Walking between the Lines: Nonvisual Cues for Maintaining Headings during Street Crossings

Abstract: Five cues were evaluated with respect to their usefulness in directing the headings of pedestrians who were blind during street crossings. The study was conducted at a simulated crosswalk, with the angle of the crosswalk varied relative to the approach and direction of the slope of the ramp. Three cues worked well over the distance equivalent to the width of a six-lane road. ********** Orientation and mobility (OM Scott et al., 2011) and from veering from one's intended heading while walking (see Guth & LaDuke, 1994; Kallie, Schrater, & Legge, 2007; Rouse & Worchel, 1955). To address this problem, OM La Grow & Weessies, 1994) but relatively few strategies for preventing these errors. In light of these widely recognized challenges, a Curb Ramp and Intersection Wayfinding Workshop in 2004 (U.S. Institute of Transporation Engineers, 2004) to discuss "intersection design to optimize directional cuing for pedestrians who do not use visual cues in crossing streets." At the workshop, numerous ideas were discussed for providing information on alignment and heading to pedestrians who are blind, but little research was presented to confirm the efficacy of the various cues that were suggested. These cues included audible beacons associated with accessible pedestrian signals (APS), remote infrared audible signage (RIAS), and tactile guidestrips. Various configurations of audible beaconing associated with APS (simultaneous sounds from both ends of the crosswalk, sounds alternating from one end of the crosswalk to the other, and sounds coming from the opposite end of the crosswalk only) have been evaluated with mixed results. For example, while several studies (Laroche, Giguere, & Pokier, 1999; Laroche, Leroux, Giguere, & Poirier, 2000; Tauchi, Sawai, Takato, Yoshiura, & Takeuchi, 1998) found that alternating signals result in greater accuracy in crossing than do simultaneous signals, a similar study (Wall, Ashmead, Bentzen, & Barlow, 2004) did not confirm this effect. Studies comparing beaconing from the opposite end of the crosswalk to simultaneous signals (Barlow, Scott, & Bentzen, 2009; Scott, Barlow, Bentzen, Bond, & Gubbe, 2008) suggested an advantage for "far side only" beaconing. RIAS (exemplified by Talking Signs) makes use of handheld receivers that provide spoken messages when they are activated and pointed in the direction of infrared transmitters. In research at signalized intersections, crossings were completed within the crosswalk 56% of the time when RIAS was not used and 76% of the time when it was used (Crandall, Bentzen, Myers, & Brabyn, 2001; Crandall, Brabyn, Bentzen, & Myers, 1999). Because the participants were asked not to use their receivers as they crossed, this effect was probably due to the usefulness of RIAS for initial alignment. …