[Quietcars] immediate and delayed effects of legislation

[Robert Wilson]

> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:53:38 -0800
> From: cclvi at yahoo.com
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [Quietcars] immediate and delayed effects of legislation
> 
> I agree that it will be quite a while before we have federal regs, and in the > meantime, I wonder if there will be an unintended negative side effect...  > a manufacturer holding off making an improvement not risking creating a design> which may ultimately be out of compliance with a not-yet-knowable requirement.  
The Cameron Gulbransen Act regulations that are going through final review specify a size of the rear view display slightly larger than today's more common, 2.5" LCD screen. 
> And, speaking of "negatives" for potential purchasers, is a design that is a "noise > generator".  In my advocacy, I refer to an "audible aspect".  "Sound feature"> also avoids the negative ring of "noise..".
The language of S.841 uses "means of alerting" and "sound emitted" suggesting "soundemitter" or "pedestrian alert." Regardless of the term used, once it is always on in five years, pedestrians, other drivers and auto press writers will no doubt form their own opinions. Regardless, the experiment begins.
It will be interesting to see the impact on hybrid sales in five years. Then over the next10 to 15 years the accident data will show the effects on pedestrian safety. We'll be ableto compare like intervals of pedestrian alerting and non-alerting hybrids. But talking about "unintended negative side effects," I've noticed something unexpected with my beeping backup light. 
There is a temptation for a driver to think of the pedestrian alert as announcing "Get out the way, I've got the right-of-way" . . . like a car horn in Boston traffic. This might lead to less vigorous checking for pedestrians approaching the car. If a pedestrian alertsystem can not be heard or is very faint in the cabin, this 'moral hazard' would be reduced.
Bob Wilson