[Quietcars] Let us reason together

[Robert Wilson]

Hi Corbb,

I appreciate the response. We are discussing what is normally called a "requirements review." I've embedded my comments to make sure everything you've asked is covered.

> . . . it seems that you propose giving folks
> (blind, kids, or anybody) a wireless receiver device to signal, "Hey!
> There's a quiet car near you!" Am I correct? 

Not a receiver, it is a transmitter that alerts not only quiet cars but all cars within range to 'bleep' their horn. The horn 'bleep', a subdued horn activation servers three purposes: (1) it alerts the driver to a potential pedestrian risk; (2) it alerts the pedestrian to the direction of traffic; and (3) it alerts by-standers to a potential risk.

The transmitter is a key fob designed for 'hands free' operation. When it is in motion, it is operating.

> . . . You've talked, too, in
> the past about affixing that device to canes or guide dog harnesses.
> In that form, though, I do not know how useful that would be to me. 

It is important that no hands be needed to operate the key fob.

> . . . If
> I am standing at the busiest, and most confusing intersection, in
> downtown Washington, DC (23rd and I Streets, NW), that device would
> tell me that somewhere, within maybe a block radius, there is a quiet
> car. I do not know, however, how fast that car is traveling, in what
> direction, how near to me, or whether that vehicle presents a danger.
> Maybe that car is traveling southbound, but I am waiting to cross the
> eastbound lanes.

Each car would be emitting a regulated, volume and noise pattern from the horn, the 'bleep.' Most folks are used to only two horn modes, full-on or full-off. We know how to use pulse modulation to modulate the horn and generate any level between these two and patterns. We can't change the horn resonate frequency and we shouldn't because that helps identify that signal as something of importance, something worthy of attention. Unlike engine noise, it is and can be regulated to meet safety standards.

Best of all, as each vehicle detects a loss of signal strength from the local peak, they go quiet. This means only the vehicles closest to the key fob(s) or approaching a key fob are making this modulated horn noise. Those not posing a risk are quiet.
 
> Let's expand this device, maybe ten years from now, when hybrids are
> even more popular. I now know that there are several hybrids around
> me, traveling at different speeds, some decelerating, and some
> traveling in a direction that doesn't impact my line of travel.

That does not apply in this case because each vehicle is emitting an audio signal from their modulated horn.

> The easiest, least-expensive for the blind traveler, and most
> informative for all involved—it seems to me—is to have cars sound like
> cars. 

Part of a requirements analysis is to put all solutions into a matrix and rate them against the requirements. Here the June 23 reports say that that system is already failing due to "noise masking" that Blomberg discussed and Sauerburger aluded to with the challenge of all vehicles becoming quieter.

> . . . All of us—blind, sighted, young or old—can listen to the motion
> of a car and know if it is accelerating, decelerating, coming toward
> us, or any other important information.

The modulated horn is also a sound source but with a defined safety specification. As Rosenblum showed, even testing two Prius gave different results. As Goode pointed out, all variables have to controlled in a usable experiment and using the horn as the modulated horn as the safety audio source accomplishes that task.

> . . . If you give me a device, who
> will pay for it? What about the countless number of blind people who
> can't afford that? What about the folks who do not carry canes, the
> very people that we in the NFB look to reach out toward in our daily
> efforts, who have no formal orientation and mobility training -- does
> this mean that they, too, will have to receive a device?

This would be part of a feasibility study or report. These would be modified key fobs built using the same assembly lines that today's key fobs come from and required as safety equipment with each new car sold, not just hybrids. My understanding is this had been running over 15 million new cars each year although that rate has recently slowed.

Since the safety key fob would be consistent in their frequency and data encoding, they would work with all cars from any vendor and all vendors could use the same generic design. The economies of scale drive the cost down to a very low cost. Having bought samples of the two Prius model fobs and a Tacoma fob, they really have just three chips and buttons: (1) RF generator; (2) microprocessor, and; (3) battery and regulator. Furthermore, hybrid owners who do not have a small child or elderly needing a safety fob could donate them via the dealer to local blind support groups.

There is no assurance that everyone will always get a safety key fob but it will be both readily available and due to economies of scale, at a very low cost on par with kids walkie talkies, $15 or less.


Power is always an issue with any portable device. Yet when watches
were mechanical, self-winding versions were quite common. Furthermore, I've
gotten similar power levels as the MIT students sufficient to drive the
safety fob using commercial, off the shelf parts. Battery and
power management systems have significantly improved. I don't have all
of the answers but I have enough to demonstrate what works and have no problem with a very long power life, 5-10 years, and a backup.
 
> I am open to new ideas, Bob. I appreciate your work, too. I just don't
> see how this device will give me the information that I need,
> especially in a crowded environment of many hybrid vehicles.

Hopefully I've addressed the difference between what was assumed to be a pedestrian receiver and my proposed safety fob that is a transmitter. But understand there is more to a requirements report and the manufacturing or feasibility. The question for me is will there ever be a system requirements review, the next logical step.
 
> Thank you for your continued research.

No problem. I was planning to wait a little longer but there is a limited window for collaboration. It takes time for folks to reflect upon what has happened and decide whether they want to pursue a new direction. And I am OK with that. But I wanted to extend the offer for collaboration rather than what has gone on before.

Bob Wilson

_________________________________________________________________
You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/