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

[michael townsend]

Ken, the only thing that I might point out to you is that most automobiles
don't have hub caps today, but styled wheels and they have spokes, cutouts
or some type of decorative emblems. You're idea is a good one, as long as
the cars do have hub caps or is rolling.  

Mike 
T

 


"It isn't pollution that is hurting the environment,
it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-Dan Quayle

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
 
-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Ken Stewart
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 4:37 PM
To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage of
the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, The Braille Monitor, June 2011

Great article, Debbie!  As you know, I am now concerned that this
legislation will have an unintended negative side effect-  manufacturers may
sit on their hands waiting until the government tells them just what is
required.  (which could be as late as 2017, as your article points out)
    Therefore everyone, I think our advocacy should include two efforts; 
1.  urging that state and local jurisdictions refrain from purchasing any
AFV's lacking an audible feature, and,  2. pressing all states that do not
yet collect pedestrian accident data that identifies whether the vehicle is
an AFV, to do so.  Also, I am wondering what advice we should have "out
there" for those conscientious drivers who want to be environmentally
responsible and concerned about pedestrian safety, when they go car
shopping.  Does someone on this list have a particular model to recommend? 
Does anyone know of any research yet on what I call, "The Roulette Wheels"
technique?  A small  metal object such as a nut or ball bearing, is placed
loose inside each of the vehicle's four hubcaps.  When the wheels are
rolling slowly the nuts rattle As the speed increases, the sounds become
more like rapid ticking.  And, then they are silent just like the spinning
roulette wheel at higher speeds.

--- On Mon, 6/6/11, Deborah Kent Stein <dkent5817 at att.net> wrote:


From: Deborah Kent Stein <dkent5817 at att.net>
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage of
the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, The Braille Monitor, June 2011
To: "Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety"
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 9:22 PM




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%40world
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/cclvi%40yahoo.com



_______________________________________________
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