Are Hybrid Cars too Quiet?
The National Federation of the Blind's Committee on Automotive and Pedestrian Safety is concerned that hybrid vehicles are too quiet when running at slower speeds, because some blind people rely upon their ability to hear automobiles when crossing streets or walking through parking lots. The NFIB is quick to add that they are not opposed to such vehicles, however. They just want them to make some more noise.
Are they also asking cyclists to put cards in their spokes? Adding a noisemaker sounds inefficient and won't solve the problem of bad drivers or won't free blind people of the need to identify themselves with white canes. I always enjoy peacefully waiting at a light with my window down, until a clattering diesel rolls alongside...
Do you think the danger of being hit by a car and being hit by a bicycle might be qualitatively and quantitatively different?
If you are hit by a car, do you think that being able to blame the driver provides makes you whole? If you are driving your car, and a truck driver is driving illegally on the wrong side of the road, do you maneuver to avoid them, or do you stand by your rights and blame the truck driver? Would a successful wrongful death suit by your family make it worthwhile for you to be smashed into a bloody pulp?
Of course the blind would be more safe with cars they can hear. But, since I value peace and quiet more than the lives of a few blind people, I am in favor of quieter cars.
It may not a popular view in today's politically correct climate, but it is possible to be overly solicitous of minorities. And while I sympathise with the concerns of the NFB, they would do better to spend their time and energy on helping blind people to better identify themselves, as e pointed out, or to come up with technical solutions to aid blind people in locating obstructions - a tree or curb or wall or parked car can be a hazard as well as a moving vehicle in a parking lot or at an intersection.
I would prefer to help handicapped people to adjust to a more "normal" lifestyle than change the lifestyle of the majority to accommodate the handicapped. I also suspect that most handicapped persons would appreciate the dignity of being treated as much as possible as if they were not handicapped....
I can see two policy alternatives:
- Adopt Berkeley-style chirpers at crosswalks for guiding the blind. I haven't seen any data, but two blind people I talked to when I lived in the Bay Area thought they were great.
- Since RFID is being stuck in everything (including tires), why not add a powered version (for more distance), and something like a vibrating white cane for detection? Or even just a mobile pager-like device to provide warning.
"I hate blind people" is (I hope) chosen in jest, as is also his last sentence.
As for being hit by bicycles vs cars, it depends on the speed, but at slow speeds (parking lots, intersections when the light turns green, etc.) the concern is not so much being smashed by a 40 MPH vehicle or squashed by a 10 ton bus, but being knocked down and hitting one's head on the pavement. Head injuries can be far more devasating than simple physical trauma, which is why we ask people to wear helmets when they ride bicycles and motorcycles, but don't mandate padded leather britches and jackets....
"Sounds inefficient" is an ok pun, but not so much a policy argument. I'd say that solving such a problem sounds easy to me. (That is, I'd don't have any data either...)
Very little will eliminate the problems caused by bad drivers - is that an argument against all forms of safety engineering?
Does anyone really object to other required elements of car design that are intended to alert those outside the car to its whereabouts and near-term actions - brake lights, running lights, reverse lights, turn signals?
In the first case, (at least for now) regular gas engines should still provide enough noise to safely cross the street.
In the second, the risk is that a blind person won’t hear a hybrid approach and step into the street unexpectedly (to the driver).
I’m not sure what good identification does for blind people since motorists aren’t supposed to hit blind pedestrians any less frequently than sighted people. Blind people already can locate obstructions with guide dogs, canes, and their sense of hearing, of course.
I’m not sure, though, how to respond to the characterization of being unable to safely cross the street as a matter of “adjusting” to a “normal lifestyle.”
As someone pointed out it isn't just electrics or hybrids. New cars are nearly silent at low speeds. I am sometimes startled by the ghostly movement.
Many vehicles already sound a warning when backing up. That limited case isn't much help here.
Perhaps we could use some sort of car beeper which would operate only at the low speeds of a parking lot? Not good unless it can be defeated in a traffic jam.
A radio system maybe? The blind person device that will activate a beeper on a moving car for one minute. The beepers are outside so they don't annoy the driver much. The range is short, perhaps 50 feet. (nailing effective range is always tough for radio engineers, which is why they get the big bucks).
Additionaly let the BP's device active a beeper inside the car. Three beeps is enough. The driver would hear it and be cautioned.
Well, another day, another mandate. Billions w/b spent. I hope they are spent for something better than I can suggest.
Ring tones.
Ring tones for your car.
Imagine a world where every car gets to make whatever noise its owner wants.
I'm going to go live in a cave on Mars, anyone want to join me?
Since time began, you've been able to hear a car behind you. How much that's now part of the habits of bike riding is hard to say, but I'd expect a few collisions as a result.
The simple fact is that it is no longer safe to rely on just your ears, and that nothing short of mandating a universal minimum decibel level for all cars is going to change that.
Perhaps you relish the idea of motorists being fined if their cars are too quiet, but I do not.
So, it's time to put on the big-boy pants and stop pretending government can legislate away all risk.
Walking while blind.
Driving while green.
Prius: the silent killer.
Helen Killer
Gallaudeath.
Check, check. Is this thing on?
they're loud and they move more slowly than cars. the blind could thus easily hear them coming, while even the sighted pedestrian could benefit from they're reduced speed in the event of a collision. they're also more eco-friendly than even the most fuel-efficient of hybrids.
what's the point, Adler? i had thought that hybrid-bashing was Zywicki's turf.
Also, it fails to appreciate advances in technology: We ought to be able to make a gadget for the blind that will track objects in their vicinity, and alert them if any collisions are imminent. Perhaps even give them spoken prompts on how to avoid them, like a GPS map for a car telling you your turn is coming up. Rather than annoying everybody else with enhanced car noises.
Basically, a technological substitute for what sighted people do as a matter of course.
Essentially what I'm suggesting is that, as a general matter, accommodations for minorities lacking some standard human capability should be designed to avoid inconveniencing normal people, and instead aim at enabling them to function at something like the level of normal people. Rather than forcing the vast majority to live in a world designed for the convenience of the small minority.
I'm really confused about the comments regarding how blind people should learn to live like normal people. Seems to me that the desire to get around independently with as little risk as possible demonstrates the desire and attempt to live a normal life. It is issues like too quiet cars and careless drivers who prevent the living a normal life, not the blind people themselves desiring this to continue.
Not exactly. Construction equipment has the backup beeper on the outside.
The Prius has the reverse beeper on the inside, perhaps to allow blind drivers who can't see the "R" in the instrument panel to know they're in reverse.
Fortunately, it can be turned off without the use of wire cutters.
According to the AFB, there are about 10 million (or around 3% of the U.S. population) blind people in the U.S.
In this case, manufacturers are the least cost avoiders.
Having, without my rather thick glasses, 20/350 vision, I'm rather well acquainted with what it's like getting around with that degree of visual impairment. Yes, I can in fact see a car coming without my glasses on.
"Of these individuals, 80% (1,040,000) had some "useful vision" (a rate of 40 per 1,000). The other 20% (260,000) had only light perception or less vision (a rate of 1 per 1,000). Half of these individuals were totally blind (130,000), that is, had no light perception (a rate of 0.5 per 10,000)."
How much do they cost? If the cost is high now, won't volume production drive down the cost, as has happened to every other piece of electronic equipment since the AM radio? Further, once popular, won't they quickly become smaller and more convenient to use, as has happened notably to the AM radio and the cell phone? Even if they're "expensive", cost does not prevent, for example, the hard of hearing from buying even a pair of hearing aids.
The main question is where should we impose costs to accommodate a minority, especially when in this case, lower noise levels benefit the majority by reducing stress and blood pressure, thus reducing wear and tear on the heart, which would lessen the need for blood pressure medication, bypass surgery, and more.
Further, as a former girlfriend of mine could tell you, you can be seriously hurt by being run down by a (noiseless) bicycle.
Moreover, knowing the annual operating costs of even an economy car, I would suppose that having to take public transportation gives blind people plenty of disposable income.
Yikes, that has a bit of a sinister air about it...
"The Prius has the reverse beeper on the inside, perhaps to allow blind drivers who can't see the "R" in the instrument panel to know they're in reverse."
Like the drive-up ATM machines with the braille markings on the buttons so blind drivers can make withdrawals?
So do runners.
Sonar devices probably wouldn't work, unless they can also sense both direction and roads. A device which cautions a blind person against crossing the street because it senses a car which is not a threat (i.e. moving in the opposite direction, moving in the same direction one street over) is not going to be very useful. It would also need a range of at least a hundred feet, so that the driver could have time to stop or the person could have time to cross the street.
No, I'm innocent, I swear. We parted amicably because she was moving a thousand miles away to do a post-doc. But we still kept in touch. One day, not long after she arrived, she was knocked down by a cyclist while crossing the campus.
Add a little mechanism to tilt the car when you gun the engine and you are all set.