[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Fri Jun 18 11:37:46 UTC 2010

While you are not wanting to blame the drivers I think that it is 
inappropriate for you to use comparisons between abilities of guide dog 
users and cane users.
As an experienced cane user I think this argument is very condescending and 
inappropriate for you to make your points.
Chuck
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "michael townsend" <mrtownsend at optonline.net>
To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'" 
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.


> 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/ckrugman%40sbcglobal.net