[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
Robert Wilson
bwilson4web at hotmail.com
Mon May 31 20:30:53 UTC 2010
Hi Mary Ellen,
I'm interested in better technical solutions but the Stearns amendment closes that door with a mandate for "minimum noise." Yet curiously, there are a few things we would agree upon, turn signals and backup lights would be more effective with an external, audio alert. Let me give some examples:
1) Turn signal - every cabin has a relay that clicks when the lights are flashing. That relay, possibly a little louder should be co-located with each turn signal covering the turn quadrant. This makes a lot of sense not only for the blind but all pedestrians. A 'click' in the cabin only tells the driver that they had turned on the signal but we already have a dashboard, flashing light.
2) Cabin backup - the Prius has a repeating audio alarm in the cabin that many owners reduced to just a single beep. But it is inside the cabin and not heard from the rear. Worse, the rear backup lights for all vehicles are on solid instead of flashing like the turn signals. Again, a relay type click with an audio fan to the rear makes a lot of sense. At night, backup lights serve as short-range lights but changing light intensity would be enough and flashing lights attract more attention than steady ones.
NHTSA reports "Quieter Cars and the Safety Of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I", DOT HS 811 304, April 2010 identifies backing up as a particularly quiet operation. But we also saw in the Augustus Chidester special investigation "Backover and Non-Crash Events Special Crash Investigations" April 2008 that a lot of backover accidents happen with the exhaust pipe right below the rear bumper and in some cases, the point of impact. Sound failed in these accidents. Still, relocating the relay clickers, possibly a little louder, adjacent to every turn signal and backup light should be universal for hybrids and non-hybrids. But the Stearns amendment language is restrictive and covers two other cases.
1) Stopped - as David pointed out, if the car can move, the intent is that it make noise and that is consistent with the Stearns amendment. It is hard for a stopped car to pose much of a risk.
2) Straight-line moving - one of the data points omitted in the summaries of the flawed NHTSA report, DOT HS 811 204, are 109 missing incidents in the 'straight line' maneuver, Table 3d. This bit of safety data for hybrids was missed because relative percentages, not absolute accident rates per 100 million vehicle mile, were used in a misleading way (more about this after my signature.) The Table 3d shows hybrids have a 3% lower incident rate for straight-line accidents, 44% for hybrids versus 47% for non-hybrids. When that 3% is applied against the incident count, about 109 fewer, straight-line incidents occurred, which is greater than the 19 making a turn and 7 backing incidents in Table 6a.
Now I and others had proposed using wireless technology so the blind (and small children, limited mobility, the elderly) would by proximity trigger a muted horn response, similar to the Volt modulated alert. The keyless receivers are universal in all hybrids and near as we can tell, Maxxim reports over 90% of the North American vehicles. Such a system not only alerts the blind but also the driver and by-standers about a higher risk pedestrian in that area. Sad to say, the Stearns amendment and others have rulled out such solutions.
Yes, I do want better technical solutions but that is not what the Stearns amendment would allow if this legislation passes.
Accident rates are the gold standard on risks, the rate per 100 million miles. If there is a risk, find it and share but make sure that the rates are listed for hybrids, the hybrid stand-in, and the NHTSA fleet numbers as the reference.
Bob Wilson
ps. Any report based upon percentages alone will have a total of 100% for all incidents. If there are a set of elevated percentages, ones that might be called a higher risk factor such as "Making a turn" or "Backing" then there will be an equal and lower rate in another maneuver. But the summary of DOT HS 811 204 failed to identify these 'hybrids are safer'. But it is easy to project how many such incidents there would be. So far, sloppy but no real harm unless we have another source with absolute rates.
The NHTSA report "Analysis of Pedestrian Crashes" DOT HS 809 585, April 2003 points out that straight line accidents have the highest incident rate, 76.3%. Here is one report showing straight line maneouvers are the most hazardous in 2003 and then the 2009 report ignores this inconvient truth. In fact the 2009 report showed hybrids having an incident rate of 44% vs. 76.3%.
> From: gabias at telus.net
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:52:29 -0700
> 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/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=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
More information about the QuietCars
mailing list