[Quietcars] Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage ofthe Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act, The Braille Monitor, June 2011
Deborah Kent Stein
dkent5817 at att.net
Sun Jun 12 00:22:53 UTC 2011
Dear Ken,
I don't think we need to worry about the manufacturers deferring until the
regs are handed down. I was concerned about this myself, but it doesn't
seem to be happening. Most of the major manufacturers are currently working
on add-on sounds, even before it is required. Also, the Department of
Transportation is taking the law very seriously and has a whole cadre of
staffers doing research and working on the regulations that need to be
decided by 2014. Things are moving forward, which is very encouraging.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stewart" <cclvi at yahoo.com>
To: "Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety"
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Belling the Cat: The Long Road to the Passage ofthe
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%40worldnet.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/dkent5817%40worldnet.att.net
More information about the QuietCars
mailing list