[Quietcars] Let us reason together revisited

[Michael Hingson]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your email.  I didn't see your response to Corbb until after I
sent my reply.  It goes back to how many information streams we can process
at a time.  (grin)

Having read your description for a wireless system I understand how your
proposal differs from those of the past.  However, I wonder if your idea is
really the way to go.

If I and others are in a city using your system how often will cars be
running without their horns sounding warnings?  In other words, it seems
likely to me that if blind persons and others who need warnings all have
your system cars will not be silent but rather they will be giving constant
warnings.

Also, there is the matter of what sounds the horns give off.  It is the
contention of many of us that the sounds we desire to hear are in fact car
sounds -- sounds that change with velocity and acceleration , and sounds
that sound different for different vehicles.  I like knowing when a truck is
around as opposed to a standard passenger car.

The SAE committee is wrestling with the concept of what sounds are best at
this moment.  The committee members are coming to grips with the fact that
the problem is not simple and that the effected audience is more diverse
than at first imagined.

My real question still is why have a warning system instead of simply having
automobiles emit sounds.  Drivers say they like quiet cars, but even the SAE
committee members have pointed out during meetings that what drivers get is
the quiet inside their vehicles.  They are not the effected pedestrians.
What is the problem with simply mandating that vehicles produce the sounds
pedestrians need?  Why not put the noise emitters on the vehicles and have
them continue to duplicate, all be it more quietly perhaps, the automotive
sounds we use to navigate safely?

I could also bring up the failure rate of fobs.  If one dies how would I
know it?  If a car stops making sounds even the driver would know it and
could initiate repairs.  If a transmitter breaks down I may not be aware of
it and thus be put in danger if the car coming towards me did not receive
the signal to produce a warning.  This is a circumstance which may not
happen as often given the lack of moving parts, but it still has to be an
issue.  Cars can have redundant systems, a small transmitter will not.

Finally, on the language front the words may be effusive to you.  However,
many of us already are terrified, or at least deeply concerned, over the
trend toward silent cars we see emerging.  If the language you see is
provocative please consider that it represents the emotions and reflects the
strong concerns we have.  All too often decisions have been made concerning
blind people without consultation with us or without apparent consideration
of the negative consequences such decisions have on our lives.  For several
years automotive manufacturing "experts" have been opposed to making silent
cars less silent because they feel that there is no evidence of the need for
any noise.  It has not been apparent that they have any expertise about how
blind people travel much less how other pedestrians and cyclists use sound.

To sum up I still haven't seen a convincing argument that there is a better
solution than motor vehicles emitting sound.  I am open to ideas.  I think
you offer a suggestion, but I still am not convinced it is as good or better
than sound constantly being emitted by cars without the addition of a
hand-held device.


Michael Hingson,
 NSA   
President,
The Michael Hingson Group
84 Bahama Reef
Novato, CA 94949
Phone Direct number (415) 827-4084
Fax number (415) 883-6220
Mobile/Pager (888) 965-9191
Email 
info at michaelhingson.com
 <
mailto:
info at michaelhingson.com>
For information on Michael's speaking topics, his availability, and his
consulting services on Diversity and Access Technology for blind persons
please
visit <
http://www.michaelhingson.com>
For information on Guide Dogs for the Blind please visit <
http://www.guidedogs.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Wilson
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:35 AM
To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Let us reason together


Hi Michael,

I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding:

> . . . Have you tried, for example, standing on a busy street corner 
> wearing sleep shades and wearing good ear plugs ...

"Good ear plugs?" I don't think you've understood the proposed design.
Remember my comment about abusive language.

>  . . . If not, you might consider spending some time at one of the NFB 
> centers to learn how to travel as a blind person. . . .

This is a fair request and should be part of any collaborative effort if
there is going to be one. But passage of the "Cameron Gulbransen Kids and
Cars Safety Act of 2007" has a finite window. We can collaborate or repeat
the history of 2008 next year.

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
_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/mhingson%40sbcglo
bal.net