[Quietcars] Let us reason together revisited

[Robert Wilson]

Hi,

> 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)

I had to run some chores and didn't have time to reply. By the time everything was done, I had to take a nap.

> 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.

This is how a review should work and everyone benefits.

> 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.

Only the cars within receiving range of safety fob would make a noise and only as needed and proportional to the risk. Already, 80% of all cars already have a key fob system and it has been universal in the North American Prius.  These existing key fob systems have: (1) 315 megaHertz receiver (North America standard); (2) a microprocessor that decodes the key fob identification signal; (3) car is "ON" or "OFF", and; (4) access to the horn and light relays.

When the car is 'ON' or running, the key fob receiver is 'OFF.' I'm proposing that it be turned 'ON' to a new mode, to respond to a safety key fob. This requires additional software in the key fob processor to listen and appropriately respond when a safety key fob is in the area.
 
> 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.

In contrast, the microprocessor controlled horn can sound at different levels, always the same tone, but at defined levels and patterns that provide safety information. We would do this by using a MOSFET to drive the horn instead of the existing relay. Vehicles running at higher speeds and approaching a key fob would make the relatively loudest alert but still pulsed or 'bleeped.'

In contrast, the current vehicle noises were never designed for blind pedestrian access. Rather they are considered noise pollution by home owners, sighted pedestrians, and other sighted folks except for a few motorcyclists and speed enthusiasts. 

> 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.

I look forward someday to their design and requirements review.
 
> My real question still is why have a warning system instead of simply having
> automobiles emit sounds.   . . .

What you are asking for is to compare and contrast two solutions. In engineering, we normally list the capabilities with a value and then rate the value of each approach in a table. This is called a systems analysis but somewhat complex. Here is a simple example:

Requirement: alerting pedestrian - importance is 1
Requirement: alerting driver - importance is 2
Requirement: alerting by-stander - importance is 1

Alerting the driver gets a higher ranking because they have control of the brake and steering. In contrast, pedestrians have limited ability to avoid a vehicle, especially if they are already committed to the street. The same is true for by-standers. Although the pedestrian pays the price for an accident, accident avoidance is the goal. BTW, the europeans are looking at car systems to reduce the injury to a pedestrian in an accident, another approach.

We then look at how effective each system is in meeting these requirements:

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

> . . . 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.

This is where not having hybrid electric owners at the table leads to inaccurate and incomplete data. The drivers have control of the brakes, steering and accelerator. They control the velocity and direction of 3,000 pound vehicles that directly effect pedestrians in a pedestrian accident.

> 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?

Because it ignores the driver as an important part of pedestrian and vehicle safety.  Everything proposed in HR 5734 has ignored the driver, which happens when they are excluded from the table. 

> I could also bring up the failure rate of fobs.  If one dies how would I
> know it? . . .

You might notice that vehicles are no longer 'bleeping' their horn. 

> 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.

Words have meaning even to hybrid owners and drivers. We can tell the difference between a potential risk and a corpse.

> . . . 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.

Like not involving hybrid electric owners in a decision? 

> . . . 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

Right up to here, we are in complete agreement. 

> . . . much less how other pedestrians and cyclists use sound.

Being a sighted, untrained pedestrian and cyclist, my direct experience says we will have to disagree on this and I am not alone.

> To sum up I still haven't seen a convincing argument that there is a better
> solution than motor vehicles emitting sound. 

Folks can agree to disagree and I'm good with that. I was hoping that the history of 2008 and HR 5734 might have led to collaboration. With the window of the opportunity from the Cameron Gulbransen Act, something that was signed into law, folks might step back and make a new plan. I would have cursed myself if I didn't reach out and make an offer.

> . . . 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.

Just a minor correction, the safety fob is small but the ideal operation is the shoe, a belt or pocket.

Bob Wilson
625k Inc.
9011 Randall Rd.
Huntsville, AL 35802
256-652-3618 (cell)


_________________________________________________________________
Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008