[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Tue Jun 15 07:40:53 UTC 2010

And, a good traveler, no matter what mobility aid they use, be it a dog, a
cane or someone's arm, needs to be aware of what's going on around them.
Street smarts counts.  Orientation counts.  I've seen too many cane and dog
handlers, alike, get turned around because they didn't have a clue.  And, as
a person with any kind of sight loss, you need to be aware of what's around
you.  Even a changing landscape like a gravel driveway replaced by a paved
one, can make life crazy if you're unaware that it happened or what was the
next landmark after that driveway.

Thanks for your comments, and I agree totall7y with your assessment.  I
wasn't placing one mobility venue above another; just pointing out that
though we dog handlers have had the schools, at least the larger ones with
cash who could afford so, to train our dogs with a hybrid on site, that has
made it better for us, for at least we're familiar with the vehicle type and
can proceed more intelligently than someone who's never encountered one;
hopefully those who will do so on their own without the supervision of an
O_&M visit, will do okay. 

Until we get this whole mess sorted out with which kind of noise, how loud
it must be, and whether ALL manufacturers will abide by it and use the same
concept and implement it, we'll just have to remain upr9ght and keep our
shiny sides up, that's all.

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Corbb O'Connor
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:02 PM
To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Hi Mike,

That there are inattentive drivers is no more of an issue than inattentive
pedestrians. Sometimes we're all a little bit clueless for a few
seconds...and usually the few seconds that matters. I've worked with a guide
dog, and I understand the intelligent disobedience. But for cane users, who
are still a hefty majority of blind people, that is moot. We cane users use
environmental (read: traffic) cues to tell us about our surroundings, much
like your dog gives you cues. Guide dog users might be less affected by
quiet cars because the dogs can respond to visual stimuli, but even if I
think about working with a guide dog, I still want to know what's happening
around me. Dogs make mistakes too, and I like to be a check on my dog's
decisions. So, as a cane user -- and even thinking back to how I'd react
when I was a dog user -- I need cars to make noise to live a safe and
independent life.

Corbb

On Jun 14, 2010, at 8:40 AM, michael townsend wrote:

Corbb, there are enough incidents of people not looking where they are going
each day regardless of the status of the pedestrians.

It is just a per chance thing.

At AT&T where I worked in one location for 15 years, there were gen
portholes that emptied out onto an apron that surrounded the entire complex
where 5000 people worked in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Each day when I walked, I had a close call from people doing just that.

But, even in a circumstance where a car is NOT, in caps a hybrid, you would
have trouble discerning some cars that had accelerated, i.e., Honda Accords,
Nissans, etc., and the luxury  groupings, as their engines are quieter than
most.  The American cars are still a little noisier I their valve trains and
engine sounds.

None the less, as a guide dog handler, I have some built-in safety features
that you cane users never will have, in the fact that the guide dog is
trained to avoid conflict by either intelligently disobeying a command to
move forward when objects are either in the way or approaching me, as a car
or vehicle would, or interpret the situation and intelligently get me away
from harm by pulling me backwards up on a curb or away from an incident by
doing whatever it takes to avoid injury.

In a lot of cases where people who do use a guide run into trouble  on the
road, the dogs are not injured and the people are, simply because the people
don't pick up clues that the dogs are giving them and move forward or into
harm's way at their own risk.

Corbb, good question, but if we start blaming drivers for all of our issues,
which you have not here, we're going to come off as complainers instead of
being proactive and working for a solution.

I agree with Bob that at times, we need to step back and assess where we are
going with an issue and think more clearly about things from the data and
other forms of input that can be found.

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars- bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Corbb O'Connor
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:08 PM
To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Hi Bob,

I've been quietly reading this list for several months. But I have a
question. You mention that the data (the NHTSA report, I believe?) don't
show that there are enough incidents between pedestrians and quiet cars to
merit a 100% minimum sound standard...so instead we should target the
"danger points" -- turn signals, backup, etc. But the data aren't complete.
Imagine this: I'm a blind person walking to work. I'm walking down the
sidewalk when all of a sudden I hear brakes to my right, look closely, and
see a car a few inches from my cane.
After giving a dirty look (and maybe thumbs down?) to the driver who has
floored their car out of a parking garage without mind for potential
pedestrians, I go on my way. The data aren't likely to show this incident.
Some luck saved my cane -- and probably me -- from a collision. I didn't
stop to write down the license plate, make, model, etc. (nevermind that I
probably couldn't see well enough to do that on my own anyway), and there's
nothing to do with the info other than report a close-call to this group.
Are you saying that we need more violent incidents before we should require
a minimum sound standard for cars? You don't seem like somebody who would
think that, but that's the essence of my question...blunt as it may be.

Corbb

On Jun 6, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Robert Wilson wrote:

Hi Mike,

> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:33:31 -0400
> From: mrtownsend at optonline.net
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>
> This seems like a possible idea.  However, Bob, if people carry these 
> devices, who's going to pay for them,

Today, we get two normal fobs. I see the safety fob being part of the the
standard equipment list for all new cars, much like any other piece of
safety equipment because it lets both the driver, pedestrian and by-
standers know there is an at-risk pedestrian in the area. One alternative is
the ability to reprogram a standard fob into a safety fob. Issue three fobs
with one configured as a safety fob.

I've bought fobs for the NHW11 and NHW20 along with a keyless development
system to more fully understand the technology. Lesson's
learned: (1) the fobs are microprocessor controlled, which is critical for
vehicle operation but makes them unusually flexible; (2) the data rates are
modest but easily decipherable and; the small 1x2 inch or smaller boards
have very few parts, very cheap to produce.

I don't underestimate the technical challenges of making a practical,
universal safety fob but  seat belts and air bags had resistance and
development challenges too. Sad to say, the language of the Stearns
amendment all but rules this approach out. Otherwise, I and a few others
would be pretty busy right now.

> . . . how does one go about applying to receive one, prove that they 
> actually need one and

The owner has the option of either keeping for their own use, say a
pre-school child or elderly family member, or letting the dealer donate to a
local service organization.

> . . . who is going to carry out
> the testing of such devices on a periodic basis to ensure that they 
> are working as hoped.

The safety fob is tested by walking outside. The receiver operation is
automatic and built-in to the vehicle. As for the horn bleep, testing would
be needed but such testing should include more of a click versus even the
muted bleep of the Volt. As newer vehicles come into the fleet, they would
increase the population and because they are 'on demand,' even older vehicle
drivers could hear the warning from the newer cars. In contrast, the
constant noise generator becomes "the boy who cried wolf."

Bob Wilson

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W
L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
_______________________________________________
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/corbbo%40gmail.co
m

_______________________________________________
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/mrtownsend%40opto
nline.net

_______________________________________________
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/corbbo%40gmail.co
m

_______________________________________________
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/mrtownsend%40opto
nline.net