[Quietcars] Let us reason together revisited

[Robert Wilson]

Hi Corbb,

> . . .
> 
> Hi again, Bob -- a few questions. I will preface by saying that I hope  
> you don't read any animosity into my words. 

I came here for dialog and review. I'm sure we'll get along fine.

> . . . Like you, I am interested  
> in solving this issue of quiet cars. I respect that you have a  
> different mindset from many on this list, one as a hybrid car owner,  
> two as a sighted driver, and three as an engineer who has been working  
> on an idea to solving this dilemma. I thank you for providing those  
> three viewpoints.
> 
> You wrote...
> 
> > alerting pedestrian, noise generator - effectiveness is 1 (same as  
> > today)
> > alerting driver, noise generator - effectiveness is 0 (noise blocks  
> > other audio clues)
> > alerting by-stander, noise generator - effectiveness is 1 (same as  
> > today)
> >
> > alerting pedestrian, safety fob - effectiveness is 1
> > alerting driver, safety fob - effectiveness is 2
> > alerting by-stander, safety fob - effectiveness is 2
> 
> You note in the first set of effects that the noise generator gives  
> the driver a rating of zero, i.e. no change, because the constant  
> noise from a vehicle would block other sounds. This is the same as  
> today, correct?

Correct. What we have found is even an idling engine raises the noise level so a warning shouted from bystanders or neighbors are not heard. 

> . . . What sounds are you hoping to hear in a quiet car that  
> would be useful to you to know to hit the brakes? 

A shouted warning or certainly more than what the drivers who backed over the kids in the April 2008 Chidester report could hear. In three cases, the driver did not stop until they saw the body of the kid in front of their vehicle. The first was a mother who drove over her 3 year old daughter. The second was a neighbor who backed out of his driveway and crushed a kid who was found prostrate in front of the Escalade. The third was a pickup truck that backed over a kid at a day-care center. There was another  incident in that report that involved a bicycle and the scraping of the frame under the car alerted the driver (that kid survived.) 

> . . . It seems that  
> installing a constant noise in a hybrid is no different from constant  
> noise emitted by yesterday's gas-powered, combustion engines.

Exactly! The noise generator does not make the hybrid safer than today's gas-powered vehicles but rather makes them just a deadly. It is an accident of history or poor engineering that lets sound escape from today's ordinary vehicles. But the luxury vehicles emit almost no noise a low power levels. That is because of the attention automotive designers have spent learning how to quiet gas engines.
 
> You then talk about how including hybrid owners in discussion leads to  
> inaccurate data, but then suggest we involve them. I may be mis- 
> reading here, but I'm confused. I would agree that drivers are a key  
> player in these situations and that their views need to be taken into  
> account, but you're saying that when that was done in the past, the  
> views represented didn't reflect yours as a hybrid driver?

It was my lament that there hasn't been much of a dialog. I speak with both camps and as a moderator at GreenHybrid and frequent contributor in technical forums, I'm not about to suggest that all of my fellow hybrid owners share my points of views. In fact, some of them react with pretty crude responses without having a clue as to the issues. But the technologists at my level are actually pretty level headed. We tend to deal with reality although we each have our tipping points.

> 
> Further, in response to knowing when the system fails...
> 
> > You might notice that vehicles are no longer 'bleeping' their horn.
> 
> 
> I as a blind person would know that my device has failed when horns  
> aren't beeping. But what if the system fails in an individual car?

The same way, the other traffic is signaling a warning of an at risk pedestrian and their vehicle is not. As of 8 years ago, about 80% of all North American cars have keyless entry systems using key fobs. But we also know many older vehicles won't get a retro-fit. But the ones that do work not only alert the driver but also by-standers including other vehicles. That is why using a modified horn, a signal that alerts drivers, is so important for it to work. 
 
> One, how is the driver to know that his system isn't alerting blind  
> pedestrians, when he may not take time to notice there are blind folks  
> around him who may have the receiver? 

Other vehicles are sounding the alert and his is not.

> . . . Two, what will encourage him to  
> get this fixed?

There are multiple motivations because this is not a 'blind only' solution:

1) families with small children - as much as they love their kids, the safety fob attached to their kid's shoes are also dependent upon the car working. A similar effect occurs with older couples, the ones next most at risk from a back-over accident.

2) seasonal driver stops - around Christmas and New Years, the police establish road blocks to keep the drunk drivers off the street. They already check for burned out lights and it is trivial to use a safety fob to verify that safety equipment is working.

3) state safety inspections - although not universal, many states require an annual vehicle safety inspection. The safety fob system could be added to that list.

4) vehicle insurance rate cut - by having a proven safety advantage, the insurance companies can offer a discount for a working unit and exception on coverage if it is disabled.

> . . . Here's an example. I am crossing the street; a hybrid  
> approaches, and my device is working but his is not. The horn doesn't  
> beep, and--let's be optimistic--I narrowly miss being hit. How am I,  
> as a blind person, to report that incident and link it to a specific  
> driver? I can't see his plate, I can't see what kind of car he has, etc.

I believe the same problem exists if the noise maker is broken and the same incident occurs, yes?

However, I see there being a Version 1 that is implemented as quickly as possible followed by a second version that requires bi-directional communications. Version 1 is unidirectional, just like most remote keyless entry systems are today. Because it reuses the existing vehicle electronics, it can and should be implemented on a very short schedule, 2-3 years. But version 2 specifications are release with a longer time interval, 4-6 years.

Version 2 system is bi-directional with the vehicles 'beaconing' their id at the same time. The advantage is a safety fob can keep a log of the last "N" vehicle VIN numbers. About five blind die each year from high speed pedestrian-vehicle accidents and probably 10 times as many injured. The recorded VIN numbers in the safety fobs provides a hard record that can be used to identify the vehicle.

Version 2 is also needed for vehicle-to-vehicle communications that allows 'smart cruise control' and other safety and efficiency features. It so happens it also make traffic into a wireless network. This network also includes the safety fob.
 
> We can't throw out an idea on the basis of device failure -- after  
> all, it's inherent in any technology. But these are some questions to  
> which I hope you or others on this list may have some ideas about  
> solving.
> 
> One more thing...
> 
> > Being a sighted, untrained pedestrian and cyclist, my direct  
> > experience says we will have to disagree on this and I am not alone.
> 
> >
> Are you suggesting that as a biker and pedestrian that you don't use  
> sound emitted by vehicles when on the street?

Can't use it. The air moving past my safety helmet makes a distinct 'wind noise' that mutes other sounds. Worse, at the speed I have to travel to keep the bike stable, twice walking speed, I am constantly going into new areas faster than I can evaluate on coming traffic. 

> . . . If you're biking, don't  
> you hear that car coming from behind you so you know to move right,  
> out of his way, or look to see if that car is trying to pass?

I use a small mirror that attaches to my eye glass frame on the mechanical bike. My electric bike has motorcycle style rear view mirrors. But on top of that, my head is on a swivel and my eyes are constantly looking around. One lesson learned on either a bicycle or motorcycle, we are invisible.

> . . .  I cycle  
> too, and find that I use sound just as much as my sighted counterparts  
> when vehicles approach from behind.

Excellent! Anything special about the bike? 

> Thanks, Bob, for always responding to our questions.

No problem. I'm here for a dialog, looking for an opportunity to collaborate and make something happen in 2009. What we don't need to repeat in 2009 the mistakes of 2008.

Bob Wilson

_________________________________________________________________
Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008