Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLD-015-10CIaCII~°'t0Il REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ,, / Date: May 3, 2010 Resolution#: ~ P/-~ ~d ~~O'/U By-law#: / `~/~ Report: CLD-015-10 File#: INSTALLATION OF "DEAF CHILD" SIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD-015-10 be received; 2. THAT the request for the installation of "Deaf Child" signs be denied; and 3. THAT Lisa Janveaux, Community Advantage Rehabilitation Inc., and Colleen Hynes be advised of Council's decision. ~~~~ ~-~. Submitted by: Reviewed by: a a ~ , CMO Franklin Wu, Municipa Clerk Chief Administrative Officer PLB CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: CLD-015-10 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND In the fall of 2009, a request was received from Community Advantage Rehabilitation Inc. on behalf of Colleen Hynes, fora "Deaf Child" sign to be posted on her street. This request was referred to the Clarington Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) for consideration. 2.0 COMMITTEE RESPONSE In consideration of this matter, the AAC reviewed documentation from the Ontario Traffic Conference (OTC), which is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1. This documentation indicates that most municipalities and the Province do not recommend such signage and are not planning to introduce them. The Canadian Hearing Society and the CNIB have indicated that they are not in favour of the signs being installed. In discussing the issue, the Committee was of the opinion that signs indicating a child with any type of disability may give the child a false sense of security, are generally disregarded by motorists, residential areas are where children can be expected and all motorists should drive the same way through these areas whether there is disabled or non-disabled children in the area, and the signs may alert predators to the fact that there are vulnerable children in the area. Prior to making a decision on the matter, however, the Committee requested comments from the Clarington Traffic Management Committee and Community Living. The Traffic Management Committee considered this matter at their February meeting; the following is an excerpt from the minutes of the meeting: "Request for Deaf Child Signs-handout from Jan. mtg.-(Ron Baker) The Region stated that these non-uniform warning signs have not been shown effective. Some states that previously supported them are now having them removed. Ajax is removing theirs. Members wanted to see a reduction in the number of signs suggesting that a proliferation renders each sign less effective. The following motion was proposed: THAT: "The CTMAC not support the request for this Deaf Child sign or other signs for individual persons with disabilities". MOVED: by Lisa Robinson; SECONDED by David Reesor CARRIED" REPORT NO.: CLD-015-10 PAGE 3 Written comments were not received from Community Living with respect to this matter. 3.0 CONCLUSION Given the response from the Ontario Traffic Conference and the resolution of the Clarington Traffic Management Committee, it is respectfully recommended that the request for the installation of "Deaf Child" signage be denied. Attachment No. 1 to Report CLD-015-10 20 CetPttort St. #1~3 Toronto, ffntmdo M~FB tt~„'i PiMrta 418-996-+i298 Rex 418-'.3ti8.0444 Qntaro Trnff is Con~er+~nce May 3, 2006 City of Niagara Fails 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Attention: M. Carrick, Manager of Traffic Operations R®: Stsndardtzation of pisablod Child Warning Sign The Ontarie Traffic Conference Traffic Engineering Committee submits our findings in response to your raquesUquestions: 1) For information andlor research regarding current practice and policies used by Municipalities with respect to installing Disabled/Handicapped Child at Play warning signs. 2) Are there any plans for the inclusion of Disabled/Handicapped Child at Play warning sings in the Ontario Traffic Manual of the Canadian Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices? 3) Does the OTC TrafFlc Engineering Committee endorse the Disabled or Handicapped Child at Play warning signs? FINDINGS 1) Current practices and policies A limited telephone survey of similar size (ko Niagara Falls) or larger Ontario Municipalities was undertaken. The results of the survey are shown in Table 1. A survey of TOMSC members was underkaken whereby a limited number of municipalities or provinces responded. In April 2005, the Municipality of Chatham Kent Council approved khe following motion: "Council formalize the policy of not endorsing or supporting the installation of Chiid Warning signs with the Municipality of Chatham-Kent" A copy of Cfiatham-Kent's report to Council is attached for your information. A discussion with a member of khe American Nations( Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) committee revealed that any reference to handicapped cr disabled child warning signs has been removed from the manuals and therefgre not supported by the committee. 12 2- 2y InaNsion of Disabled Ghiidrsn signs to OTM or MUTCD manuals It is the Trattic Engineering Committee's understanding that there are no plans at Fhis time to include the Disabled/Handicapped Child at Piay warning sign in either the Ontario 7raffie Manual or the Canadian Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3} OTC -Traffic Engineering Committee's Pgsittgn The Traffic Engineering Gommittea after reviewing available data and having many dcseusaigns rational~xod that one must take into aeaount the driver'& reaction ko piaabled/Handicapped signing. The reality is that residential areas are where children can be expected and we want motorists to drive the same way through these areas whether there is a disabled or non-disabled children in the area.. Therefore, on this basis alone combined with the fack of any tangible evidence that "Disabled" warning signs are effective, the Traffic Engineering Committee doss not Support this type of signing. In Dosing, on behalf of the OTC and the Traffic Engineering Commrttae, please accept my apologies for not providing a response to your questions before now. If you have any questions or require clarification of the contents of this letter, please contact Blair Anderson at 416 262-9732. S GR Secretary, Traffic Engineering Committee Attachments Table 1-OTC Municipality Survey Summary Table 2 - TOMSC Summary of responses Chatham Kent Report fo Council cc: TEC Committee OTC Office ~; ~ ~m _.~ ~ ~ -- I ~ 3 ~~ ~ • ~w ~ ~ ~ u ~~ ~~ ° I~ ~ ' ~ I ~ F co~~ .4' , ~ ^u ~ I li ~ ~ F . ~} C ~ J J ~ ~ , ~ ~ Q 3 ~' I ag ~ ~ ~ G ~ °,: c U I' ~ ! ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' a a~ o p., ~ E ~ ~ ~ c~i a .q.+ a.+ m tyy tC _ y ~ ~ ,~ a u a~i c y y ~ b -p .C ~ ~ T ^o b n0 ~ • y ~ m ~ ~ ~ fr ~ ~ ~ , 0~ ~ ~ i'V rtJ ~ rj ~ ~ G i ~ qq Q GD C~ t4~.''p ~ w U O N ~ ~ •b0 Q DA G ~ 0. ^c3 D ~ fU ~ y ~' w .fl b'} S(J~~ 13 ~ ~ 'c1 y b LI '~ , `~ H ~ ~ ~ . 'O a~i Vi ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ a ~ D l ~ iw ~ ~ (.~ ' ?, O ~ i n., G ~ T O ?i ~ O ~, W ~ ~ '~ c~i"`j°~~i~._o O ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 0.i Fr ew ~ C: c~ ~ G1/ a c R ~~ as d' i ~ ~ on~~ ~ C1'` 1 y , ~ i ~ i .. . -+ .e i- F ~ [+~ ~ it ,~ ~ .C % ^ ~ G V D ~ ~ ~ {~ ~ -cs ~, 3 '° '° ,.., ~ ..~. st ;; ~, 3 ~,; . 1 ~ m c ~1 ~ ~ 3 a ~i ~ 3 ~ m ° ~ ~ A ~I 3 a ~ m ~ ~~ 3 w o ;c ~' i U Q ~ ~ ~ ti Q N "~3 ~ ~ p w . I .Q. , '~' ©'.".~ i .- ~ _ ; ~ ° ~ y! ~' I a I ~ i 4 I i ~'li ~ ~ '~ u `I o © ~ o 4 V ~ {~i~, `+ ~ I x o u ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ ,y p 0 G N I ~ C ~ I „", y c y ~M ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ I eFV ~ ~ ~ a ~ G ~ 9 ~ ~ cc ~ 3i (p r~. ~ ' ' I l ~ '~ a1 i p . .-- ~- I ~- I m T i T ~~ > ~ ( ~ I I f ~ CC ~ I ! ~ I 'ro ) '~ 'D ~ ~ it 1 O ^ ~ ~ ^~ . v I ~ R ~ F. I G ~ '~ ~ v~ `d °? 'o ~" ^~ 'C ' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ a ~ ~ U U yy ~ ~ Q 7 (J~ ^~ ~ y ~ X 'y Mi ~ ~+ ~ a ~ ~ ~ / ~ b ~ ~ ~ ey i, .~ ~ ~ ~ v Sa ;C ~ ~ ~ ~ Z I ~ ~ Q+ ~ I ~ i,. ~ vi ~ 4' .j] G ~ L N er ~" ~ ~ .Sv' G Q1 ~ J s.i O . .i QI Y ~ ~ G ~ ~ O' ~1 "~ ~ CT ~" /$ i.4 ^~ ~µ 1 IV I+Y H 4J 1 1 r H IY H V'~I { 1 1 I ~ F W I ~ ~ ~ 1 YY ~ L-` 1 I ' ~ b W I ~ ~ ~ y~l V Q ~ i ~~ .%~ U .. yi rx .f is I I U A$ 3 ~ `"'' 1~" C. ~ '>, t3 ~,A ~ L3. ~' ~ ~ M i ~ YAY ~ r~ 3 ~ G'G G'C `" 17' U 117" ~ V7 ~ ~ ~ 3 as i 4w ~" C1 A. I I _ G O ' i C~ ~pp 3 ~ ~ i stl ~ ~ ., ~ ~ Q N ~ ~: M __..__ +- `~ CV i ~ -. I ~ Z ~" ~" ' }" I~ z f -~ zi ~ ( ~ ZC . ZO ~ ONC ~ M ~I ~ .-.. N ~ ~.. ~ ~ Cy ' pppp I ~ ~ _ i-~ ~) '~ Q ~ ~ I Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ! i L. y N F. ' M ~ ~..~ ~ ~ ' ~ !d ~ ~ 'jj~ W . ^I ^~ U ~~~+~+ 3 ~ V11 ~ ~ ~ V~ M ` ft~ ~ ' i ~ Vj ~/ ~ J ~ ~ a ~ f ..w ~ tF ~ W V'( ~ d fi ~ ~ U' ~ u I N I P ~ r1 ,~ r V ~ ~ I c g ~ .~ 'f3 rry ~, N ~4 M ~ I il ~ ~ .C2 *.~~ ' GI +~ N). ' + e 13 W~ o ~~ ~ a ~"' I Yi ++ Y ~Q `~ ~'~' ~bo~ 4t ~.~~''~ ie~ ~ ~~ ~ ' iea ~ p~* ~ ~ l ~ ~ c~ ~ '~ „~ a~ a i I ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~~ s~ ~ i `" I i ~ ~ i i i~ f I h s q ^C v ~ 4~ ~ ~ GA ~ i ate. ~ I i .~ ~ ~~ o ' ~ c c i G ~ 6i p w ~ C. ~ ~ ..C ~ O ~ ~ ^[ ^G ~ G ~ I ^C ~ O ~ p O J ~ b '~ `~' I ~ , s. ,~ --~ w '~ -c 'm '~ '~ Or ~ c,: ^ ~ ~ a ~. G3 G a ~ ce ~ .. V ~ i ~ ~ i q p .~ U cc ~ i ' + i ' i .-. ` " F~7 ~. ~ '? U ~ 4J ~'? .~ b ~ U . ~'b ,/~ ~ ~~ i ~ r.~ G~).3 ~ y~j [-~ y l xv~~ ~ ~ ~ xz , xdw x~ , U aV _ - iE ~ ~ ' - - - ~ - ~O~O f I i ~.,~ ca E. a y°', I ~ ~ ~ o o , y x F ~ 3 c`~i '~ '~ ~> ~ ~ ~ e°_a i i 3Q•'~ c~ a~ I J• 3 0~ x v A ~„ o ,p ~ I ~ ~ ~ !: ~ ~ ~ I I i . ~ ~ I i ~ ~'m m ` o ~ ~ ' i i ! ~ o ~ o o c G v i ~ Z ~ ~ ~ f ~ "~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ c~ .~ i U ~ :n ~. I ~ pp 0. ~ ' r ~ ~ A~ cy~ .w ~~ q+~ I ,~' ~ j n C :~ Q p , A" i ~ 0..~. ~_ WI _ CY, I .G. US ~ _... _ ~.J [~, ___ i MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT ~ " INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC DNISION TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Stephen E. Jahns, P.Eng. Manager, infrastructure and Traffic Engineering end Traffic Division, DATE: AprN 01, 2005 SUBJECT: Review of Cun'ent Engineering and Traffic Divlaion Practlces Surrounding the Instaliatfon of Child Waming Signs Municipality of Chatham-Kent It !s recommended that: 1. Council formalize thep'dlicy of not endorsing or supporting the Installation of Child Waming Signs within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. On average, Engineering and Traffic Division of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent receives between four and ten requests for Child Waming Signs for various locations within the Municipality of Chatham-Ker>t. For the purpose of this report, Child Waming Signs include such signs (and all requested variations thereof) as: • Child at Play • .Blind Child at Play • Deaf Child at Play • Handicapped Child at Play Review of Gun-ent gnpinaerinp and'TraN~c Division Practices Surrourdfnp The InataAatlon of Child Warning Signs Municipality of Chathem•Kent p In peat years, the former Traffic and Transit Division did not support the installation of such signage as they were ineffective and unregulated. In a similar manner, ~ngineering and Traffic Division continues to follow this practice with the following reasons being sited: • The signage does not accurately identffy the specific area or offer any additional relevant information to the driver. • The signage gives the driver a false sense of security in that the driver frequently assumes that the parents and or community also recognize the issue and will similarly be on guard. • The signage gives fhe community a false sense of security [n that the community frequently assumes that drivers also recognize the issue and will similarly be on guard. • It has been documented that the impact and effectiveness of such warning signs is quite short-lived. These warning signs often become "part of the scenery" for drivers familiar with the route and consequently become Ineffective quite quickly. • Many municipalities and communities do not use such warning signs due to the lack of proven effectEveness and undesirable liability associated with the use of such non-uniform warning signs. Furthermore, Engineering and Traffic Division adds the following: • The implementation and erection of such signage becomes an administrative issue where budget must be allocated and staff must administer and monitor such a program to ensure that all signs are accurately pieced and maintained. • The usage of such signage In today's society inadvertently identifies and singles- out one or more particular. individuals within the communtyy. • Numerous municipalities within Ontario, Canada and North America have taken the stance of not endorsing or supporting the provision of such signage. • Numerous standards, inducting the Manual of Unfform Traffic Control Davicas, strongly discourage the use of Chikt Warning Signs. • Requests for placement of such signage typically are emotionally based and the requests for signage placement are often seen as a remedy to traffic speed issues. Review of Current Engineering and Traffic Divisbn Practices Surrounding The Installation of ChNd Warning Sfgna MunicipaBry of Chatham-Kent Child blaming Signs provide no guidance io motorists in terms of safe speed or operation of their vehicles. All riv are charged with the paramount duty of conducting their vehicles in a safe manner in accordance with the relevant legislatbn at all times. As such, they are required to continually be in control of their vehicle and be aware of their surroundings at all times. AU drivers are required to operate their vehicles In a responsible manner on aN streets, not just those with Child Warning Signs present and interact with other vehicles and pedestrians in a knowledgeable and safe manner. Similarly, both children and parents are responsible to ensure that children play In a safe manner, outside of the municipal road allowance. The presence of Chikf blaming Signs does not alter this responsibility nor does it albw chlkiren or parents to be lass vigilant in this regard. Provision of these non-standard signs may also Empty that the MunicipeNty approves of streets as playgrounds or play areas, which may result in the Municipality being vulnerable to liability. It is important to recognize that a number of service organizations disapprove of the provision of Child blaming Signs as they spec~cally identify a single person or group in a neighborhood. It has been hypothesized that the provision of such signage undermines the goals of these service organizations by negating the seamless integration of these persons into the Community fabric. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that the provision of such signage may compromise the security of a person or group as it may "single out" such persons as possible victims to predators (sexual or otherwise). Appendix F of this report contains a sample information document obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers website. Although this document is specific to the City of Pheonix, Arizona, it illustrates the concepts endorsed by the Institute specific to the issue of signage as speed control. IC is important for Council to recognize that th~ report does not seek to abolish the placement of relevant waming signs adjacent to schools, parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities. Engineering and Traffic Division will continue to endorse and recommend the provision of such relevant signage in these areas. COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendatidns in this report support the following objective and strategic direction: A. Health - We are a heaRhy community A1: Provide sufficient capacity to .sustain community health and economic growth Review of Current Engineering and Traffic Division Practices Surrounding The Installation of Child Warning Signs Munic~ality of ChathamdCent Desired Outcomes • Provide safe, accessible, convenient and efficient public transportation The reexjmmendatlons will not adversely Impact on the remainder ofi the Community ~trategib Plan. A numberof parties have been consulted in the preparation of this report. In,lufy, 2004, the opinion of the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee was solicited using the corresporxAence provided in Appendix A. In September of 2004, the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee Issued correspondence to Engineering and Traffic Division indicating that "the committee is under the consensus that these signs are not necessary or needed". Further to this correspondence, the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee offered information relevant to a survey they initiated. The results of this survey may be found in Appendix C and are summarized as folbws: • 80 families of children with disabilities were polled • 88 families {85%) indicated that they fek that the signs were effective • 12 families (15%) indicated that the signs were not relevant to their specific situation As indicated settler in the report, the general public typically offers a high level of support for the provision of such signage as requests for such signage are frequently emotionally based and seen by the ~mplainant as an immediate (albeit Inappropriate) solution to a traffic related issue. • 7 professionals working with children were asked if the provision of such signs would be a good idea • 3 professionals (43%) indicated that the provision of such signs would be a very good Idea Letters of support for the reoommendatans contained herein are attached as foAows: • Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee Appendix B • Ganadian Association of the Deaf Appendix D • Community Living Chatham-Kant Appendix E The fofbwing websites were consulted during the course of the preparation of this report: • www.He.org Institute of Transportation Engineers Appendix F Review of CuRent Enpineering and Trafl~ pivisbn Practices Surrcwndinp The Installation of Child Warning Signs MuniGpality of Chatham-Kent ThQ recommendations contained herein are a continuance of existing practice and do not have any aasvclated f~ancial implications, Prepared by: Managell, Infrast}~cture and Traffic Engines 'ng and raffic Division Infrastructure and Engineering Services Reviewed by: Leo Denys, P. En General Manager Infrastructure and Engineering Services Attachments: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Reviewed by: Gary Nv cvtt, P. Eng. Director, Engineering and Traffic Division Inf-astntclure and Engineering Services Reviewed by: 1 eny oRing, th, CA Acting Chief Administrative Officer Correspondence Issued by Engineering and Traffic Division to the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee Letter -Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee Email -Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee Email -Canadian Association of the Deaf Email -Community Living Chatham-Kent WIII Children at Play Signs Help Slow Traffic? (RTC:UMrastructure t~ Engineerfngll&ES1200.512593 -Review of Current Engineering and Traffic Practices Surrounding the Installation of Child Warning Signs.dvc} ~~~~ APPENDIX A MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT 31 S IUNO STREET WEST ~ P.O. BOX 640 ~ CHATHAM, ONTARIO ~ N7M SK8 INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC DNISIQN MEMORANDUM TO: Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee FROM: Stephen 7ahns, P.Eng., Project Manager Engineering and Trdffk Dtvision infrastructure and Engineering Services DATE: 12-~u1y-2004 RE: Discussion Regarding Disabled Child Warning Signs Munkipality of Chatham-Kent The purpose of this Memorandum is to invite comment of the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee with respect to the prov(sbn of Disabled Child Warning Signs within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Recently, Engineering and Traffic Dfvtsion has received a number of calls from concerned parents requesting that Disabled Child Warning Signs (Deaf Child, Blind Child, etc.) be installed and mair:talned by the Munidpal(ty of Chatham-Ken# within munldpai road allowances in area surrounding their homes. It has historically been the position of the Engineering and Traffic Division of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent that these signs are ineffective, unregulated and hence not supported by the Division. The following reasons are cited: 1. The signage does not accurately identify the specific area or offer any additional relevant information to the driver. 2. 'The signs quite often give the driver a false sense of security in that the driver frequently assumes that the parent: and / or wmmunity also recognize the Issue and will similarly be on guard, All drivers have FAX (519)436-3240 CHATHAM•KEr+TCA[.LCsNrRE:(Sl9)360-1998 APPENpiX A the same duty of care when operating a vehicle, regardless of the existence of such warning signs. 3. The signs quite often give the community a false sense of security in that the community frequently assumes that all drivers recognize the issue and will be on guard. Parents may feel that children are now safe when playing on or near the roadway. Playing within the roadway is a dangerous and unsafe practice for all persons at any time. 4. it has been documented that the effect of such warning signs fs quite short-lived. These warning signs quite often become part of the scenery for drivers familiar with the route and conaequentry are ineffective. 5. Many munldpalities do not use such warning signs due to the lack of proven effectiveness and undesirable liability issues assodated with the use of such non-uniform warning signs. 6. In today's society, the usage of such signage may unlntentionaUy identify or single-out one particular individual within a community. Could the Municpality somehow assume a degree of vicarious liability should this person be targeted as a direct result of such signage? is the Munkipality unintentionally undermining the desire of such people to assimilate and interact in sodety? 7. The provision of such signs becomes an administrative issue whereby budget must be allocated and staff must administer and monitor such a program to ensure that ail signs are accurately placed and maintained. Cases have been found within the Munidpality where families have long since moved from the Community and the signs have remained in place none the less. 8. Recently, Engineering and Traffic Division of the Municipality of Chatham-KeM was scrutinized in a Letter to the Editor printed in a local newspaper for denying such a request for a Deaf Chiid sign. it is the intention of Engineering and Traffic Division to propose a firm pofiry and present it before Council for approval. 9. There have been numerous other munidpalities within Ontario, Canada and North America which have taken the stance of not-supporting such signage. ~pttiam-kent ca FAx (S 19) 436-3240 CHATHAM-KENT CAt,6 CENTRE; (519) 360-199$ APPENDIX A We invite comments of the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Committee with respect to the provision of Dhzabled Child Warning Signs within tho Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Should you have any comments, please contact Engineering and Traffic Division (519-360-1998) at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, THE MUN><CIPA4ITy OP CHATHAM-KENT Project Manager Engineering and Traffic Division Infrastructure and Engineering Services ww.chatham.kentea .Fax (5[9}436-3244 CHnrr-eM-K6NrCnt,[,CeN'rrtE:(Sl9)360-1948 APPENDIX B MUNICIPALITY QF CHATHAM-KENT 2S CREEK ROAD ~ CHATHAM, ONTARIO ~ N7M SJ3 C©RPQRATE & COMMUNITY SERVICES MUNTCIPAL PRQPERTIIS September 24, 2004 Stephen Jahns Infrastructure & Traffic Project Manager 315 King St. W. Chatham, ON N7M 5K3 Dear Stephen: On behalf the Chatham-Kent Accessibility Advisory Committee the following is the decision of the committee on the issue of deaf child signage: "The committee is under the consensus that these signs are not necessary or needed." Truly, i Chafr C-K Accessibility Advvsory Committee TTMa Woad has taaan nwiawad and adit~w in aooadntoa MArI ttla fMunlCipal FrNdan d wMonngyw~ -on~andyRmoNcu~ono alt aAvacy minor fW11Mn, iwr~folp.l FIMd01t1 d Md0ltllarall COadrlala FAX (St9)3S1-SU01 CttATHAM-[CSN7CAGtCENTRE:(519j36o-1998 APPENDIX C i* .. _-~+ ~ To: STEPHEN JAHNS/cklQeity.chatham•kant.on.ca 23/11/2004 04:55 PM cc:countylckte~FDcily.chatham-kent.on.ca Subject: Traffic Sipes -peat Chik1 Etc. Stephen - I f(nally have received a response from the members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee concerning the use of signs for Deaf Child etc. 80 families of children with disabilities were asked and 68 families or 8596 indicated [hat felt the signs were effective. 12 families indicated this was nol a concern of their family due to the type of disability (heir child has however 10 families indicated K they chill was affected -they would request a sign. Seven professional working with children were asked and 3 of 7 indicated that the signs would be a very good idea, Barad an this unscientific survey - It appears that the signs have value to the famines with chtldran with disabilities. Manager, Municipal Properties Community Services MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT Phone: (519) 352-7354 Ext.s Fax: (519) 351-5001 e-mail: A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES BEGINS WITH A SINGLE STEP ..,NU rtYa OIN11 frVitilwd uld tidil~d in ~Gt101~1q~ 1trM rM YultlobM Fiwdofn d YMe(cf>~nrwan' and PItD11010D d PfMucy ~,~G Eltror ~4lwtiobr FrMdan d Inibnlt~ofl Coold11~1t' APPENDIX D ~' =~ MARK CEPPI To: STEPHEN JAHNS/ckt(Cilcity.ehatham-kanton.ca, GARY NQRTHCOTT/cityhalf/ek1 it chetham-kenton,ca, 08/03/2005 06:38 PM at halVCk1 c~itc hatham-kenton.ca a ~~Y t$i~Y~ cc: Subject: Re: Deaf Child Waming Signs 1 received a reply from the Canadian Association of the Deaf for my inquiry about "Deaf Child" Warning signs. It seems t0 run parallel to comments ws get from other spacial Heads organizations. Sse below, Mark Ceppi Engineering Technician, Infrastructure and Traffic Infrastructure and Engineering Services Municipality of Chatham-Kent (p) 1-519-352-8401 ext. 3984 (f)1-519-436.3240 markc~chatham-kent.ca This communication is Confidential and may contain information protected by Privacy legislation . Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please Hotly the sender immediately by telephone. --- Forwarded by MARK CEPPIIcityhalvdcl on p8/03/2005 06:36 PM ..- +7~ ' 08/03/2_ 005_ 0^-:3 Hello Mark, i apologize for the delay in replying to your message. The Canadian Association of the Deaf does not have an official position on this, but it is not recommended to post a Deaf child sign as it can pose a security risk for the child (i.e.. sexual predators who may prey on them because the children cannot hear them). Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thank you, information and Public Relations Coordinator Canadi~ ation of the Deaf > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: Senr: Wedn~_February 16, 2005 12:22 PM > Subjeck: Deaf Child warning Signs To: ~markcQDchathem-kent.ca> cc: Subject Re: Deaf Child Waming Signs T}Ila pOf11d Its aEfl IMVi~MSd t1rK! txfi4ad in ~OCOftl~ttCtl wlrl tl» MunldpM Frsedorn d htfonnMlon ~ftd PtoMctlon d PrMcy ~~C FtNdorn d Yt101etMlorl COOrdrltMa- » Mark Ceppi had this to say about Deaf Child warning Signs: APPENDIX D >.s T wc;rk In the Traffic beet. fcr the Munlcipelity cf Chatham~Kent, s;, ~ntairlc. a,~ ?'~ ~cea the G'. R.®, have a ~©14c;y nr ~aaitt®n an the the ua® ®t 9aaf Ch~~~ ~*~ War°nin~ a1~ne ca resa€~wAya;~ ;' e ~_~ 'Chanke. ~~ ?a Mark ~. >a Mark ~d~pt,"Mark ~ep(~1" ~mackcEchstham-kont.saa ~, YY r^f ~fi [~ 1<M~.t~:. APPENp~X ~ To: ""stephenj~chatharrakent.ca'" <staphenj~chatham-kant.ca> $ ' ~ cc: "'~~ 12/AS/~ppg j j;jq AM Subject: FW: pisabled Child Warning Signs > °°T°=original Message-s=__ a ~'rQm: > Swnt; ur+'n say, August 12, 2p94 11:11 AM > To: 'stephen@chatham6kent.ca' > Subject: Disabled Child Warning Signs > Fii Stephen, > l have reviewed your memorandum to the Accessibility Advisory Committee in > regards to the Disabled Child Warning Signs. 1 sit on this committee as a > delegate from Community Living Chatham-Kent. We provide supports and servioes for people who have an intellectual disability. A large portion > of the people we support have multiple disabilities including physical, > hearing and visual impairments and dual diagnosis. Our goal is that alI people live in s state of dignity, share in all elements of living in the > community, and have the opportunity to participate effectively. > First and Foremost i agree with your past position on the effectiveness of > these signs. Each of the 9 reasons cited are valid and clearly describe > why such signs would be ineffective. > if we, believe that khe focus of community should be on how to keep all > children safe, signs are not required. The emphasis should not be on physical barriers because there are many barriers to accessibility. Wfien > we make decisions we should stop assuming that everyone is the same and > everyone can walk, talk, hear and see. "The social approach or this > awareness, will make accessibility a forethought, instead of an > afterthought" > > Community Living... Discovering Dreams, Connecting Lives ;~ Progra~ r > family/Community Supports > Community Living Chatham-Kent > P. O.. Box 967 > Chatham, ON N7M SL3 T}1~{Ir001d11ti{~~flf~lf{taW~dQld~ti~ > 1-519-351-0960 ~~~~F-eK,a; .', d M~ia~neeNllonan~tl~Pro_Mctlon d P~iv~cy ~~.~'e ~1 > ~ ~ 1lirioWd > FfMdOfll d hlbtlltt~011 COOldlnltu- E~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ s 9 a~ 0 0 v o~ o s J~ ~uu Z~ o `~ CBI( ~~& y~~ w 'a '° v s~ APPENDIX F ~~~ivat #~ A 9ABAAM ~~~ 4Q~ O o~~ • y ~ ~~~ ~~y. V V'-i y ryr• ~ ~ lril~ a ~ ~+ '~ [-~ d ~ ~' ,~~ ~. g~~ s ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~' S ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ s; ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ b' O ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~t ~~ ~ 8~ g~ ~~ ~~ ~s ~~ ~~ ma ~~~ o~ ~~ ~ e ! ~~a ~, ~ ~ ~ o ~ '+ o A w C g ~~ APPENDIX F ~~ p~6 P~~ 6 PS F~ m s ,~ ~~ ~. ~g>b~ s~~ ~~~.~ ~~ ~ g~ 0 Sa O ~. 6' A Minutes -June B. 2009 Municluality of Chatham-K~ Councillor Eberle moved, Councillor Gilbert seconded: "That Council iormslise the policy of not endorsing or supporting the Installation of Child Warning Signs within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent." Councillor Faas noted that he has recently rocefved a request for this sign which was denied. There is no Indication of romoving the current signs in place, Although the residents understand the rationale, the signs do exist in the Community of Chatham. Thera needs to ba a condition that any existing signs be removed by September 20'". If there is no rationale for them being there, they should bs removed. Otherwise, the signs should be provided to the others requesting them. Councillor Brown asked if there is any program in place that removes the signs when no longer required. The Manager, Infrastructure and Traffic Division advised that there is currently no mechanism for the removal of the signs. Councillor Brown suggested that this be a function of public works during normal rounds. The General Manager, Infrastructure and Environmental Services. advised that this depends on how well the worker knows the community, and the areas, to know whether or not that child still resides in that bcatbn. Councillor Eberle advised that this was brought before the Accessibility Committee some time ago. They agreed with the by-law as written however, they asked that the old signs be removed. The Acting Mayor askedrf there is any difference between the Child At Play and Blind or Deaf Child in the area. The Manager, Infrastructure and Traffic Division advised that there is no difference between the signs. All are non-regulated. The Acting Mayor confirmed that there are signs of such in his ward. The Manager, Infrestructure and Traffic Division advised that the belief amongst the Intematbnat Institute of Traffic Engineers that these signs prove to be ineffective. Councillor Herman suggested that it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that they are watching all children in the neighbourhood. Councilor Faas moved an Amendment, Councillor Gilbert seconded: "That any existing signs be removed." In response to a question from Councillor Faas, the Manager, Infrastructure and Treffic Division reported that there is no reason as to why the signs cannot be removed. Councillor Faas advised that he would not set a deadline as bng as he kmws that the signs are being removed. Councilor Gilbert commented on the disadvantages of die signs. Councillor King noted that he would not support removing the signs that already exist. Future signs are another issue; however, signs that exist should only be removed as needed (i.e. child grows up and moves away). Councillor Brown. noted that signs that are no bnger needed if the child has moved away and the rest should remain. Councillor Crew noted that he would not support the motion as in the past he had lobbied Council to place these signs. He further commented that he would not support taking the signs down. The Acting Mayor put the Amendment. Amendment Failed The Acting Mayor put the Motion. Motion Csrried