B., Park-Leach, L., & Meyers, L. (2010). Teaching the use of transportation systems for orientation and mobility. In W. R. Wiener, R. L. Welsh, & B. B. Blasch (Eds.), Foundations of orientation and mobility (3rd ed., Vol. 2,pp. 420-461). New York, New York: American Foundation for the Blind.

Ferguson, R. (2001). We know who we are: A history of the blind in challenging educational and socially constructed policies: A study in policy archaeology. San Francisco, California: Caddo Gap Press.

Gallagher, B. A., Hart, P. M., O’Brien, C., Stevenson, M. R., & Jackson, A. J. (2011). Mobility and access to transport issues as experienced by people with vision impairment living in urban and rural Ireland. Disability & Rehabilitation, 33(12), 979-988. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2010.516786

Human Rights Commission. (2005). The accessible journey: Report of the inquiry into accessible public land transport. Auckland, New Zealand: Human Rights Commission.

Jacobson, W. H. (2013). The art and science of teaching orientation and mobility to persons with visual impairments (2nd ed.). New York: AFB Press.

Kinash, S. (2002). [Review of the book We know who we are: A history of the blind in challenging educational and socially constructed policies: A study in policy archeology, by R. Ferguson]. Disability, Culture & Education, 1(2), 133-137.

Montarzino, A., Robertson, B., Aspinall, P., Ambrecht, A., Findlay, C., Hine, J., & Dhillon, B. (2007). The impact of mobility and public transport on the independence of visually impaired people. Visual Impairment Research, 9(2-3), 67-82. doi: 10.1080/13882350701673266

National Blindness Professional Certification Board (NBPCB) (2018). What is structured discovery? Retrieved from https://www.nbpcb.org/pages/what-is-structured-discovery.php

Omvig, J. H. (2002). Freedom for the blind: The secret is empowerment. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Region VI Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program, University of Arkansas (Reprinted in 2005 by National Federation of the Blind, Baltimore, MD).

Rosen, S. (2014). Step-by-step: A guide to mobility techniques. Louisville, Kentucky: American Printing House for the Blind.

Tillmann, V., Haveman, M., Stöppler, R., Kvas, S., & Monninger, D. (2013). Public bus drivers and social inclusion: Evaluation of their knowledge and attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(4), 307-313. doi: 10.1111/jppi.12057

Uslan, M. M. (1990). In-service training for bus drivers. In M. M. Uslan, A. F. Peck, W. R. Wiener, & A. Stern (Eds.), Access to mass transit for blind and visually impaired travelers (pp. 91-93). New York, New York: American Foundation for the Blind.

Wacker, Jr., C. H. (1990). Teaching blind and visually impaired riders about an urban bus system. In M. M. Uslan, A. F. Peck, W. R. Wiener, & A. Stern (Eds.), Access to mass transit for blind and visually impaired travelers (pp.116-123). New York:  American Foundation for the Blind.

The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2018 to the National Federation of the Blind.