[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Fri Jun 18 15:43:51 UTC 2010

Bob, another superlative post.  I think that the drivers of sporty cars are
going to drive more recklessly than those piloting "mommy wagons" or
hybrids.  

Note the incident of the driver of the Datsun 280ZX in the AT&T parking lot
I spoke of in an earlier post to this list.  However, those cars did have a
distinct exhaust note, as do Mustangs, Camaros and other cars of this type,
and the drivers of those want to gun their engines, peel rubber and drive at
higher rates of speeds in short distances and on curvy roads as compared to
their hybrid driving counterparts.  My experi9ence tells me so.  

Thanks for yet another enlightening post, and let's hope that this data
crunching as well as the testing and analyses tends to make those who are
designing and implementing the systems aware of the true nature of
pedestrian travelers, with canes, guide dogs, etc., before such audible
systems are enacted.  

Mike T in NJ

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Wilson
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 10:16 AM
To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Hi,

Sorry to be late, I've been looking at a technical problem with the built-in
car diagnostics bus and recently had a break through. My comments are
inserted in your note:

> From: corbbo at gmail.com
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:07:42 -0400
> 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.

Correct. In fact it turns out to be a general purpose approach that allows
early detection of problem vehicles without regard to the make and model. I
plan to run the analysis from 1995 to the most recent NHTSA FARS data, which
should include the 2009 soon. 

>..so instead we
> should target the "danger points" -- turn signals, backup, etc. But  
>the data aren't complete.

I know it seems contradictory but let me explain what "Incident of
Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles" DOT
HW 811 204 can and can not do. This report took the count of hybrid and an
equivalent non-hybrid or gas car incidents, the injury counts, which
typically are more than five times the rate of fatalities and summed them up
over the study interval 2001-07. But it did not count the number of hybrids
and gas vehicles in the study area, just the incidents. This means there is
no way to assert a relative risk of injury per type of vehicle. Let me give
an example:

If there were 75 hybrid incidents and 750 hybrids, there would be one injury
for every 10 hybrids by dividing 75 incidents by 750 hybrids. If there were
3,519 gas incidents and 35,190 gas cars, there would also be one injury for
every 10 gas cars. But what if there were twice as many hybrids in the pool,
1,500, without changing the number of gas cars? 

In this case, the hybrid accident rate would be only one injury for every 20
hybrids, 75 divided by 1500, or twice as safe as the gas cars that remain at
one injury for every 10 gas cars. I did a similar analysis for fatalities of
the Prius between 2001 and 2007 and found the Prius has half the USA
fatality rate at the USA fleet reported by the NHTSA.

By misinterpreting the data from DOT HW 811 204, we are blind to the
vehicles that are causing higher fatality and injury rates. This is why a
false killer accusation is doubly bad because not only is an innocent being
accused but folks stop looking for the real killer(s). Sad to say, I saw
Sen. Kerry claim 'hybrids have twice the hazard' when he supported the
Senate substitute bill that includes the Stearns language.

But DOT HW 811 204 does have utility in suggesting (the numbers are terribly
small,) that backing and turning incidents within the hybrid incidents are
relatively high. The flaw was straight line incidents where hybrids are
relatively safe, was ignored. Both turning and backing incidents are
associated with what today are silent, warning lights. What is maddening is
there is a relay 'click' in the cabin and the Prius has a beep within the
cabin. For technical reasons, I believe the relay click, colocated to these
'silent' lights makes a lot of sense for all vehicles, not just hybrids. But
even DOT HW 811 204 does not support a claim that straight-line hybrids need
noise.

> . . . 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.

Actually the same data that is being misquoted by Sen. Kerry also says the
hybrids in a straight line are safer than the gas car.

> . . . 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?

I think we need to use the available data to identify the real killer cars
... the ones whose fatality rate is higher than the national pool. More
importantly, it needs to be done as soon as possible after a new model is
introduced instead of waiting until the annual rate makes it impossible to
ignore the obvious. So let me ask you the same question, slightly
differently.

Do you think it is better to let killer cars get a pass while legislating
noise makers on the Prius that has half the fatality rate?

> . . . You don't seem like somebody who would think that, but that's 
> the essence of my question...blunt as it may be.

Actually, my question is double-blunt because we have the NHTSA FARS data
needed to identify killer cars. Sad to say, DOT HW 811 204 has been abused
to assert a conclusion not supported by the evidence, the facts and data. So
far, the Prius appears to have half the fatality rate of the USA fleet,
which means there are killer cars out there and in this effort, being
ignored. Those are the cars you'll hit with your cane . . . if you are still
able.

Bob Wilson

> 
> 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:WLMTAG
> L:ON:WL: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%40gm
> ail.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bwilson4web
> %40hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28
326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
_______________________________________________
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