The following story is based on reality. Resemblance to anyone, living or dead, is purely coincidental. These two women could be any of us at all.
One morning in two average American cities, two women got ready for work. They both lived in subdivisions, both had husbands and school aged children and both made the rush hour commute every week day over a regular route.
This particular morning, the weather was not too cold and not too hot with the sun shining in a clear sky. The roads were dry and traffic, as they both left their subdivisions, was at the same heavy volume as usual.
As both women made their way to work, they thought about things that needed to get done that day in the office, what to fix for dinner, to remember to tell their husbands to get something at the hardware store if they were going to do a fix up project around the house that weekend. Both women paid little mind to each street crossing they made, as each was as familiar to them as their children's faces.
About halfway through each of their journeys, the women prepared to cross an intersection. This intersection was not a particularly difficult one to navigate. It had turning lanes and phases of the light cycle for every possible action a driver on either of the two busy streets could take. Both women knew this intersection well as it was on their regular route and paid it no extra mind as they approached and waited for the signal that meant it was safe to go straight through and on down the street.
As the signal changed and all the other cues were right, both women started into the intersection. Before either could stop, a car, turning inexplicably right from the lane next to them, cut them off, slamming into them. In the resulting collision, both women were killed. Two different women, two different cities, but exactly the same set of circumstances.
The same circumstances save for one factor. The first woman was driving a car. The second woman was walking, using a long white cane to help guide her. The moment of deadly impact is where the similar circumstances of these two women came to an abrupt end.
After untangling the mess of the first accident, it was discovered that the first woman was dead. In this accident, it was quite clear who was to blame. The evidence spoke for itself. One mangled car embedded in another. This was an unfortunate and reckless choice of a driver who claimed he was in a hurry and late for work and realized too late that he needed to make a right turn.
The case of the second woman was more confusing. The driver, when finally convinced by other motorists and pedestrians happening on the scene to stop, swore he never saw the blind woman start into the intersection. She had to have misjudged the light, he swore while a sympathetic police officer put a hand on the driver's shoulder.
Both accidents were reported on the news. The first one was
reported on the radio and television morning shows as "a traffic
accident at
The second accident was reported on radio and television morning
shows as "a blind pedestrian is down at the intersection of
Families were notified and accident reports filed. Because the first accident did block the intersection, there were several captive witnesses. The driver was appropriately cited with something akin to vehicular homicide and lawyers haggled away at an appropriate settlement for the bereaved family. Of course, we know it's not as easy as all that, but generally, this is what happens.
In the second accident, the traffic report was hindered by a lack of witnesses. One person came forward to say that she saw the blind woman start out when the light turned green in her favor, but then said that she's seen this blind woman misjudge the traffic also.
Immediately, there is question over this case. The driver was quoted as saying over and over that he never saw her, that the sun was in his eyes and that she should have been able to hear him turning, all things that were seriously considered by the judge in his testimony.
The first accident victim was quietly buried with family and friends the only ones to hear of her death. The newspaper article about the blind woman's death was circulated via the Internet, over the country to blind people and consumer organizations, rehabilitation professionals and federal government accessibility experts.
As the article about the blind woman circulated, people began speculating on the manner of the accident. Did she really call the light cycle correctly? Would an audible traffic signal, one that beeped, chirped, clicked or buzzed when pedestrians had the green light, have saved her life? Would she have needed or benefitted from more training from an orientation/mobility instructor in the use of the cane and reading traffic lights? Might a guide dog or other travel aid besides the cane have overridden her judgement and saved her?
Both of these unfortunate women learned to navigate the world at about the same time. While one woman was taking Drivers' Education in high school and driving that first car, the other woman was learning to judge the sounds of traffic and making those first trips alone on city buses. After those initial lessons, neither woman thought much about the skills they used.
Years went by. Traffic patterns changed. The woman who drove was aided in understanding the new configurations of intersections by signs, lights and newspaper articles about new traffic moving strategies in her city. The blind woman had to prove to a state agency official providing "services to the blind," that she needed additional assistance from an orientation/mobility instructor when she encountered new and confusing traffic situations. Though she might have heard in passing of new traffic trends such as actuated intersections, she had no readily available information such as signage she could hear or feel, to tell her about the intersection. She relied on the time tested skills of reading traffic flow. Most times, that was enough, but it was becoming increasingly more difficult to cross many intersections.
Though both accidents were clearly the fault of the other driver, no one called into question the skills and abilities of the sighted woman's Drivers' Education instruction. Questions were raised, however, about the competency of the blind woman's orientation/mobility instruction. One orientation/mobility instructor discussing the accident on an e-mail list warned his colleagues about keeping their professional insurance up to date as people had been sued over the deaths of blind consumers they instructed.
The sighted woman's family campaigned to have the intersection where she died analyzed and the light cycle readjusted. This effort languished in the city council and traffic engineer's office until the memory of the accident faded. Promises were made but to this day, the light cycle remains the same, as it allows much greater movement of traffic. Save for that freak accident, it is inherently safe. Nothing changed.
A debate raged surrounding the intersection where the blind woman died. Some blind people requested an audible traffic signal at this intersection to give pedestrians an added notification and "level the playing field for the blind traveler." Engineers stalled, citing public annoyance with the beeping, chirping signals. Other blind people came forward representing consumer organizations that said that if a person had appropriate training, no additional cue was needed and that these signals created a false dependency, thus becoming more of a danger to the blind pedestrian. After all, it wasn't an inability to read the signal that killed this woman but the negligence of a driver turning into her path against the light. Given this division in philosophy among the very population served by the requested device, traffic engineers put the project on hold for future study. Nothing changed.
Two vital, loved, contributing members of society were lost to their families and friends. For a brief time, awareness was raised about aggressive driving and pedestrian safety. Years pass and the names and stories fade outside their families.
The positive effects of a legacy of death, for both drivers and pedestrians, is that more and more traffic engineers are becoming educated beyond disability rhetoric. These concerned men and women are now working to design generally pedestrian friendly intersections. News reports about aggressive driving have increased and laws punishing road rage and other dangerous driving styles have given law enforcement personnel more "teeth" to go after drivers.
So much more needs to be done. Police officers and judges need to stop blaming victims for traffic accidents and allowing their empathy for drivers who strike and kill pedestrians to cloud their judgement. Greater awareness of pedestrian rights and issues must be brought to city officials and the media through a diverse coalition.
Lastly, though little may be able to be done about our overly litigious society, professionals such as orientation/mobility instructors should not have to fear legal action based on whether a student they worked with years ago travels safely. If Drivers' Education teachers were held similarly responsible for drivers endangering others, the courts would be brimming.
The moral of this story is to stop, look and listen, not only to traffic, but to how your community responds when a tale of tragedy is told.
Jenine Stanley
Return to the Pedestrian Safety Index