[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Mon May 31 23:57:20 UTC 2010

Well put, Mike. As I read your clear description of the many ways
 in which blind pedestrians use ambient sound, it struck me how easy it is
for us to use some of the same terms and mean entirely different things. I'm
certain most sighted people, since they have never had occasion to ponder
the question, have no idea of the richness of information conveyed to us in
the average traffic situation. At the same time, any blind traveler uses
rich audible information as a matter of course and doesn't dissect its
content consciously. We know, however, that loss of any of that content
would make a huge difference in our ability to interpret traffic movements.
So when we say that we want cars to be audible, we mean that we want to be
able to gather the same rich information as we can now. When others say they
want the cars to be audible for us, they may mean that they want a sound to
alert us to their presence, not realizing how meager that information alone
would be.
What an interesting exercise in people being separated by the same language.
It's good that this discussion arose. I know I've learned something from it.
I agree with you that a wireless device would be nearly totally unacceptable
because it would give us far less than complete information. I also don't
want to have a gadget attached to every body part -- not to mention the
problems of broken or lost electronics, failed batteries, or digital
glitches.

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Hingson
Sent: May 31, 2010 2:28 PM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

Bob and all,

Frankly you need to begin looking at this situation from the stand point of
a blind person who wishes to be part of society.  For example, are you going
to really propose that specific classes of individuals carry a wireless
device to detect the approach of a quiet car?  If so, do you really think
that such a device can possibly give the same information we presently
receive from the noises and other cues provided by many automobiles today?
Also, how will those devices and their users be view by the general
population

The fact is that today's ambient noises provide us with much more
information than simply the approach of a vehicle.  We can often get
everything from an approximation of speed to an idea of whether the
approaching vehicle is a bus, a truck, a larger car or a smaller vehicle.
That is only one example of what we can learn, but it should suffice to
illustrate the point.

The issue is that we as blind people wish to have as much as possible the
same information about our surroundings as do sighted people.  Cars and
other moving vehicles are a part of our world.  We should not be put in a
different class simply because we cannot see.  I pick on your wireless
proposal as it is a good example of the problem both from a social and
technical issue.  All I need is for someone to say that "now that blind
people carry this fancy receiver they can cross the street or walk around
town".  Make no mistake that would happen.  We see it all the time with news
reports of audible traffic signals.  The reality is that signals, and your
proposed receivers, would not and do not solve the problem.

>From a technical point of view the reality is that EVERYONE uses the 
>ambient
noises around us including car noises to help us as pedestrians.  A linear
kind of cue such as what would come from a receiver and wireless system will
not provide us with what we need to know and it would also give us one more
thing to carry on which we must focus our attention.  We know that cell
phone use in a vehicle leads to a higher accident rate.  Focusing on another
device takes our attention away from what we see around us.

The NHTSA report has determined, using correct input or not, that silent
cars pose a higher risk to pedestrians.  This is not news to many non
vehicle users of many groups.

You rightly point out that a car not moving poses no risk, (I would say not
a major risk), to blind travelers.  However, there are often vehicles
stopped with their engines running which immediately give us notification
that a car may be preparing to move.  The engine sounds are themselves a
relevant factor to us whether or not a vehicle is moving.

Noisier turn indicators may or may not be helpful.  Certainly a tapping
sound such as the relay noise of a turn indicator would NOT be as useful as
another solution as it would need to be pretty noisy to overcome other
sounds.  Also, since there is no control over exactly when a driver begins
to signal a turn the indicator would probably not be a major help.

Audible backup signals would be of help to all.  I am surprised that such
devices are not already incorporated on all vehicles.  However, if my first
indication that a vehicle was in my neighborhood was the sound of a backup
beep I might not have time to get out of the way if I happen to be close and
the driver weren't paying enough attention to his or her surroundings,
something which DOES happen more often than we wish to admit.

In another email it was pointed out that we as pedestrians have a
responsibility to be visible.  We also need to be aware of our surroundings
especially now that cars are becoming quieter.  There must be responsibility
on all sides.

Given that drivers are as unpredictable and inconsistent as pedestrians we
need to make the knowledge of the presence of vehicles as full proof as
possible.  Noises only for certain conditions are not enough.  Even hearing
the presence of many vehicles gives us invaluable information which goes
away if some of the proposals under discussion were to be incorporated.

Again, it gets back to us having access to the same information as sighted
persons.  Drivers of hybrid vehicles often have mentioned the quietness of
their cars as a reason for purchasing them.  However these drivers usually
drive with their windows closed and don't hear the outside sounds of
relatively quiet cars anyway.  Those same sounds provide us with the data we
need to travel safely and well.

People should not attempt to complicate the problem but rather keep the
solution simple and put usable outside sounds in all vehicles.  Not to sound
old fashion but what we have been using for 100 years has worked well.  We
ought to be able to provide those same audible cues while making them
quieter than what existed before and at the same time providing them enough
volume to satisfy the needs of ALL pedestrians.

Best,

Mike Hingson

The Michael Hingson Group, INC.
     “Speaking with Vision”
                 Michael Hingson, President
                         (415) 827-4084
                   info at michaelhingson.com
                   www.michaelhingson.com

for info on the new KNFB Reader Mobile, visit:
http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Wilson
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 1:31 PM
To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

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/dkent58
> > > 17
> > > %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/bwilson4w
> > eb
> > %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%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/mhingson%40sbcglo
bal.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