[Quietcars] discussion of future car sounds

[Robert Wilson]

Hi Mary Ellen,

I'm sorry that my unchanged opinion about this legislation obscured the important news, the NHTSA has released a major report:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2011/811496.pdf

I have not read the report in detail, yet. What is welcome is the emphasis that the sound should be like a car engine and quantify the frequencies and sound levels. This is a serious report using careful study and metrics. I would recommend folks download it and read it. Technical, it is an example of good engineering testing.

Now one of my fears has been that Dave McCurdy's Automotive Association wanted hybrids and EV cars to sound like clown cars. Embedded in this report is that risk:

"Some of the prototype sounds that were tested in this research were synthesized to resemble ICE sounds, while others were not. . . . " - the clown car sounds.

". . . Some sounds, were comprised of entirely synthetic, non-ICE sounds generated by a digital-signal-processor . . . These sounds lack the low-frequency, fundamental combustion noise of an ICE, which allows them to be placed through small, well-sealed speakers similar to those used in back-up warning devices." - yes, cheap, clown car sounds.

Happily, this report has identified blind pedestrians as the primary users and I have no problem with that aspect of the law. I agree that S.841 is a 'public access' issue. As such, blind pedestrians need to read and understand the report and ask yourself if you want hybrids and electric cars to sound like engine equipped cars or some "entirely synthetic, non-ICE sounds" . . . a clown car.

Bob Wilson

> From: gabias at telus.net
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:46:35 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] discussion of future car sounds
> 
> I agree that the quiet car legislation has not implemented the kinds of
> collision avoidance technology that would make driving, and being a
> pedestrian, safer for everyone.  However, I don't see the two objectives as
> competing with one another.  Bob, you seem to be concerned that Congress and
> the automobile manufacturers will feel making cars audible has relieved them
> of the obligation of creating really good collision avoidance programming.
> I believe there is enough advantage in such technology for drivers  -- not
> to mention the insurance industry -- that it will come about.
. . .