Mother Battling for Deaf Daughter's Safety

Mother Battling for Deaf Daughter's Safety - KPTM FOX 42: Omaha News, Sports and Weather; Nebraska News, Sports; kptm.com |

One look at Maggie Wittland and her little girl Hannah show the two play and laugh together like a lot of moms and daughters.

But mom says it hasn't always been easy. When she and her husband found out Hannah was partially deaf and suffering from significant hearing loss, Maggie says it came as a shock.

"I have to admit that when we found out, it was probably our darkest day," she says.

But since the realization, the couple says they've grown even closer to their youngest daughter. They say they've tried to make her life as normal as possible, while also realizing Hannah's limited hearing means they have to be extra cautious. It's one reason Maggie wants to see a Deaf Child sign placed on her Council Bluffs street.

"All I'm asking for is a sign to have drivers be aware that there is a child with limited hearing," she says.

But Council Bluffs hasn't traditionally allowed such signs.

"Historically, we have not done those," says Greg Reeder, the city's director of public works.

Reeder says the city usually follows the State of Iowa's Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Device guidelines. The manual does caution against overusing warning signs, saying they can do more harm than good as drivers become immune.

"We have sign overload. Folks tune then out over time," says Reeder.

He also says such signs can provide families with deaf children a false sense of security.

But Maggie says she realizes Hannah's safety is her responsibility. She claims to have gotten the run around from city officials when she recently approached them about putting up a sign, which says she'll pay for out of pocket.

"The thing that is so frustrating is I'm getting all of these reasons why. No one can say it's because of this," says Maggie.

She says some Iowa towns and certainly plenty in Nebraska do allow such signs.

"Des Moines does. Omaha does. All of the surrounding communities," says Maggie.

The MUTCD guidelines Council Bluffs follows does have a section outlining how some local governments have developed guidelines for erecting Deaf Children signs.

Maggie says she'll keep fighting.

"I can fight this fight all day long. I will fight this until I've exhausted every resource."

It looks like Maggie's plea for her daughter hasn't entirely fallen on deaf ears. Council Bluffs Public Works tells FOX 42 they've started discussions on how to best set up firm, city guidelines when it comes to such requests.

It could mean a sign for little Hannah isn't far away, which is just the sort of news her caring mother wants to hear.

"I wouldn't change her for the world," she says.

Personally, if there are children playing in the neighbor especially on the road, they can get a sign that says "Children at play" I've seen alot of those

I strongly believe they should grant her wishes to have her child's safely. I have seen a sign "DEAF CHILD AREA" everywhere in NY and NJ.

Here is a blog where people discussed if Deaf Child Area sign effective.

Deaf Progressivism: Is Deaf Child Area Sign Effective?

I had no problems getting Deaf Child signs installed on my block. All they asked is that if we moved to let them know so the signs can be removed. Even with the signs up there are still idiots that go racing up and down the block sometimes.

I'm wondering if posting these signs would encourage a sexual predator moreso than not?...And also, children should never play in the streets, but at times, they do. But if the parent feels the sign would benefit the child, then I feel it should be erected.

I like the speed bump areas for the deaf. They always seem to work.

But really, parents should be watching out for deaf kids and teaching them about road safety (and actually practice with them). This may be pretty horrible, but since deaf people can't hear honking enough to scare them, I think parents should spank them whenever they try to cross the street without looking. And tell these deaf kids that being hit by a car will hurt a WHOLE lot worst than spanking itself. And spanking is a reminder for them to look before they cross.

If anyone need a sign, I think a child with ADHD will need it because they can be impulsive and act without thinking.

I've dealt with this recently. Our street is a popular shortcut and prone to speeding, even by school buses (which I've made dozens of calls about). I approached our village board a year ago about having a "Deaf Child Area" placed on our street, and was denied. Their reasoning is that we are renters and they don't believe the expense is worth it if we're going to move. We've been here for 5+ years. When I protested the denial, they said if we paid for it, they'd do it and quoted me a price of $750. I said if we paid for it, we would be taking it with us if we ever moved and was told all signs are village property and taking it would be theft.

Lighthouse77 said:

But really, parents should be watching out for deaf kids and teaching them about road safety (and actually practice with them). This may be pretty horrible, but since deaf people can't hear honking enough to scare them, I think parents should spank them whenever they try to cross the street without looking. And tell these deaf kids that being hit by a car will hurt a WHOLE lot worst than spanking itself. And spanking is a reminder for them to look before they cross.

Click to expand...

I do watch my kids, regardless of their hearing status. No one plays outside alone and no one plays in the front yard. That doesn't mean it's ok for drivers to do 40 in a 25. We still go for walks (when there's not 3 feet of snow to stomp through) and because we don't have sidewalks, we have to walk in the street. A little extra caution on the driver's behalf would be welcome.

Regarding the highlighted quote: The way you've worded it, it sounds like you think a deaf child should be spanked, while a hearing child should not just because they can hear a car horn? Because a deaf child cannot hear the horn they should be spanked in public for an infraction ANY child could make? Honestly, I find this highly offending and inappropriate, if it is indeed what you mean.

Oh, and standing on the curb spanking your kid for not looking can get you arrested, regardless of your good intentions.

I do remember my parents would not let me ride a bike as I might get run over, but let me play with neighborhood kids off our property.

I guess they thought safety in numbers.

any kids if they don't look but people who can hear do look when they hear the horn.

But as far as being arrested for spanking, I never heard of that. Abuse, yes, but not spanking. I've seen people spank in public plenty of times. you know, the open hand, one swat on the bottom type of spank.

Whenever my kids impulsively tried to cross the street without looking, I took them back by their ear, sometimes by their nose! Spanking anywhere is frowned upon due to abuse allegations are rampant these days.

A good talking to when the incident happens, mostly embarrasses them. But after a few warnings, and it continues, a good spank on their bottom, along with making them go inside for the rest of the day also worked for me.

I used to ride the bike too, 2 miles to the store and back, on the rural road where people are pretty relax about how they drive (basically, they don't care how fast they drive.. there been several accidents before)... I never got hit but one thing I learned is stay on the side of the road. The road we lived was pretty curvy too and hardly any ditches because it was out in the country (there stream waters around it). I was old enough to watch for cars without using my hearing. whenever I see cars coming, I just stop and let them go around me. although, it is hard to see what's behind you, but I check for that very often. A mirror probably would have been better though.

deaf children need to learn how to watch for danger without using their ears. Especially when they will be drivers someday.

Sad to say but traffic signs don't prevent speeding nor do they keep children out of danger. If drivers aren't already obeying the posted speed limit in a residential area, they aren't going to care about a Deaf Child sign. Only a parent's watchful eyes can keep little kids safe.

Reba said:

Sad to say but traffic signs don't prevent speeding nor do they keep children out of danger. If drivers aren't already obeying the posted speed limit in a residential area, they aren't going to care about a Deaf Child sign. Only a parent's watchful eyes can keep little kids safe.

Click to expand...

That's why I like the speed bump idea.. So when the deaf child leave, and it is time to repair the road, they won't have to bother putting the speed bump back on because it is no longer needed.

Reba said:

Sad to say but traffic signs don't prevent speeding nor do they keep children out of danger. If drivers aren't already obeying the posted speed limit in a residential area, they aren't going to care about a Deaf Child sign. Only a parent's watchful eyes can keep little kids safe.

Click to expand...

You're right... many drivers are too busy on their phones and eatin' tacos to worry about pesky kids in the road and could care less about that Deaf/Blind/Autistic Child Area sign, but that doesn't mean a parent should be denied the opportunity to provide it.

The signs are not a substitute for teaching street safety nor should they be relied upon to keep kids safe. They provide a warning to drivers who, presumably, are bright enough to pass the driving exam.

rockin'robin said:

I'm wondering if posting these signs would encourage a sexual predator moreso than not?...And also, children should never play in the streets, but at times, they do. But if the parent feels the sign would benefit the child, then I feel it should be erected.

Click to expand...

I will say that if a predator has the cahonies to lurk on my block where the signs are then it may be the last time he predits.... (if that is a word)

I remmy when I was young there was a sign that says cautious deaf child and it was remove once i turned 18 yrs old. One on my street and one on the next street for my deaf cousin. It not there anymore.

rockdrummer said:

I will say that if a predator has the cahonies to lurk on my block where the signs are then it may be the last time he predits.... (if that is a word)

Click to expand...

Preys

City reverses stance on ‘Deaf Child’ signage

Daily Nonpareil Online > Council Bluffs > City reverses stance on ?Deaf Child? signage

Sometimes all you have to do is ask.

Maggie Wittland of Council Bluffs did just that, and it’s going to result in a change in city policy.

Wittland asked the city Public Works Department to install a “Deaf Child” yellow caution sign in her neighborhood on South Ninth Street to warn drivers that her 18-month old daughter, Hannah, is hearing impaired.

The 30-year-old married mother of two lives on the 2400 block of Ninth Street, two houses down from Peterson Park, which brings a lot of soccer traffic when the weather warms. With spring just around the corner, Wittland wanted to take an extra security measure for Hannah before she begins to play outside.

“She’s a daredevil. If there’s an area she’s restricted from she’ll try to get in it. She’s very curious about what’s outside,” Wittland said. “At the same time, she doesn’t understand boundaries.”

But when Wittland spoke with Public Works officials on Feb. 9 and later on Feb. 17, including Public Works Director Greg Reeder, she was told the city does not install “Deaf Child” signs.

According to Reeder, the official city stance was to not install the signs. The reasons for not installing the signs include the fact that there’s not strong evidence that people pay attention to yellow caution signs, the possibility of parents having a false sense of security and that over-signage could lead to drivers paying attention to fewer signs and “diluting the impact of all of them.”

However, despite the rebuff Wittland received when she called, Reeder said the question got him thinking.

“We don’t have many of these requests, so my answer was to go with standard policy and say, ‘No,’” Reeder said. “But I’ve kicked it around with my staff and we thought, ‘Maybe it is something we can do. If this is a public service we can offer, why not?’”

Reeder said the Public Works Department is consulting the City Attorney’s office and Mayor’s office to begin the process of setting guidelines and policies to use when people call to request such signage.

The guidelines would likely follow suggestions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which include a requirement of medical certification of hearing loss and include a maximum-age stipulation.

Council Bluffs has the largest deaf population in the state of Iowa, thanks in large part to Iowa School for the Deaf.

ISD superintendent Jeanne Prickett said she was surprised to hear the city doesn’t have any “Deaf Child” warning signs.

“I drive through Council Bluffs a lot, and I follow street signs,” Prickett said. “It didn’t register with me that there are none of those signs.”

Prickett said she sees both the benefits and drawbacks of having the signage, but that the pros outweigh the cons.

“The signs call motorists’ attention to something they need to be warned of. People are responsible for their behavior and must pay attention,” Prickett said. “Distracted driving is rampant these days. A sign would put the motorist on alert.”

Omaha, Ralston, La Vista, Papillion, Bellevue, Des Moines and Cedar Rapids all issue the “Deaf Child” sign.

“It seemed like Council Bluffs is in the minority when it comes to these,” Wittland said. “If they weren’t beneficial, if they didn’t increase awareness of drivers in those areas with deaf children, the cities wouldn’t spend the time and money to put them up.”

When informed for the first time of Reeder’s plans by The Daily Nonpareil, Wittland said she was excited and relieved.

“That’d be great,” Wittland said. “From day one all I have wanted is to have a sign on the street.”

Reeder said he thinks the reasons for not putting the signs up are still legitimate, despite Wittland’s disagreement, but there are also good reasons to install the signs. Reeder added that in the end, the safety of children is up to parents, not signs.

“Parents need to be diligent that their kid not be in the street,” Reeder said.

Wittland said that was something she and Reeder could agree on.

“I realize a sign would not keep my daughter safe,” Wittland said. “ That’s my job.”

It's a little creepy that they very nearly give this person's address in this article...