[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Mon May 31 23:43:28 UTC 2010

And, the solution can't be solved by legislating that simply cars must
chirp, beep and squawk.  The legislation has to have teeth in it, and
technical teeth that will span the industry, like, for example, antilock
brakes are standard on ALL cars.  

Today, a lot of cars have "tire pressure monitoring systems" on board, but
there are at least three ways to do this today...some of which are cheap and
some are expensive, but the jobs are more or less getting done by all three,
though with this example, nobody would know which system was in place until
the repair of the system was necessary, and it doesn't effect pedestrians.  

There are different engine management systems that each manufacturer uses,
and different ways to scan the computers of each vehicle manufacturer, and
this is also costly for manufacturers and independent garages alike.  A
Mercedes scan tool costs in the neighborhood of $23,000, and this would
preclude most garages from buying one and working on one.  

Therefore, it begs that a system for notification to the pedestrian of any
hybrid be uniform in sound quality, tone and audibility and also repair, so
that one wouldn't have to judge a sounder of a Chevy from a BMW from a
Jaguar.  And, in no piece I've read on list has this uniformity been
discussed or proposed.  

I'm not picking on things unn3ecessarily, but as a car enthusiast and a
person who uses a dog to travel, at this point, I wanta know if in five
years will I have to download sound files and learn them to discern which
car is crawling up my behind.  

Period.  

Thanks, Maryellen and all for your most appreciated posts.  We four or five
can't be all who are writing to this list, I hope, or perhaps, I'm not
receiving all of the emails.  This seems much too pressing a problem or
issue for this to be taken lightly.  But, then again, maybe, it's my car
enthusiasm that leads me to ask questions like these!

Mike T

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mary Ellen
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 5:53 PM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

You make a very fair point when you say all cars are becoming quieter and
harder to hear. I certainly would not want to return to the old vroom vroom
of my youth, but I am concerned that it is becoming more difficult for me to
judge traffic. This is partly a function of quieter vehicles, partly a
function of more complex traffic patterns, and partly a function of slightly
diminished hearing. You are correct that pedestrians have a responsibility
to become as familiar as possible with the characteristics of vehicles, the
rules of the road, and anything else that could help keep us safe. I make it
my business to do all those things.
I get Bob's point, too, that hybrids have been unfairly singled out. It has
become shorthand to say "hybrid" to refer to the entire class of quiet cars
just as it has become shorthand to say "kleenex" to refer to the entire
array of facial tissues. I freely admit I've been guilty of that inaccurate
shorthand.
Though all of the foregoing is true, one question remains. What is the best
way to make all cars audible enough that blind (and other) pedestrians can
gather useful information that will help us make safe travel decisions? As
more and more quieter vehicles take to the streets, we won't be dealing with
the odd nearly silent car. We'll be dealing with traffic patterns that are
indecipherable. That's the broader problem. 

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of michael townsend
Sent: May 31, 2010 7:52 AM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Maryellen, 

I have some very frank responses to what's been going on with regard to the
hybrid legislation, chatter on several blindness lists and I thank you for
bringing up concerns you did regard Bob's post today.

To begin, I don't think that it is not that sound isn't needed, it's the
impression I get from reading a lot of posts on this list and from other
conversations that I've had with people who are visually challenged that
they just don't know enough about how hybrids work, haven't been introduced
to a hybrid in actual walking situations, and are jumping on a bandwagon
just to join the cause.  

As a guide dog handler for 36 years now, I have seen a lot of changes in
traffic, both in patterns and the amount of traffic out there and the
changes are probably going to fall into several categories.

First, cars are smaller, quieter, and much safer than they were when I got
my first dog.  

Sure, there are the exceptions out there of cars that are 30 years old,
;with loud mufflers, a lack of modern safety items such as antilock brakes
which appeared in the mid-1980s on some cars, that are large and stinky.
However, I would safely say that most of the cars on the road today are less
than 10 or 15 years old, and are in fairly good shape.

We on these blindness lists spend a lot of time talking about hybrids being
a concern, but there are cars with four, six or eight cylinders that are
worlds quieter than we could have ever imagined.  Noise pollution standards
as well as clean air standards have mandated that cars be unusually quiet,
and the hybrid takes things just one step further.

I would also say that the percentage of hybrid vehicle to the nonhybrid is
still quite low.  And, though it seems like everyone's building hybrids and
buying them today, the majority of the car buyers in this country still
prefer regular propulsion v. hybrid of any configuration.  

In fact, the diesel market has come back, with the introduction of Mercedes
Blue technology, which burns diesel fuel cleanly in all 50 states.  Through
the use of special filters and electronic wizardry both Mercedes and VW have
created new interest in the family car and SUV diesel.  Even the heavy duty
truck manufacturers of diesel have summoned technology to their rescue in
getting better fuel mileage and providing quieter service to their
consumers.

Propane and natural gas propel vehicles, trucks and buses in cities both
large and small in this country  now as we fight both noise pollution and
fight to keep our air clean.  And, cities save millions of dollars per year
in changing over vehicles from gasoline to propane and the use of hybrids in
hybrid gas and hybri9d diesel form.  

I would also venture to say that most pedestrian who are hit by vehicles are
hit by gasoline or diesel powered vehicles and two wheeled motorized and
pedal powered apparatus.  

I say all of the previous here which is not meant to criticize any of the
effort put forth by either blindness organizations or automobile
manufacturers or suppliers, but to say that the hybrid industry has taken
the unfair brunt of criticism from blindness organizations with most of
their constituents being truly not fully aware of what they speak.   

This is why I have urged those guide dog handlers and cane travelers on any
blindness list to which I have belonged to familiarize themselves with
traffic to a greater extent than they do, the quieter car which is on the
street and the traffic rules and regulations as they pertain to driver and
pedestrian alike, and make an informed decision about the way in which they
travel and the automobile industry and how it may effect their travel.  

It is well to note that most of the guide dog schools have a hybrid
available which they use to aid them to train the guide and the teams after
they're matched, which has led to a greater understanding of how to deal
with the newer technology. I would seriously hope that state agencies and
mobility specialists would use any resources possible to also ensure that
this familiarity take place for anyone in need of cane travel training
today.  

If this is not the case, blind persons who travel should familiarize
themselves with the quieter cars by finding out through posting questions in
any resource possible to learn how they can be effected by a hybrid and
familiarize themselves with a hybrid vehicle at their earliest convenience.

Not only are passenger cars more quiet today and, they may or may not be a
hybrid, but taxis and disabled transportation systems' vehicles are also
leaning towards a quieter vehicle venue.  So, it's imperative that we all
work together to make this a positive effort for the betterment of all
travelers and not necessarily pick on one modalt8iy of propulsion.  

 I may be reading Bob's posts totally differently than some, but I get where
he's coming from, and the accident stats will prove that in the analyses of
hybrid vehicle to other modalities of propulsion, just on numbers of hybrids
produced to any type of motorized or pedal powered vehicle out there, that
the hybrid is involved in fewer mishaps in all ways.

Enjoy your Memorial Day, everyone and keep safe.

Mike T

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Wilson
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 8:55 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.Stearns.
> 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/mrtownsen
> > d%
> > 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%40te
> lus.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=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

_______________________________________________
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/mrtownsend%40opto
nline.net