[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Mon May 31 16:55:55 UTC 2010

 Beautifully said, as always!

Debbie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Ellen" <gabias at telus.net>
To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'" 
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

> Hi Bob,
> At the moment, most cars are audible. If I'm walking across the street at 
> a
> traffic light, there are enough engine noises for me to judge traffic. 
> When
> really quiet cars are in the majority, the quality of the information I
> receive will be seriously restricted. For that reason, current accident
> statistics are only part of the data we need to use to make a decision.
> I am basically a small government person, and I hate excessive regulation.
> If a better means of locating all vehicles and discerning their movements
> than making them audible existed without the necessity of added 
> regulations,
> I'd be all for it.
> I was hoping your objection to the current bill had to do with a better
> solution being out there. Despite what you perceive as flaws (and your
> perception may be correct)with the current study, the fact remains that
> there increasingly will be more and more cars on the road that are 
> invisible
> to me. I've been raised to believe I'm responsible for myself and my own
> safety when I travel. You seem to be asking me to make a paradigm shift 
> and
> trust that drivers will be thoroughly responsible for me.
> People who are both deaf and blind are told in training that it is unsafe
> for them to cross streets without assistance. I knew a man who sometimes
> waited for half an hour at an intersection before he could attract the
> attention of someone to help him cross. I don't want to be in a similar
> situatiohn; it's a very frustrating and inefficient way to live. I trust 
> the
> good will of drivers; I also believe the overwhelming majority are skilled
> and careful. I know that even the best can make mistakes. The same is true
> of me. I'm very careful; my life depends on it. But I've made mistakes 
> that
> could have gotten me killed. Fortunately, when drivers have made mistakes
> I've caught myself before proceeding. When I've made mistakes, drivers 
> have
> managed to avoid me. If a driver and I make a mistake at the same time,
> that's what they call an accident. I prefer the highest practical margin 
> of
> redundancy.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
> On
> Behalf Of Robert Wilson
> Sent: May 31, 2010 5:55 AM
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>
>
>
> Hi Mary Ellen,
>
>
> If the NHTSA accident data showed there was a hazard, a rate per 100 
> million
> vehicle miles, I would agree that something needs to be done. However, the
> number Prius sold since 2000 is public knowledge and over the years they
> have accumulated more than enough vehicle miles that if there were a 
> safety
> problem, we would see it in the FARS data. Sad to say, that is not the 
> case
> and I have looked at the 2001-07 data.
>
>
>
> Bob Wilson
>
>> From: gabias at telus.net
>> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
>> Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 22:57:44 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>>
>> Bob,
>> I've been skimming messages for the past several days, so I apologize
>> if I'm asking for clarification of something that was stated
>> abundantly clearly. I gather that you don't want sound to be added to
>> quiet cars whenever the key is turned on. You seem to prefer noise
>> generated in response to events such as back up lights, emergency
>> flashers, and turn signals. You've posted some wonderful information
>> about cars getting "smarter" at avoiding collisions. I hope the
>> industry continues to create even better collision avoidance systems.
>> You are obviously committed to pedestrian safety and to the
>> development of more and more sophisticated and effective safety
>> devices in automobiles. I don't understand why you object to cars
>> being audible at all times when they're moving. I recognize that
>> making cars audible won't prevent all accidents; traffic patterns and
>> the sheer number of automobiles on the road make being a pedestrian
>> more dicey than any of us, whether blind or sighted, like. But what is
>> the harm from your point of view in making operating cars audible at
>> all times? I don't regard that requirement as expressing mistrust of
>> drivers. I regard it as allowing blind and other pedestrians to
>> shoulder their fair share of the responsibility. If both the driver
>> and the pedestrian are capable of behaving prudently, the chance for
>> an uneventful trip rises. If only one party, in this case the driver,
>> has the tools necessary to act responsibly, only one person, again the
>> driver, needs to make an error for an accident to occur. Aren't two
>> prudent people more likely to achieve a good result than one? Let me
>> explain my perspective through a fanciful example. Suppose new
>> technology evolved that would allow cars to be invisible (obviously
>> impossible, but I said I was being fanciful.) . What a boon for the
>> visual landscape! Instead of looking at all those vehicles, everyone
>> would have the joy of an uncluttered panorama. Since this new
>> invisibility system would also save energy and cause less pollution,
>> everybody should be happy. Right? Obviously not. How would pedestrians
>> know when it was safe to cross a street? Yes, at traffic lights,
>> pedestrians would be able to step out with some confidence with the
>> assumption that drivers would obey the signal. But what about cars
>> backing out of driveways? What about intersections with no signal
>> lights? What about parking lots? Now suppose cars could be made to
>> appear when they used their turn signals, back up lights, or flashers.
>> How would that help you if you were walking across a quiet street and
>> a driver wasn't doing anything with turn signals, flashers, or back up
>> lights. Would you want to know that car was there, or would you be
>> completely happy not to know for certain whether or not an invisible
>> car was present? How would you feel about having cars randomly appear
>> while turn signals etc were on and then disappear without any clear
>> notion as to where they went. Did they have their signals on to change
>> lanes or did they turn a corner? Would you feel your safety was
>> somewhat precarious? Wouldn't you rather have more information? I may
>> have completely misunderstood your point. If so, I'm certainly sorry
>> that I have wasted everyone's time asking for clarification no one
>> else needed. If I'm right and you don't want the sound to be emitted
>> whenever the key is turned, could you explain your reasoning. I'm sure
>> your objections are tied to belief that safety would be better served
>> by a different approach, but I'm obviously fuzzy on the details,
>> particularly since I would not know where to find the distributor cap
>> or the fan belt of an engine. Shocking state of ignorance, I know.
>> Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position for me. I
>> genuinely appreciate it.
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Robert Wilson
>> Sent: May 30, 2010 6:15 PM
>> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>>
>>
>>
>> The House Energy and Commerce Committee adopted the Sterns Amendment
>> for H.R. 5381:
>>
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100526/HR5381.Amendment.St
>> earns.
>> pdf
>>
>> What is interesting is Section 109 (f):
>>
>> "8 (f) STUDY AND REPORT.-Not later than 4 years
>> 9 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 10
>> complete a study and report to Congress as to whether 11 there exists
>> a safety need to apply the motor vehicle safety 12 standard required
>> by subsection (a) to conventional motor 13 vehicles. In the event that
>> the Secretary determines there 14 exists a safety need, the Secretary
>> shall initiate rule- 15 making under section 30111 of title 49, United
>> States 16 Code to extend the standard to conventional motor vehicles."
>>
>> What is interesting is only one media outlet, the Washington Post made
>> reference to the House Committee meeting adopting this legislative
>> language. That is how I managed to get a copy of the markup session
>> record.
>>
>> Then we have the interesting problem of NHTSA report DOT HW 811 204,
>> September 2009, pp. 13, which in table 6a, pp. 13 claims, "making a
>> turn, 19 (1.8%), and backing 7 (5.3%)" and then attempt to claim these
>> two number mean hybrids are twice as dangerous as non-hybrids. I have
>> met Hanna Refaat, the author, and I am genuinely sorry he sacrificed
>> his reputation for this report. The blood will be on his hands and
>> conscience . . . if he has one.
>>
>> I just started reading DOT HS 811 304, April 2010, "Quieter Cars and
>> the Safety Of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I". Sad to say, it is obvious
>> this report has problems with facts and data. But the last paragraph,
>> pp. 4 in the Executive Summary pretty well lays out the problem . . .
>> the absence of a fact based, NHTSA team supporting this effort.
>>
>> David Evans, I would like to share these words from Machiavelli:
>>
>> "When you disarm the people,
>> you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either
>> through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions
>> generate hatred..."
>> By insisting upon 'disarming' the operator from generating the noise, 
>> even
>> if tied to the turn signals, emergency flashers, and backup lights, this
>> legislation confirms your opinion that,
>>
>> ". . . you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of
>> confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred ..."
>>
>> I'm sorry but this legislation is flawed and as long as folks assent
>> by their silence to this flawed legislation, the results as
>> predictable as the dawn. The right answer is to contact one's
>> Congressional representatives about the flaws of H.R. 5381 and S.
>> 3302. If your Congress Critters are selectively deaf, contact your
>> local news source.
>>
>> The irony is I have no problem with adding external audio alarms to
>> turn signals, emergency flashers, and backup lights. This is something
>> all vehicles need, not only hybrids but ordinary cars. It could really
>> make a difference . . . especially if it is a unique signal designed
>> to alert pedestrians. But that is now how the Sterns Amendment is
>> written . . . as stealthy as it is.
>>
>> Bob Wilson
>>
>> > Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:37:45 -0400
>> > From: mrtownsend at optonline.net
>> > To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>> >
>> > I would think that a bipartisan effort could continue, devoid of all
>> > of the bickering that has placed much of the decent legislative
>> > efforts in jeopardy during the first 18 months of this administration.
>> > Laughingly, people were more reasonable under bush, which is scary.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> > [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Deborah Kent Stein
>> > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:47 PM
>> > To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
>> > Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Mike,
>> >
>> > Those of us who've been working on the "quiet car legislation" for
>> > the
>> > past several years are concerned with precisely the issues you raise.
>> > The fact that the two major manufacturing consortiums have signed on -
>> > the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Alliance of
>> > International Automobile Manufacturers - reflects the fact that people
>> > in the industry share our goal of establishing a universal standard.
>> > The level of co-operation we have obtained thus far has been very
>> > encouraging.  This even holds true in Congress - the Pedestrian Safety
>> > Enhancement Act (HR734 and its Senate counterpart, S841), as a
>> > stand-alone bill, was one of the most bipartisan bills making its way
>> > through the legislature.  May this support continue in the critical
>> > weeks and months to come!
>> >
>> > Debbie
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "michael townsend" <mrtownsend at optonline.net>
>> > To: <quietcars at nfbnet.org>
>> > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:31 AM
>> > Subject: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
>> >
>> >
>> > > David, as a car nut, and I'll leave my love of cars at that, I've
>> > > never driven, though I know the mechanics of it.  I've never owned a
>> > > car, though I've worked on friends' cars as a hobby and as a very
>> > > high interest.
>> > >
>> > > As a person who understands such things as defeatable systems,
>> > > i.e.,
>> > > the flawed attempts of the auto industry who made seatbelts able to
>> > > be gotten around by consumers in the 1970s, I know about which you
>> > > speak to this point of "defeatable" systems.
>> > >
>> > > I remember that weight on a seat triggered a buzzer, and a rather
>> > > annoying one at that, in most American cars, which, if one looked
>> > > for a wire harness underneath the seat, one could "defeat that
>> > > system" in seconds.  A simple coupler was used and if you pinched a
>> > > fastener and pulled it out of a female
>> > > holder,  you had no more seatbelt warning system.
>> > >
>> > > Some more expensive models coupled the seatbelt activation systems
>> > > to the ignition, and they could be gotten around as well, though
>> > > with a bit more difficulty.
>> > >
>> > > I think that any warning system should be audible, activated with
>> > > nondefeatable sensors at the four corners of the car, and there
>> > > should be a pleasant, yet discernable tone that would not be
>> > > mistaken for anything else,
>> > > and that this same warning system and tone should be mandated across
> the
>> > > board.
>> > >
>> > > I'm saying that BMW, Mercedes and GM, as well as the Japanese
>> > > counterparts should use the same system, so that one wouldn't have
>> > > to confuse a warning sound with another street sound, or have to
>> > > define a Toyota from a Volvo from a Chevy.
>> > >
>> > > So far, I don't think that this has been proposed, and correct me
>> > > if
>> > > I'm wrong on this.  And, this may be the downfall of the proposed
>> > > legislative effort.  This is a really great cause, but things like
>> > > this have a way of blocking things from passage.
>> > >
>> > > You see, we can't get senators and congress to agree on spending
>> > > bills,
>> > > Wall
>> > > Street reform or even proposed standards as they relate to service or
>> > > guide
>> > > animals.
>> > >
>> > > I applaud the efforts of each blindness org and automotive group
>> > > who's fought for such legislation, but the hard part is just getting
>> > > started.
>> > >
>> > > And, congress and the senate have to remove themselves and their
>> > > selfish, political needs and wants from the needs ad wants of the
>> > > average Joe or Jill; something which I am afraid that neither party
>> > > has been willing to so accomplish, regardless of whose
>> > > administration has been in office!
>> > >
>> > > Mike
>> > > T
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about
>> > > myself...but
>> > > I
>> > > think
>> > > I have
>> > > a right to resent, to object to, libelous statements about my dog."
>> > > -Franklin D. Roosevelt
>> > > Mike Townsend and Seeing Eye dog Brent
>> > > Dunellen, New Jersey  08812
>> > > emails:  mrtownsend at optonline.net;
>> > > michael.townsend54 at gmail.com
>> > > Home Phone:  732  200-5643
>> > > Cellular:  732  718-9480
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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/dkent5817
>> > %4
>> > 0world
>> > net.att.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/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/bwilson4web
>> %40hot
>> mail.com
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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: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/gabias%40telus.ne
>> t
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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%40hot
> mail.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/gabias%40telus.ne
> t
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dkent5817%40worldnet.att.net 