[Quietcars] Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage of the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, The Braille Monitor, June 2011

[Deborah Kent Stein]

Thank you for posting this.  The success of this effort truly is a testament 
to the power of collective action!  BTW, it occurs to me we should update 
the statement at the top of the quiet cars webpage to reflect the fact that 
the bill has passed.  Would anyone like to write a fresh statement?

Debbie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nightingale, Noel" <Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov>
To: <quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 3:35 PM
Subject: [Quietcars] Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage of the 
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, The Braille Monitor, June 2011


This article from the Braille Monitor is an excellent summary by Debbie 
about the quiet cars issue.


Text:
Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage of the Pedestrian Safety 
Enhancement Act
by Deborah Kent Stein

>From the Editor: The name Debbie Kent Stein is associated with many things. 
>She is a professional writer, a leader in the NFB of Illinois, a winner of 
>the Dr. Jacob Bolotin Award, and the person most closely linked with the 
>recognition of the dangers posed by quiet cars. Beginning with a firsthand 
>experience in 2003 that convinced her that the blind were up against a 
>change in the world that could threaten our independent mobility and even 
>pose a deadly threat to us, she has been one of our most articulate 
>spokespersons. Her work as chair of the committee for automobile and 
>pedestrian safety has required that she take on many roles. She has had to 
>be a prophet in the wilderness, shouting out a message that the diverse 
>audiences she has had to address were reluctant to hear, let alone embrace. 
>Blind people did not want to be told that some cars were too quiet to hear. 
>Being bothered by disgruntled blind people was the last thing car companies 
>wanted as they created the next generation of vehicles, moving from 
>traditional internal-combustion engines to something that could make better 
>use of fuel, create less pollution, and meet the demand for an ever-quieter 
>car. Environmental groups bristled at the notion that anyone could object 
>to a generation of automobiles that would attempt to address many of their 
>concerns. Debbie had to be a conference organizer, a negotiator, and a 
>builder of bridges between organizations that competed for sales, 
>membership, and governmental influence. But for all of the high-level work 
>her job entailed, the most impressive work required of Debbie was managing 
>the follow-up and making sure that this uncomfortable and difficult issue 
>didn't get placed on the back burner. She knew the problem would not go 
>away, and she let everyone involved know, in her courteous but firm way, 
>that she wasn't going away either. Here is what Debbie has to say about the 
>journey of the blind to ensure safe passage on the streets of the smallest 
>town or largest city.

On the afternoon of January 4, 2011, a flurry of anxious emails tumbled into 
my inbox. Had I heard any news? Was I sure the bill had reached the 
president's office? How much time was left for him to make his decision? 
Suppose the unthinkable happened-suppose he refused to sign, or simply lost 
the bill amid his other priorities?       At last, when it was nearly 
midnight, I received a triumphant message from Jesse Hartle in the NFB's 
Office of Governmental Affairs. Just forty- five minutes before, President 
Barack Obama had signed S. 841, the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act. The 
bill that the Federation had sponsored and nurtured for the past three years 
was now the law of the land.       The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, 
generally known to Federationists as the Quiet Cars Bill, grew out of our 
realization that hybrid vehicles operate almost silently when in electric 
mode. As blind people we travel safely and independently by listening to the 
sounds of traffic. With nearly silent "stealth vehicles" on the road in 
greater numbers every year, our safety and independence were in jeopardy.

The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act will not solve the problem overnight. 
It grants the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
thirty-six months to determine a level of sound that will give blind 
pedestrians, and pedestrians in general, ample warning of the approach of a 
hybrid or electric vehicle and to establish regulations for the automobile 
manufacturing industry. The manufacturers will then have three years to 
achieve full compliance with NHTSA's regulations. It will be the year 2017 
before all new hybrid and electric cars sold in the U.S. meet the safety 
standard based on audibility. (There is no requirement that existing 
vehicles be retrofitted.) Nevertheless, there is wisdom in proceeding with 
care. Once rules are in place, we will be living with them for a long time. 
We must be sure that the solution truly meets our needs.

The passage of S. 841 resulted from the united efforts of Federationists 
across the country. It is a shining example of what we can accomplish when 
we work together. Like a snowball, our effort grew and amplified until it 
gained an unstoppable momentum. And, like a snowball, it started out feeble 
and small. As I look back on the events that led up to that night, I 
remember the way it all began and the long journey that finally brought us 
to the signing of our bill on January 4, the 202nd birthday of Louis 
Braille.

About thirty years ago I read that developers had built the first all- 
electric vehicles, cars that would operate cleanly and would free us from 
our dependence on fossil fuels. The news sounded wonderful to me until I 
heard that the new electric cars would be utterly silent. I recall talking 
with a few blind friends about the danger that such cars would pose for us. 
They assured me that we had no need for concern. The manufacturers wouldn't 
be so foolish as to put silent cars on the road. They would certainly add a 
warning sound of some kind so that we could hear the cars coming.

Over the decades that followed, I didn't think much more about silent cars. 
Then, on a November morning in 2003, a family friend dropped by to visit. He 
parked his new Toyota Prius in front of the house. "It's completely silent 
when it's running on its battery," he explained. "No kidding-you can't hear 
a thing."

I had great confidence in my power to listen and discern. I couldn't imagine 
a car so quiet that I would fail to hear it. I decided to put it to the 
test. I have told this story many times, and it has often been repeated by 
others. In the history of the Quiet Cars Bill it has almost taken on the 
status of legend. I stood at the curb and listened as our friend climbed 
into the driver's seat and slammed the door. I waited to hear the Prius hum 
into life and move forward. I heard the chatter of sparrows; the distant 
roar of a leaf-blower; and, after a minute or two, the opening of the car 
door.       "When are you going to start?" I asked.

"I did start," our friend answered. "I drove down to the end of the block, 
and then I backed past you and drove up in front of you again." I felt a 
cold sense of dread. I thought, we've got a real problem.

Clearly my friends and I were naïve years ago when we decided it was 
unthinkable that silent vehicles would someday glide down our streets. The 
auto industry had not considered our needs and our safety. The unthinkable 
was now a reality. My mind leaped ahead to a world where blind people would 
be prisoners in their homes, unable to travel to school, to work, or to the 
store without a sighted escort. I remembered all the days when I walked my 
daughter back and forth to school and ached for the blind parents who 
someday might not dare to go out on the streets alone with their children. I 
thought of the tireless work we have done in the Federation to ensure that 
future generations of blind people can live active, independent lives as 
respected members of the community. I realized how swiftly our efforts might 
be undone by this new technological development.

After a few days of fruitless worry, I called Gary Wunder, a longtime friend 
and a member of the NFB's national board. Gary had not yet encountered a 
hybrid car, but he listened carefully and promised to bring my concerns 
before the board at its next meeting. Before the meeting he approached 
President Marc Maurer, who arranged to have a Prius on hand so that the 
board members could listen for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

As Gary explained to me later, a number of the board members were highly 
skeptical. They were convinced that they would be able to hear the sound of 
tires on pavement and the rush of air against the windshield, even if the 
engine of a hybrid was operating silently in battery mode. Not all of the 
board members chose to go outside and listen to the Prius as a staff member 
drove it past the National Center in Baltimore. However, those who took part 
in the demonstration were startled to discover what I had found weeks 
before. When the hybrid was moving at slow speeds, its tires were soundless, 
and there was no wind rush. With no sound from the engine, the vehicle crept 
along in silence. When crossing a driveway or side street, it would be easy 
for a blind person to step unaware straight into the path of an oncoming 
vehicle.

I was not the first Federationist to express concern about silently 
operating cars. At the NFB convention of 2003, Noel Nightingale had drafted 
a quiet cars resolution. Resolution 03-05, passed unanimously, stated "that 
the safe and free travel of blind pedestrians and all pedestrians may be 
significantly and increasingly impaired by quiet vehicles."

Early in 2004 Dr. Maurer appointed me to chair a new committee. The 
committee on automobile and pedestrian safety (CAPS) was established 
specifically to investigate the matter of quiet cars and come up with 
recommendations. "I don't have any idea what should be done," Dr. Maurer 
told me, "but I charge your committee with figuring that out for us." I had 
no idea where to begin, so I started by thinking about the composition of 
the committee itself. I decided that we would need people with a foundation 
in technology and engineering. We would need attorneys to think about the 
legal aspects of dealing with a potential safety hazard. We should have 
orientation and mobility instructors, people with a firm understanding of 
independent travel. Finally, we should have people with media experience. To 
get anything done, we would have to spread the word to the public.

A group of dedicated Federationists agreed to serve as CAPS members, and we 
began a series of exchanges using email and conference calls. For most of us 
the quiet-car issue posed a wrenching conflict. All our lives we had 
believed and insisted that as blind people we could live in the world as we 
found it. We had shunned the idea of asking society to adapt the environment 
to meet our needs. We had found ways to use the information that the 
existing environment provides and to go on about our business. Years ago, in 
the sixties and seventies, that philosophy served us very well. However, 
technology was transforming the world as we once knew it. Many of the 
changes brought us riches beyond our wildest imagining. Yet, in addition to 
downloadable books, newspapers over the telephone, and global positioning 
systems, technology had now delivered cars that we could not hear. None of 
us CAPS members could conceive of a way for us to identify the presence and 
movements of vehicles without sound. Blind people could eventually lose the 
freedom for which we had fought so long and hard. We had to call for the 
addition of some kind of sound cue in order to preserve our freedom of 
movement, even though that meant altering our previously- stated and 
unambiguous statements favoring training instead of environmental 
modifications.

As we pondered aloud at one of our meetings, Barbara Pierce recalled the old 
story of an intrepid band of mice. For a while, a new cat in the 
neighborhood made their lives a misery. Finally, while the cat was asleep, 
the brave little mice crept from their hole and fastened a bell around its 
neck. Like the mice in the story, we needed a sound to warn us of danger. We 
had to find a way to bell the hybrid cat.

In the course of our discussions, we grasped another crucial aspect of the 
issue. Blind people were not the only ones who would be affected by silently 
operating vehicles. Sighted pedestrians and cyclists also counted on their 
hearing to detect cars that were out of their line of sight. We were not 
dealing strictly with a blindness issue. We were perhaps the first to 
identify the problem, but quiet cars posed a threat to everyone.

For more than a year we reached out in every imaginable direction. We 
searched the labyrinthine Websites of corporations and government agencies 
for the names and addresses of officials. We sent fruitless emails and left 
phone messages that were never answered. We talked to friends of friends who 
worked for this company or that, and we followed up every lead and 
suggestion.

At one point I spoke with the head of a grassroots consumer protection 
organization that had a strong history of advocacy on safety issues. "How 
many people have been killed so far?" he asked bluntly. I said we didn't 
know, but we didn't want to wait for a body count. "You won't get anywhere 
until you have statistics," he told me. "You've got to have casualties 
before you can get anything done."

Even when we talked to our own friends and relations and to our colleagues 
in the blind community, we met with surprise and even skepticism. "Gee, it 
never occurred to me that quiet cars would be a problem," people would say. 
"The quieter the better, right? But now that I think about it, I guess 
you've got a point." Then they offered suggestions. Perhaps the fan belt 
could run when the car was operating in electric mode. Maybe they could put 
on a device that ticked as the wheels turned, like the old trick with the 
card in the bicycle spokes. Perhaps blind people could carry a device that 
would signal when it detected a hybrid car in the vicinity.

In June 2005 the Braille Monitor published an article about the quiet car 
question called "Stop, Look, and Listen." In it I urged readers to contact 
me if they had had a collision or frightening close call with a car they 
could not hear. At the 2005 NFB national convention, CAPS held an open 
meeting to expand the discussion. The room was packed, and opinions were 
heated. Some doomsayers foresaw a day when the law might forbid blind people 
from walking the streets alone because we posed a danger to ourselves and 
others. Some argued that drivers would simply learn to be more watchful and 
insisted that we had no need for alarm. Between these extremes we heard a 
broad range of ideas and concerns. We also heard the first chilling reports 
of canes being snapped by cars that never made a sound and blind pedestrians 
being rescued from unheard danger in the nick of time.

After the discussion portion of the meeting, everyone moved outdoors to a 
hotel parking lot for a small, uncontrolled experiment. After considerable 
persistence NFB staffer Jeff Witt had secured the use of a Toyota Prius for 
the afternoon. Participants in the test were asked to raise a hand when they 
heard the car drive past. Some twenty-five blind people waited on the curb, 
asking each other when Jeff's car was going to start moving. As we wondered 
and speculated, Jeff sat behind the wheel, circling the lot again and again.

Two months later I received a call from Kara Platoni, a reporter with a 
weekly paper in California called the East Bay Express. On September 21, 
2005, the paper ran an article with the audience-grabbing title, "When 
Silence Equals Death." Platoni pointed out a painful contradiction-people 
purchased hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius in the belief that their 
choice would benefit the environment. By using electric power part of the 
time, they would save at the pump while cutting down on noise pollution and 
greenhouse gases. Now, it turned out, they would also create a hazard for 
blind pedestrians. The article clearly recognized the safety issue as an 
unforeseen consequence of the new hybrid technology.

A spate of articles appeared in the months that followed. The Toronto Globe 
and Mail, the San José Mercury, and several other papers reported on the 
unanticipated safety concerns created by silently operating vehicles. In 
every interview with the press, NFB spokespersons emphasized that the 
Federation did not oppose the manufacture of hybrid and electric vehicles, 
nor the development of energy-efficient fuels. We simply wanted the 
automotive industry to find a way to give pedestrians an audible warning of 
the approach of an otherwise inaudible car.

As the discussion widened, anti-noise advocates pitched in with their 
concerns. They reminded us that noise is a serious environmental problem. 
For decades the automotive industry worked hard to make cars quieter, they 
argued; adding noise to quietly operating vehicles would reverse all the 
gains that had been made. In response the NFB explained that we did not want 
the addition of a loud, irritating noise like the backup beep of an eighteen 
wheeler. Surely the manufacturers could add an inoffensive sound that would 
alert pedestrians to the presence and movements of quiet vehicles without 
disturbing the peace.

On November 4, 2006, the NFB sponsored "Quiet Cars and Pedestrian Safety: 
Problems and Perspectives," the world's first conference on the quiet car 
issue. The conference was an attempt to open an exchange of ideas among the 
widest possible group of stakeholders. Invitations went out to blindness 
organizations, cyclist and pedestrian groups, consumer safety organizations, 
alternative fuel proponents, electric vehicle advocates, and acoustical 
engineers. All of the major automotive manufacturers were invited, as well 
as representatives of the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration.

Altogether forty people from thirteen states, representing fifteen 
organizations and academic institutions, attended the conference. The 
diversity of their backgrounds and perspectives was impressive. Among those 
in attendance were electric car advocates, representatives from pedestrian 
advocacy groups, acoustical engineers, and members of several blind consumer 
groups and blindness-related agencies. However, despite our best efforts, 
the automobile manufacturing community was notably absent.

The conference agenda included presenters from the blindness field, an 
expert in marketing and engineering, and representatives from the Federal 
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (known as the 
Access Board). The meeting began with a direct experience of quiet cars. 
Approximately thirty participants nonvisually observed two hybrid vehicles, 
a Toyota Prius and a Honda Civic. Through hearing they tried to determine 
how detectable the vehicles were while in motion and while stopped at a 
street crossing. Participants were asked to respond upon hearing each of the 
vehicles approach, first at an intersection close to the conference site and 
later at an alley nearby. Observers generally heard the approach of the 
Civic (although at a dangerously close distance of about thirty feet) and 
missed the Prius altogether at the intersection. The Prius was somewhat more 
audible at the approach to the alley, but only at a range of about fifteen 
feet. When we convened indoors, everyone agreed that something had to be 
done. The looming questions were what and how?

The conference continued with presentations on engineering solutions and a 
panel from the Access Board. The attendees then broke into groups for 
brainstorming and returned to report on ideas. Several participants raised 
the suggestion that blind people might carry a device that would beep or 
vibrate to warn of the approach of a silent vehicle. Most of the blind 
people present felt strongly that this solution was unsatisfactory. Who 
would pay for such a device? How many people would be willing to carry it? 
Plenty of blind and visually impaired people don't even carry canes-could 
they be persuaded to use a device to warn them of inaudible vehicles? 
Besides, sighted pedestrians and cyclists were also at risk. Would every 
member of the population have to be outfitted with a warning gadget? 
Furthermore, a beep or vibration on the hand could never give us the rich 
range of information we gather by listening to the sounds emitted by 
standard combustion vehicles. Engine sounds tell us the location, speed, and 
direction of a car and indicate whether it is speeding up or slowing down. 
The sound of a car idling at an intersection alerts us to its presence and 
warns that it may start up at any moment. And we can collect all of this 
information about several vehicles at once. By listening we create a mental 
picture of the entire landscape around us.

After the idea of a handheld warning device was largely put to rest, other 
suggestions emerged. Surely a sound-emitting device could be designed for 
quiet cars that would give pedestrians and cyclists the information they 
gather from the sounds of standard combustion vehicles. Of course a 
multitude of questions arose: what sound should such a vehicle make? How 
loud should it be? When should the sound kick in and when should it stop?

Suddenly one of the acoustical engineers spoke up. He pointed out that laws 
have established a maximum sound level for cars and other vehicles. If a 
vehicle makes too much noise, it is in violation of the law. Why not 
establish a minimum sound standard at the other extreme? If a vehicle were 
so quiet that it fell below the minimum standard, then an artificial sound 
would have to be added. It was a revolutionary idea. We came away from the 
conference with a new sense of direction and focus.

In the fall of 2006 the NFB launched a Website that attempted to consolidate 
the existing information and thinking about the quiet cars issue. At 
<http:quietcars.nfb.org> visitors could find resolutions, articles, and 
conference notes. Webmaster Milton Ota poured untold hours into maintaining 
the site and keeping it up to date. For the first time concerned 
Federationists and members of the general public could gather information 
about the quiet car issue at a single location. When we began to think about 
the problem of silent vehicles, a Google search on "quiet cars" brought up 
pages about railroad coaches where noise is kept at a minimum so passengers 
can read or sleep. Now Google offered a list of articles and blog posts on 
silent vehicles, plus the Website sponsored by the NFB.

"Blind Pedestrians Say Quiet Hybrids Pose Safety Threat" announced the Wall 
Street Journal on February 13, 2007. The feature article by Raymund Flandez 
included quotations from several blind pedestrians. John Osborn, a guide dog 
user in California, reported a frightening close call. "Half an inch and it 
would have hit us," he said. "It wasn't making any noise." The Journal also 
quoted Sev MacPete, founder of the Toyota Prius Club of San Diego, who 
insisted that blind pedestrians are easy to spot because they usually have a 
special white cane with a red tip. "And, if you could say anything about 
hybrid drivers, they are more aware of their surroundings than other 
drivers," MacPete stated. (We often heard variations on this theme. Prius 
owners frequently claimed that people who drive hybrids are more careful and 
more sensitive than the average driver.) The article also referred to an 
interview with Toyota spokesperson Bill Kwong: "[Mr. Kwong] says he wasn't 
aware of the issue and believes that the responsibility lies with drivers 
and pedestrians to watch out for each other." Mr. Kwong did not suggest how 
blind pedestrians were supposed to do their share of the "watching out." It 
was hard to understand how he remained unaware of the issue after our 
repeated efforts to contact Toyota.

Recognition by the highly respected Wall Street Journal planted the quiet 
car issue on the media radar screen. Raymund Flandez's article was quickly 
followed by several more newspaper columns and a piece on National Public 
Radio's news program All Things Considered that included an interview with 
NFB board member Dr. Fred Schroeder. The topic even received air time in Jay 
Leno's monologue on The Tonight Show. Leno commented that blind people were 
concerned that they couldn't hear the approach of quiet hybrid cars. He 
suggested that the drivers should roll down their windows so that 
pedestrians would be warned by their holier-than-thou diatribes about going 
green.

Meanwhile, CAPS continued to search out contacts in government agencies, 
consumer organizations, and the automotive industry. At last, in April 2007, 
we made a major breakthrough. Gary Wunder and I were invited to meet with 
members of the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) outside Detroit. The 
SAE is a think tank that brings together engineers from throughout the 
automotive industry. Although the members do not represent their individual 
companies, the society pools their expertise and ingenuity to tackle 
selected challenges. CAPS had been working on the quiet car issue for three 
years. At last we had a channel of communication to some of the people 
involved in designing and making automobiles.

Gary and I went to Detroit prepared for a tough sell. The fact that we had 
been invited to discuss our concerns did not mean that anyone was willing to 
work with us. We planned and rehearsed our presentation, explaining how 
blind people travel and emphasizing the critical importance that sound 
played in our orientation and mobility. We kept our presentation brief to 
allow plenty of time for questions. Unless we could spark a discussion, the 
visit might be a futile exercise.       To our surprise and delight, we 
found ourselves seated around a table with a group of people who greeted us 
with sincere interest. Everyone listened carefully and asked questions. One 
piece of constructive criticism they offered was to change the language we 
used to describe what we wanted. "Do not tell us you want our cars to make 
noise," they said. "All of our professional lives we have been told to 
eliminate noise. It is as fundamental as motherhood and apple pie is to 
America. You do not want noise. You want usable audible feedback; this will 
better communicate your need and not automatically turn off people who will 
want to help you." I realized at once that these guys (yes, nearly all of 
the SAE members I came to know were male) were highly creative. They loved 
to solve problems, and they were intrigued by unexpected challenges. The SAE 
took our issue seriously and made a firm commitment to explore it further. 
However, everyone warned us that the automotive industry moves slowly. If we 
wanted to bring about change, we would have to be very patient and 
determined.

To examine the quiet car issue in greater depth, the SAE established a 
subcommittee which later became a full committee. The Committee on Vehicular 
Sound for Pedestrians (VSP) began to meet monthly using WebEx and 
teleconference and occasionally face to face at SAE headquarters outside 
Detroit. Members of other organizations became involved, including some 
staff members from the NHTSA. The committee asked some key questions. Who 
was affected by quietly operating vehicles? Under what circumstances were 
these vehicles most likely to pose a hazard? What measurements could 
determine a safe level of sound?

It was evident that we needed to gather information about the population 
affected by quiet cars and the situations in which problems might occur. We 
set out to find pedestrians who had had accidents or close calls involving 
vehicles that operated with very little sound. An SAE task force designed a 
short survey to collect information about the pedestrian and driver involved 
and the circumstances of the incident.

In no way could we claim to be conducting a random survey. Some people 
responded to inquiries on NFB listservs, listservs for guide dog users, and 
other blindness channels. However, word of the NFB's work was starting to 
reach beyond the blind community. Occasionally a sighted pedestrian found 
our quiet cars Website and contacted us to report a disturbing incident. A 
sighted auto salesman described how he was hit and seriously injured by a 
silent all-electric car in the parking lot of a dealership. A sighted woman 
from California reported being hit by a Prius as it silently backed out of a 
driveway. The mother of an eight-year-old boy told us how her son was hit by 
a Prius while riding his bicycle. He was not hurt, but he was thrown onto 
the hood of the car and was badly shaken. "My son didn't stand a chance," 
the mother stated. "You absolutely could not hear that car coming." The 
interviews supported our conviction that not only are quietly operating 
vehicles a hazard for blind people, they pose a safety threat to all 
pedestrians and cyclists.

The involvement of the SAE helped to awaken the automotive industry to our 
concerns at last. Engineers and others from General Motors visited the 
National Center for the Blind in Baltimore for a day of discussion. Several 
Federationists even took the visitors from GM on a walk under sleepshades to 
help them understand more fully how blind people use sound to navigate 
safely. The NFB also made important contact with the American Alliance of 
Automotive Manufacturers (AAM), an organization to which most of the major 
auto companies belong. The tone of our meetings with the manufacturers was 
nearly always friendly, and all parties seemed eager to learn from one 
another. Instead of the adversarial exchange that might have developed, we 
found ourselves engaged in animated discussion, trying our best to work 
together. Our work also revealed that, despite initial protestations to the 
contrary, people in the know in the auto industry had some inkling of the 
problem caused by cars that made next-to-no noise. Some engineers admitted 
that in the development and testing of hybrid-electric cars, there were near 
misses as cars were moved from bay to bay. Auto workers themselves depended 
on sound for their safety, and soon everyone acknowledged that what we were 
discussing was the question, what should we do rather than the question, is 
it really necessary that we do anything? [PHOTO CAPTION: a Toyota Prius 
parked at a 2007 protest in Maryland]

Meanwhile, at the affiliate level Federationists went into action. They 
introduced bills about quiet cars in Maryland, Virginia, New York, Hawaii, 
and several other states. Some bills called for the addition of a warning 
sound to quietly operating vehicles; some prohibited state agencies from 
purchasing hybrid or other silently operating vehicles. Although no state 
passed a law requiring regulations, the proliferation of state bills was 
visible proof of our strength and determination.

The possibility of separate regulations in individual states filled the 
manufacturers with dismay. Automobiles and other vehicles are sold in every 
state of the Union and in each of the world's nations. If a variety of 
regulations was established from state to state or country to country, 
manufacturers would face a daunting set of problems. A car loud enough to 
operate legally in New York might be too quiet for the roads of California. 
An add-on sound approved by the legislature in Oregon might be voted down in 
West Virginia. Ideally any safety regulations regarding quiet cars should be 
national or even international in scope. Once the need for sound had been 
acknowledged, the fear from the industry was that someone would come up with 
a harebrained noise that would sour the public on vehicles making any sound 
at all, and the manufacturers would then be confronted with a public dead 
set against vehicles making any kind of usable sound.

Early in 2008 Carl Jacobsen, president of the NFB of New York, contacted his 
former orientation and mobility instructor, Edolphus (Ed) Towns, who had 
left the O&M field for a career in politics and now represented Carl's New 
York district in the U.S. Congress. When Carl talked to Mr. Towns about 
quiet cars, the former travel instructor immediately understood our concern. 
He agreed to sponsor a bill about quiet vehicles in the House of 
Representatives.

Ed Towns is a Democrat, and we knew that a bipartisan bill would have the 
best chance of passage. We approached Florida Representative Cliff Stearns, 
a Republican, and asked him to be the bill's cosponsor. Stearns was hesitant 
at first and said he needed time to consider. Then one day he and his wife 
were nearly struck by a silently operating hybrid car in the parking lot of 
a supermarket. Stearns got the message. He cosponsored H.R. 5734, the 
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act. The bill was introduced on April 9, 2008, 
during the second session of the 110th Congress.

Like the version of the bill that became law in 2011, H.R. 5734 called upon 
NHTSA to conduct a study that would determine a solution to the safety issue 
posed by quiet hybrid and electric vehicles. The automotive industry then 
had a stipulated period to implement the solution. In the original bill each 
phase would last two years; these periods were extended to three years in 
the version that finally passed.

Across the country Federationists rallied around the campaign to win 
sponsors for our bill in Congress. Meanwhile, awareness of the hazards posed 
by quiet cars was spreading to the international community. On February 20, 
2008, NFB President Marc Maurer delivered a speech called "The Dangers Posed 
by Silent Vehicles" to the Working Party on Noise (GRB) in Geneva, 
Switzerland. GRB reports to the World Forum on Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP-29), which is part of the United Nations Economic Commission 
for Europe. Dr. Maurer explained how blind people use traffic sounds to help 
them travel independently. After explaining how soundless vehicles pose a 
hazard to blind and sighted pedestrians, he concluded, "The promise of new 
automobile technology is a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment. It 
will be a sad irony if, through mere oversight, new cars become instruments 
that destroy life instead of protecting it. If these cars are not made safe 
for pedestrians, then their promise of a better life for us all will simply 
be a lie. But if you act now to ensure that vehicles continue to give 
adequate warning to all pedestrians, both blind and sighted, the objections 
of the blind to this new technology will have been met, and the world will 
be safer and better for all of us. Please join the National Federation of 
the Blind in ensuring that the streets of the world are places where those 
who drive and those who do not can move with safety and freedom."

On June 23, 2008, NHTSA hosted a day-long conference on the quiet car 
question. The conference brought together a variety of stakeholders, 
including spokespersons from NFB, ACB, NHTSA, the Access Board, and 
environmental organizations concerned with noise reduction. Researchers in 
the fields of orientation and mobility, acoustical engineering, and 
perceptual psychology presented their findings. There was uniform agreement 
that cars have become much quieter since the 1970's due to concerns about 
noise pollution. Anti-noise advocates argued that adding sound to quietly 
operating cars would reverse this positive trend. They contended that 
pedestrians would hear silent vehicles more easily if background noise were 
kept to a minimum. Participants viewed a video made by Dr. Lawrence 
Rosenblum of the University of California at Riverside. The video was based 
on a study of the response of subjects to the sounds of hybrid vs. standard 
combustion vehicles. In a laboratory subjects listened to approaching 
vehicles through highly sophisticated headsets. Dr. Rosenblum found that 
people were much slower to recognize the approach of a hybrid in battery 
mode than the approach of a vehicle using a combustion engine. The 
difference was as much as 75 percent. In some instances subjects did not 
recognize the simulated hybrid vehicle until half a second after it had 
passed.

Following the conference, NHTSA made a serious commitment to gather data 
about the safety hazards of hybrid and electric vehicles. NHTSA 
statisticians analyzed data on vehicular accidents involving pedestrians. 
Only twelve states reported whether a vehicle involved in an accident was a 
hybrid; California and New York, two of the states where hybrids are most 
popular, were not among them. Reported in 2009, NHTSA's findings showed 
that, when vehicles are moving at slow speeds, pedestrians are twice as 
likely to be involved in accidents with hybrids as they are with standard 
combustion vehicles. The figures were undeniable. They strongly supported 
our premise that silently operating vehicles are a threat not only to blind 
people but to all pedestrians.

Despite the positive press coverage, partnerships for automakers and their 
associations, and a recognition by the United States government that 
pedestrians were facing a real problem, there was a disturbing buzz on the 
Internet to the effect that all of this fuss about cars too quiet to hear 
was just one more symptom of an America with an out-of-touch press and a 
misdirected government which paid far too much attention to the whiners, 
gripers, and habitual complainers. How many blind people were there? Why in 
the world would they be on the streets anyway? Depending on one's point of 
view, some of the posts candidly or caustically asked, how much is the life 
of a blind person worth compared with the cost of fixing what really isn't 
broken? Some of us who worked hard to make quiet cars emit usable sound did 
a double take. We had always assumed that on our side we had the goodwill of 
the American people who would do anything they reasonably could to let us 
take our place in the world. Now some were suggesting that our lives could 
be measured in dollars and that by their measurement blind people were worth 
less than a modification to keep the roads safe for pedestrians, especially 
ones who were blind.

By the end of 2008 H.R. 5734 had accrued eighty-eight cosponsors in 
Congress. It did not have enough supporters to be given a Congressional 
hearing or to be put to a vote. On January 28, 2009, soon after the 111th 
Congress was sworn in, the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act was introduced 
for a second time, again sponsored by Ed Towns and Cliff Stearns. The new 
bill was H.R. 734. By sheer coincidence the number of the new bill was very 
similar to the number of the earlier one. We hoped that the coincidence was 
a good omen.

Federationists worked with tireless determination for the passage of H.R. 
734. They made phone calls, wrote letters, and paid face-to-face visits to 
their legislators, often sharing their personal experiences with soundless 
vehicles. Meanwhile, members of NFB's Governmental Affairs staff were busy 
on Capitol Hill. They were on site to meet with members of Congress and 
their staffers, building connections and helping the bill move forward. We 
were also strengthening our relationship with the Alliance of Automotive 
Manufacturers (AAM).

As the number of House sponsors climbed, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and 
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a similar piece of legislation into 
the Senate as S. 841. A member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation, as well as a former presidential candidate, Kerry was a 
powerful sponsor. Senate support mounted slowly, however, while the House 
bill continued to make dramatic progress. By the close of the first session 
of the 111th Congress, 171 members of the House had signed onto H.R. 734.

In an attempt to widen support for the bill, the NFB entered intense 
negotiations with the ACB, AAM, and the Alliance of International Automotive 
Manufacturers, or AIAM (now Global Automakers). On May 18 all four 
organizations agreed upon a revised version of the bill. With the support of 
the automotive manufacturers and both blindness consumer organizations, the 
bill had real impetus to move forward.

In the meantime a fast track bill concerned with auto safety was galloping 
through Congress. Inspired by allegations of accidents caused by jammed 
accelerators in vehicles made by Toyota, the Motor Vehicle Safety Bill of 
2010 (H.R. 5381) encompassed a number of new safety regulations. It seemed 
almost certain to pass. If the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act were added 
as an amendment, then it, too, would become law. On May 26 the House 
Committee on Energy and Commerce voted to include H.R. 734 in the Motor 
Vehicle Safety Bill. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation voted to amend the revised bill language into S. 3302, the 
Senate's version of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010, on June 9.

The strategy seemed almost foolproof. In July Federationists went to the 
national convention in Dallas with high hopes. Passage of our bill seemed so 
certain that many Federationists turned their attention to other, more 
pressing concerns.

However, it was too soon for elation. Headlines announced the release of a 
new report about Toyota's acceleration problems. The report presented 
unequivocal evidence that 100 percent of the so-called accelerator jams 
resulted from "user error." In addition, the automotive industry strongly 
opposed several of the new measures called for in the bill, although it 
raised no objection to our amendment. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act swerved 
from the fast track to the slow lane and finally stalled altogether. It 
never came to a vote on either the House or the Senate floor. The Pedestrian 
Safety Enhancement Act was bound up with the bill's fate.

As the NFB worked to devise a fresh strategy, the nation elected another new 
Congress. Time was fast running out. Somehow, while the 111th Congress was 
still in session, we had to resuscitate our old House and Senate bills and 
bring them to a vote.

As the 111th Congress counted down its final days, NFB's Governmental 
Affairs team parried and maneuvered on Capitol Hill. With the AAM as a firm 
ally, the NFB worked to revive the old stand-alone bills, H.R. 734 and S. 
841. The House refused to vote on H.R. 734 but promised to vote on the bill 
if it passed in the Senate. On December 9, 2010, the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation sent S. 841 to the Senate floor for a 
vote of unanimous consent. The bill, which included the language agreed upon 
back in May, would pass only if all votes were in its favor. It passed 
unanimously in the Senate and moved on to the House.

The House had promised to bring the Senate bill to a vote, but time was 
frighteningly short. Ours was only one of dozens of bills awaiting their 
fate, and there was no guarantee that it would pass or even be considered. 
On December 15, 2010, Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) brought S. 841 to the House 
floor, and the House opened debate. The debate was brief; no one spoke in 
opposition to the bill. At the conclusion of debate, Congressman Barrow 
requested a roll call vote. However, it was late in the day. Further 
proceedings on the motion were postponed, and the motion was considered 
unfinished business.

The NFB team faced a long, sleepless night. Would our bill be brought to a 
vote before Congress adjourned, or would it be pushed aside and forgotten? 
Would we be forced to begin the process all over again with a brand-new 
Congress in 2011? Fortunately, our fears proved groundless. On December 16, 
2010, the House voted on S. 841. The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act 
passed with 379 votes in favor and 30 opposed. Now all it needed was the 
president's signature to turn it into law.

That President Obama would veto the bill was highly unlikely. Nevertheless, 
my mind flew to worst-case scenarios. I imagined the bill lost and 
undelivered in a pile of folders. I pictured it buried beneath the mountain 
of mail waiting for attention in the president's outer office. Suppose the 
time ran out, I asked myself. Suppose... suppose....

When the news came at last on the night of January 4, my first feeling was a 
rush of relief. The reality came to me slowly. Even now I experience moments 
of amazement and disbelief. I remember that morning more than seven years 
ago when I had listened for a car that glided past me in silence. The idea 
that dawned in that moment on my front sidewalk has become a piece of 
history.

As blind people we contend with a host of barriers and concerns. There are 
inaccessible Websites and kiosks, and there are standardized tests with a 
visual bias. Setbacks and inequities are rooted in a long history of 
ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination. Furthermore, along with the rest 
of the world, we face more threats and dangers than we can count, from the 
fraying ozone layer to the constant menace of war. Before the enormousness 
of the world's ills I often feel overwhelmed and helpless. Our success in 
tackling the issue of quiet cars seems a featherweight in the balance.

Yet the passage of the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act stands as proof 
that we as individuals have the ability to make a difference. When we commit 
ourselves to a cause and win the commitment of others, we harness the power 
of collective action. When we stand together, we can change the world.

_______________________________________________
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