Signs of Regress

Signs of Regress

The Braille Monitor_______

October 1997

(next)

(contents)

PHOTO/CAPTION: Scott LaBarre

Signs of Regress

by Scott LaBarre

From the Editor: Scott LaBarre

is President of the Denver Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of

Colorado. He is also an attorney with a good deal of experience in protecting

the rights of blind people. One can never tell from which quarter the next incursion

on our rights is likely to come. That's why it is necessary to be watchful all

the time. Here is Scott's story of the problems caused by a well-meaning, determined

citizen and the city officials who wanted to be responsive. It never occurred

to any of them to inquire of the blind people involved whether their efforts

were a good idea. This is what Scott says:

Although the blind have made many strides

towards full participation and complete integration into our society, very real

and significant barriers still exist which prevent us from achieving true equality.

As it has always been, these barriers stem mostly from misinformation and ignorance

of the real capabilities of blind people. One of the most devastating misconceptions

with which we struggle is the notion that blind people, as a natural result

of vision loss, face greater danger and risk while participating in routine

daily activities. From this misguided stereotype comes the belief that the blind

pose a greater safety risk.

As many Federationists will remember,

there was a time when blind people could not buy insurance because the insurance

industry thought insuring blind people was far too risky a proposition. It was

common knowledge--though there was no supporting evidence--that blind people

were at great risk and hazard far more often than the sighted. Throughout this

century the issue of safety has surfaced again and again in many guises. Safety

has been the excuse for barring us from everything from amusement parks to competitive

employment. Several years ago a group of blind people, including me, were prevented

from enjoying rides together at a Valleyfair amusement park because park policy

required that every blind person ride the attractions with a sighted person.

(See the March 1991 and May 1994 issues of the Braille Monitor for the full

story.) In whatever form the safety issue appears, we must do our best to demonstrate

that as a class the blind are no more or less competent or safe than the sighted

public. We must step forward to educate those who have had no real experience

with blindness or the actual abilities of blind people.

Last year, right here in the city of

Denver, we did battle over the safety issue. The cities of Denver and Glendale

began installing signs communicating the message "blind crossing"

wherever officials believed a number of blind pedestrians crossed streets frequently.

As many know, the NFB of Colorado operates the Colorado Center for the Blind,

a comprehensive adjustment-to-blindness training center based on Federation

philosophy. The outbreak of these signs expanded outward from intersections

near our center's two buildings. Later the city of Glendale, the jurisdiction

in which our center leases apartments in which center students reside during

their training, joined the signage craze. Both cities announced that increased

safety for the blind was the main reason why these signs had sprung up among

us. Initially we made several contacts with the City of Denver since the Denver

signs were the first to be hatched. Doug Trimble, a cane travel instructor at

the center and a member of the NFB of Denver Board, contacted city officials,

and a supervisor of someone or something assured Doug that the signs would be

removed. It seemed like a victory easily won, right? When the signs did not

disappear, Doug Trimble called the city again and again was assured that the

signs would vanish. Time passed, as it inevitably does, and the signs still

stood tall and announced to Denver drivers that blind people were in the area

and, therefore, greater caution should be used.

I then began calling the city and eventually

left several detailed voice-mail messages for Brian Mitchell, a traffic engineer

who apparently headed the appropriate section of the Transportation Department.

When I failed to hear from Mr. Mitchell, I wrote the following letter:

May 3, 1996

Mr. Bryan Mitchell

Department of Public Works

Transportation Division

Denver, Colorado

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

I am writing you regarding certain signs

that have been placed near our various properties here in Denver. These signs

identify the intersections of Broadway and Colorado Avenue and Broadway and

Iliff as "blind crossings." It is also my understanding that another

sign is now located at Broadway and Mississippi.

When you and the City decided to place

these signs, I am certain that your intent was to help blind and visually impaired

residents of Denver. You probably believed that they would make these intersections

safer and easier to cross for the blind. We appreciate your intentions, but

we want to explain to you why in the long run these signs and other such devices

are, in fact, harmful to the blind.

As you know, the National Federation

of the Blind of Colorado established the Colorado Center for the Blind (CCB),

an adjustment-to-blindness training program primarily for blind adults. We teach

necessary skills and techniques, like independent cane travel, that will allow

blind people to integrate fully and competently into society.

Generally speaking, society associates

blindness with helplessness. Many people who do not know about blindness assume

that, if you are blind, you must rely on the help of others. At the CCB we invest

a great deal of time and effort dispelling these myths. As you can imagine,

such stereotypes and beliefs about blindness lead directly to lack of opportunity

for blind people in our country. For example, working-age blind people in the

U.S. face an unemployment rate of about 75 percent. This is not due to inability

or unwillingness to work on our part but rather to a fundamental lack of understanding

about blindness and visual impairment on the part of would-be employers.

In many ways the signs you have placed

at these intersections underscore the notion that the blind are helpless. They

leave the public with the idea that the blind cannot cross an intersection safely

without such signs. They send the message that drivers must look out for the

blind because we cannot take responsibility for our own safety. This kind of

message runs directly contrary to the perception of blindness we are vigorously

attempting to establish in blind travelers and society at large.

At CCB we teach our students effective

and safe techniques to use when crossing intersections and traveling throughout

the city. The techniques we use as blind people to cross streets are no less

safe than those used by the sighted. We do not need special signs calling attention

to the fact that we are less safe. If we did require the warnings in order to

cross safely, such signs would be necessary at every intersection in the city

because blind people travel throughout the city just as other citizens do.

For these reasons we are asking that

you remove these signs and return the intersections to their original configuration.

We would be more than happy to meet with you and explain our reasoning further.

I have enclosed an article which appeared

in the January, 1996, Braille Monitor, the magazine published by the

National Federation of the Blind. The article discusses a similar situation

which occurred in Minnesota. The arguments which our members made regarding

the Minnesota situation apply just as strongly in Denver.

Thank you very much for your attention

to this matter. I look forward to a rapid response.

Cordially, Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.

Director of Advocacy Affairs

National Federation of the Blind of Colorado

We sent essentially the same letter to

the mayor of Glendale, Colorado. In fact the matter was much more easily resolved

in Glendale. In response to the letter the mayor invited us to a May 7, 1996,

City Council meeting. Members of the Denver Chapter including Dr. Verna Brasher,

Debra Johnson, Jennifer and Dan Wenzel, and I attended the meeting and gave

a presentation to the Council. After hearing our arguments, the Council voted

unanimously to remove the signs. The very next day City workers removed the

signs from Glendale. Glendale is a tiny suburb of Denver, having only 3,000

inhabitants. Because there are fewer layers of red tape and entangled bureaucracy

in Glendale, it is often much easier and quicker to accomplish a civic goal

there than in Denver.

Before completing the chronology of events

in Denver I should explain the reasons why the city all of a sudden busied itself

installing safety signs. In late 1995 a citizen, not even a resident of Denver,

began writing letters and apparently calling city officials. Here are her letters:

Littleton, Colorado

September 8, 1995

Denver Department of Transportation

Traffic Sign Division

Attention Brian Mitchell

Denver, Colorado

Re: Traffic Signs Designating Blind Pedestrian

Populations

Dear Brian:

Thanks for a moment of your time to address

a recent concern I have regarding our blind citizens. I recently spoke with

Terry Surls, in which we discussed this topic, and came to agreement that it

might best be addressed by your area of CDOT.

I reside in Littleton and work in the

downtown area, and often use the Broadway route to commute north and south to

work. In the heaviest rush hours, both morning and evening, I often see a large

number of our blind community trying to cross major intersections and catch

RTD buses at Broadway, Evans, and Mississippi with only their canes and senses

as their guide. The National Federation for the Blind is also on 2232 South

Broadway, so this could have some influence on the blind population in this

area as well.

It has caused me great concern and anguish

recently, as I watch blind citizens straining to listen for the traffic to stop

at these intersections and then working their way across them. In addition,

I have also watched vehicles coming out of the many businesses in this area,

and upon their exit, they are blocking the sidewalk, awaiting to merge onto

Broadway themselves. So many times I have really felt the anxiety for these

pedestrians, as they have literally felt their way around a running vehicle,

to find their way back onto a sidewalk that was intended for their very safety.

Terry and I discussed in detail the options

of adding some audible crossing signals at various intersections in this area.

However, after lengthy review and sharing our own experiences with the blind

population, we concluded that this option is not always in everyone's best interest.

However, an alternative that would help,

we think, would be the posting of several signs in this area that at least would

alert drivers to blind pedestrians in the area so that they might take additional

precautions to watch for them.

I use a similar analogy, Brian, with

the "Deaf Child" signs posted for our deaf population. Simply put,

they are placed there to keep our handicapped neighbors safe and our driving

population more alert.

But they serve a social purpose far beyond

the safety of the pedestrian--action from liability suits, and just the sheer

anguish of living day to day with the knowledge of knowing you have injured

another person. Or even, perhaps, a criminal charge for vehicular misuse.

I sincerely appreciate your time and

attention to this issue, Brian, and I look forward to your response. I am hopeful

that I will be able to count on your staff's commitment to this public, community,

and humanitarian concern.

Sincerely,

Sonja J. Guenther

Littleton, Colorado

December 29, 1995

Denver Department of Transportation

Traffic Sign Division

Denver, Colorado

Attention: Brian Mitchell

Re: Traffic Signs for Blind Pedestrians

Brian:

Thanks once more for your efforts this

fall in getting the signs posted on Broadway that designate blind pedestrians

are in the area. As I mentioned in our last conversation, I had attempted to

take some photos from my car during a recent episode and would send you a copy

once those were developed.

The intersection we last spoke of was

at Broadway and Mississippi. The photograph enclosed was (through my windshield

on a snowy day) taken while I was travelling east on Mississippi, at Broadway.

As you can see from the photo, the blind pedestrians are standing on the northeast

corner of this intersection and are headed south across Mississippi. There were

a total of four blind pedestrians crossing this intersection at rush hour. You

can see, too, of course, just how congested the intersection was at the time.

Just after I took the photo, these four

pedestrians ran across Mississippi, and then ran west across Broadway--against

the light. As you had mentioned to me earlier, you would pursue a third blind

pedestrian sign at this intersection in consideration of the recent concerns

for our blind pedestrians there. Although it is certainly not the clearest photo,

I wanted to send it on to you, anyway, in case you needed additional support

for your file.

Thanks again, Brian, for your continued

support in this matter. I look forward to seeing our sign soon, and please call

me if I might answer any questions for you.

Sincerely,

Sonja J. Guenther

There you have the two letters, and it

is interesting to note that just one concerned citizen prevailed upon the city

to install the "blind crossing" signs. Neither Denver nor Glendale

ever contacted us to discuss the matter and determine whether these signs were

truly necessary. Ms. Guenther herself never contacted the Federation to discuss

the matter.

Clearly Ms. Guenther was motivated by

good intentions to protect what she perceived as our safety interests. She actually

followed us and snapped photographs. Again, she did so without our knowledge.

I begin to understand a little of how celebrities feel when they are chased

by the paparazzi.

Through a combination of phone calls

and correspondence we convinced the city to remove the signs from affected intersections.

In particular, Councilman Edward Thomas played a major role in advancing our

cause. Here is his letter notifying us of our victory.

City, Colorado

May 17, 1996

Diane McGeorge and Scott C. LaBarre,

Esq.

National Federation of the Blind of Colorado

Denver, Colorado

Re: Blind Crossing Signs

Ms. McGeorge and Mr. LaBarre:

By now you have received a written communique

from Mr. Brian Mitchell, Traffic Operations Engineer, City and County of Denver,

indicating a municipal liability concern about removing the "Blind Pedestrian

Crossing" signs at (1)Colorado Avenue and Broadway, (2)Iliff and Broadway,

and (3) Mississippi and Broadway. The City has not placed such signs at Evans

and Broadway.

The signs went up after it was brought

to the city's attention that visually impaired pedestrians frequently crossed

at these intersections. The signs, of course, are meant to serve a safety function.

Your May 3, 1996, letter to Mr. Mitchell

and Federation member Mr. Gary Van Doren's call to my office expressed a viewpoint

that, although well-intended, the signs actually are harmful to the blind because

they perpetuate an erroneous notion that blindness is associated with helplessness.

I have made Councilman William Himmelmann,

District Seven, aware of this concern. South Broadway runs through his district.

However, since you last had contact with

my office, Mr. Mitchell agreed that the signs at (1) Colorado Avenue and Broadway,

and (2) Iliff and Broadway could be removed. These intersections do not have

as high a volume of turning traffic as (3)Mississippi and Broadway. At Mississippi

and Broadway he would consider removing the blind crossing legend signs and

replacing them with "Yield to Pedestrian" signs.

Prior to making any changes, the City

asks that the Federation provide a polling or petition list of representatives

from the blind community who agree the signs are offensive and should not be

placed at these intersections. Your correspondence clearly states the concern;

however, in community-initiated and government-response matters it is customary

and prudent to require some sort of verifiable show-of-support, such as petition

signatures. You may already have this information on record and need only send

it to Mr. Mitchell.

If I can be of further assistance, please

feel free to contact me. However, my constituent's concern has been addressed,

and I would now refer you to Councilman Himmelmann's Office.

Sincerely,

Edward P. Thomas

Councilman, District 10

I then wrote a letter to the traffic

engineer. Here it is:

Denver, Colorado

May 20, 1996

City Traffic Engineer

Department of Public Works, Transportation Division

City and County of Denver

Denver, Colorado

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

On May 17, 1996, I received a fax from

Councilman Ed Thomas. His letter indicated that you would be willing to take

down all of the "blind crossing" signs at the intersections earlier

identified. He further stated that you would, however, need a showing of support

for such action from the blind community.

We are happy to provide you with such

a showing of support. On Saturday, May 18, the National Federation of the Blind

of Denver held its regular monthly meeting, and at that meeting over sixty people

signed the enclosed petition. Only approximately five of those signing were

not blind or visually impaired. We hope that this strong showing at such short

notice will provide ample evidence that blind members of our community greatly

desire that the signs be removed.

We greatly appreciate your willingness

to review this issue and your effort to understand our point of view. We certainly

have no problem with the city's placing a "yield to pedestrian" sign

at Mississippi and Broadway. We share your belief that that intersection is

more dangerous than the others because of the high volume of turning traffic,

but we are pleased to know that you understand our position that the intersection

is no more dangerous for the blind than for other pedestrians.

We assure you that the city does not

incur greater liability by not placing "blind crossing" signs at various

intersections. The fact is that no one can make the world completely safe for

everyone. Blindness in and of itself does not make a person any less or more

safe. A careless blind person just like a careless sighted person faces great

risk when crossing a street. Similarly, blind and sighted pedestrians are equally

vulnerable to a careless driver who pays no heed to pedestrians.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention

to this matter. We are very glad that you have carefully considered this issue

and can now understand our point of view. Working with understanding and perceptive

public officials helps us to change what it means to be blind for the better.

Please let us know if you need any additional information. We would be curious

to know when we can anticipate the various signs being taken down.

Cordially yours, Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.

Director of Advocacy Affairs

National Federation of the Blind of Colorado

One would expect the story to end here,

except for one thing. Even though it took only the pleas of Ms. Guenther to

have the signs installed, it took a petition with nearly seventy signatures

to eradicate the signs. In addition, Ms. Guenther was not yet done with her

commentary. When she discovered that the city intended to remove the signs,

she wrote one last letter expressing her great concern for the blind and threatening

Denver officials and "blind associations" with every serious consequence

she could dream up. This is what she said:

Littleton, Colorado

May 15, 1996

Colorado Department of Transportation

Denver, Colorado

Attention: Brian L. McMitchell, Traffic Operations Engineer

Re: Blind Pedestrian Signs at Broadway

Intersections

Dear Brian:

As you may recall, I am one of the citizens,

along with others and business owners, who had contacted the Department of Transportation

over the past months regarding the placement of blind pedestrian signs at the

various intersections along Broadway. It has come to my attention that the National

Federation of the Blind has recently requested that these signs be removed.

I know that often such requests by the

general public are viewed with distaste by various blind groups. They consider

the posting of such signs as an affront to their independence, ability, and

their need to assimilate into everyday society. Let me assure you my request

to post the signs on Broadway was well thought out and comes not out of pity

for the "helpless blind pedestrian," or an attempt to stigmatize the

blind--but rather out of the respect that I have gained for them and a desire

to further facilitate their efforts to merge into society, balanced with a duty

to consider the overall interests of the rest of the public at large.

Bear with me while I elaborate on three

such individuals I have had the wonderful privilege to have met in my lifetime.

First, as a freshman in college many

years ago, I had a blind professor who taught social psychology. She was a talented

and inspirational mentor and provided terrific insight to young people as to

the needs of the blind. She was also warm and encouraging to those who offered

to assist her in facilitating the class.

Next, while performing volunteer work

for the Denver Victims Center, I had an opportunity to train for my volunteer

position with a blind counterpart. I found her very anxious to allow others

to facilitate her needs, while teaching us how not to assume her needs, nor

be condescending in our approach. Again, she taught us what a vital and valued

member of the community any handicapped person can be.

Lastly, while working with a state administrator,

I met a man who had invented a device that would scan book pages, and magnify

the print onto a television device--so the sight-impaired could continue to

read. As he told us about his invention, it was clear that he did not create

it for its revenue potential, but for his mother--who was nearly blind and loved

to read. He did it to help facilitate her needs--and to improve the quality

of her life. In essence, he did it out of love and respect for the sight-impaired.

In short, by no means were the concerned

citizens nor the DOT, ignorant of the wishes of the blind population when discussions

on the blind pedestrian signs erupted last fall. Many of us have had both personal

interaction with the blind population as well as exposure to organizations for

the blind.

The numerous experiences that I had last

summer watching the blind cross Broadway were far less than inspirational. They

were frightening. In my correspondence with you I'm sure I described the blind

pedestrians as they crossed against the light, in front of six lanes of traffic,

while drivers and sighted pedestrians watched in apprehension and dread. This

situation occurred over and over again last summer, as I drove that route each

day from Littleton to work to downtown. Perhaps some of these students had not

mastered the skills required to maneuver through the intersection, but whatever

the reason, these situations, consistently, exposed both the blind pedestrian

and the motor vehicle operator to the ultimate price of a fatality.

It is my sincere intent to at least diminish

this hazard to our blind population via the placement of the blind pedestrian

signs. The act, in my opinion, is certainly not foundation for a battle of the

wills but, rather, a time when all parties need to look open-mindedly at the

safety and liabilities of everyone.

I can assure you, Brian, everyone that

I talked to last fall at the Department of Transportation were well aware of

the concerns of various associations for the blind. Each staff member reiterated

to me the importance of the blind pedestrian relying on their own senses to

cross through intersections. We agreed that audible signals were out of the

question--as it would create just that false sense of security that could be

hazardous. (However, in the neighboring jurisdiction of Ft. Collins they do

have audible signals for the safety of blind pedestrians at intersections just

north of the C.S.U. campus.)

Unlike what some cities in the nation

use, the signs that we agreed to are caution-yellow, with only a single silhouette

of a pedestrian with a white cane. There is no written verbiage that might be

construed as a stigma to our blind population. Again, DOT was very aware and

sensitive to the wishes of the blind federation from prior experience with that

organization.

There is no evidence whatsoever that

these simple signs disrupt the environment that the blind pedestrian still faces

when they enter the Broadway intersections. The traffic lights are still engaged

in directing the main flow of traffic. I drive through those very intersections

every single morning and have not witnessed one driver stop, slow down, or look

both ways before driving through a green light. It was never our intent to disrupt

the flow of traffic--or the subtle sounds that flowing traffic makes--as we

are aware that they are the exact tools that the blind pedestrian must follow

in order to cross the intersection safely.

These innocuous signs were adopted specifically

so as not to interfere with the learned skills of the blind pedestrian but would

merely alert the motorist to add caution when crossing the intersection. It

is simplistically no different than caution signs we would place to alert drivers

to a railroad track, a pedestrian crossing, a school zone (where we even require

drivers to reduce speeds), or a deaf child. Unfortunately, in the hurried rush

of our lifestyles today, we drivers must be reminded of our duties to use extra

caution while driving.

I am currently celebrating my eighteenth

year in the insurance industry, and I would be remiss if I didn't remind all

parties involved in this issue of the liability that faces the driver of a vehicle

that may strike one of these pedestrians. On a microscopic scale the driver

could be found liable and either pay astronomical medical bills through their

insurance carrier or, if uninsured, could face personal financial disaster.

In addition, the trauma that the driver

faces when striking a pedestrian is enormous. I have personally been involved

in cases of pedestrian fatalities and seen the psychological impact of depression

and guilt on the driver and their family in the aftermath. All one has to do

is watch the faces of the Gates employees standing on the corners of Broadway

and Mississippi while blind pedestrians run, against the light, across six lanes

traffic, to imagine all of the tens of other witnesses that stand to be affected

by just one incident of this nature.

On a more macro scale is the cost of

these types of insurance claims, the court costs, legal fees, and the large

insurance settlements that are associated with them. All of these costs are

reflected in inflated insurance premiums for Coloradans.

But the greatest cost of all is the loss

or additional handicap of a viable member of our blind community and the lost

contributions they might have made. I am very concerned for my blind friends

that in our rush to integrate our blind populations that we are willing to compromise

their safety, as well as the financial and emotional security of the rest of

the community.

On an even broader scale are the liability

ramifications for the city and the blind associations if the signs are removed.

They were posted to assist in the safety of the blind pedestrian and the motorist.

Once removed, it is very reasonable that legal counsel could argue the liability

of the city and/or the blind associations for removing one of the safety mechanisms

that may have prevented the incident from occurring--thus leaving the city and/or

association appearing culpable in a fatality.

As we look around us, in just a few short

years we have made tremendous strides for our handicapped population in this

country. We have placed numbers in Braille on our elevators, restructured sidewalks

to accommodate those in wheelchairs, upgraded parking spaces, provided handrails--and

other accommodations too numerous to mention--all acts of helping to facilitate

the integration of the handicapped into day-to-day society. As I travel to foreign

countries who lack many of these advancements, I am reminded of our progress

and am extremely proud of this country's, and Colorado's contribution to improve

the quality of life and the right of all of our handicapped. What may have been

forgotten is that it is not only the blind population that have fought for these

changes, but the sighted community members and concerned legislative bodies

as well.

I am very saddened by those blind associations

who may still believe that all of us out here are ignorant and afraid of all

blind people or that we are insensitive to their needs. I invite members of

associations such as the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado to my

children's elementary school to help our children to learn of the abilities

and achievements of our blind, rather than to promote what they still perceive

to be ignorance and fear of this impairment.

I sincerely appreciate your time and

consideration to this issue, Brian. I'm confident that the Transportation Division

will give fair consideration to the overall impact on the community of this

sign-removal issue. I hope you will contact me if I might answer any further

questions for you on this topic.

Sincerely,

Sonja J. Guenther

Ms. Guenther's letter speaks for itself.

However, some of her factual statements do not ring true. I have crossed with

our students at the very intersection she mentions on countless occasions. I

have never observed our students wildly and recklessly crossing against the

light. If anything, we often have to encourage our students to move more quickly

across the six lanes of traffic so that they reach the opposite side before

the end of the green light. When students first come to our Center, they are

often fearful of travel and move a mite more slowly and cautiously than is advisable.

Usually, after growing comfortable with cane travel, our students assume normal

walking speeds.

It is also interesting to note that the

Federation, according to Ms. Guenther, could be legally liable if an accident

occurs after removal of the signs. She implies that we take the safety of the

blind too lightly and thereby needlessly risk the lives of our students. Again,

I must state that Ms. Guenther has never contacted us directly to discuss the

true safety needs of the blind. Of course we are concerned with safety. We review

basic safety rules with our students over and over again precisely because we

want them to be safe. Our students do not travel independently until their instructors

believe that they are capable of doing so.

The events surrounding this story go

to prove that the blind have not yet come all the way to first-class citizenship

in this country. Many people still prefer to believe that the blind face higher

levels of danger when simply crossing the street. Ms. Guenther's prejudices

are clear as early as her first letter. She characterizes the blind students

as "trying to cross the street." She goes on to describe them as having

"only their canes and their other senses" with which to do the job,

and she then depicts the blind as feeling their way around an idling vehicle

parked across the sidewalk and "straining to listen for the traffic before

working their way across the intersection." These descriptions make clear

that this woman filters her observations through her strong prejudice that alternative

techniques are stressful and inferior. The irrefutable fact is that not a single

one of our students ever had an accident before, during, or after the installation

of the "blind crossing" signs. Whether Ms. Guenther agrees or not,

calling special attention to the safety of blind pedestrians only confirms society's

general belief that the blind are less safe than other pedestrians. The part

of society most concerned about the safety of the blind is, of course, the blind

themselves. We were not the ones who petitioned for these safety signs. Fortunately,

city officials ultimately listened to the blind community and responded positively

to our views about our safety.

On many occasions people ask why I give

so much time to the National Federation of the Blind. The answer is simple:

together we are far stronger than any one of us is alone. Without the collective

work of the Denver Chapter, the "blind crossing" signs would still

be standing along South Broadway. This incident gave us the opportunity to educate

many people and spread a positive message about blind people. The objections

of one individual blind person would more than likely have fallen upon deaf

ears, but our collective and strong voice allowed us to set the tone concerning

blindness in this City. Although the safety issue still looms as a major barrier

blocking our path to true equality in our land, actions like those we took here

in Denver will help us climb the remaining stairs to full, first-class citizenship.