[Quietcars] discussion of future car sounds

Tue Oct 11 04:59:13 UTC 2011

I agree with you all the way

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "michael townsend" <mrtownsend at optonline.net>
To: "'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'" 
<quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] discussion of future car sounds

Mary
Ellen, you make some very valid points, but I hear blind people whining
about motorist inattention to driving, while I notice that on dog guide
lists and iPhone lists that people use their phones, iPods and
gps devices while traveling, and this is not just limited to while they are
on buses.

I think, for example, that most dog guide institutes recommend that you be
well acquainted with your dog guide, and this means for a period of at least
six months, prior to the utilization of such devices.  Many people do not
follow that prescription, however, and bring their devices to whatever
school they attend and are reprimanded by instructors most often when they
bring them out.

Cane travel demands even more attention, as one has to navigate around,
under and amongst things and pedestrians.
Conversely, a dog guide "watches" out for these objects, and this is where
some dog guide handlers fall into the trap of thinking that this modality of
travel is, at times, a more secure one.  I think that it is a bit safer, as
the teamwork between master and dog lends itself, as far as I am concerned,
to a more fluid and security modality of travel, and in the case of
navigating amongst the hybrid or more silent vehicles, in the case of most
four cylinder and six cylinder cars which have not been equipped with tuned
exhausts.
Dog guide schools train their students to work in and amongst hybrid
traffic, as
Seeing
Eye and possibly
Gdb have done so for at least four years now, and have hybrid vehicles as
part of the arsenal, of training tools.

However, this does NOT excuse dog handlers to challenge the strength of
their handling match and teamwork unnecessarily by forcing the issue.

As I have been party to read on this list for some while now, the blind
pedestrian, as a general rule, feels that the government is responsible for
making such decisions as far as keeping "us" in quotes saf3e.  However, I
have heard very little, but for some testing amongst N
Fb opportunities, in training blind pedestrians to work amongst hybrid cars
and to become familiar with hybrids on THEIR OWN, in emphasized capital
letters, or to commit to finding friends and folks whom they know who have
hybrids so that they can become familiar with the vehicles and thus be more
aware of what the pedestrian can and cannot do amongst them and what to
expect from associations with them on the streets and in our daily lives.

I am not bashing, but just stating real facts here, and if this seems a bit
harsh, so be it.  It is not the government's ultimate responsibility to keep
handholding a particular culture or minority from cradle to grave, but it is
an opportunity for the government to step in and make things better,
accessible, dependable and beneficial for the masses, and in such cases as
making hybrids audibl3e, it would benefit more than the blind, which we
sometimes forget on our particular blindness email lists.  \

I am a proponent of dog guide usage, a proponent of proactive interaction
between agencies, consumer groups and manufacturers, and as such, I feel
that a lot of unnecessary whining has taken place by disabled groups about
certain things and the lack of responsibility has to be borne by the
constituents, in large part to interact with things and circumstances that
are out there, and to work towards a common resolution to problems, as most
blind folks have done and this organization, in particular, as well as the
Ac
B have done.

10 years ago we had!
Steve Jobs! Johnny Cash! And Bob Hope!
Now we've got No jobs, no cash and no hope!

Mike Townsend and Seeing Eye dog Brent
Dunellen, New Jersey  08812
emails:  mrtownsend at optonline.net
         michael.townsend54 at gmail.com
H:  732  2005643
C:  732  7189480

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mary Ellen
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:47 PM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
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.

Our goal, as an organization of blind people, was to remove an immediate
threat to our safety.  Also, it is very important to us that we remain in
control of our pedestrian decisions.  Yes, cars built with smart technology
to avoid accidents would be a huge advantage for everyone, including blind
people.  However, the silence of cars is an immediate threat to us.
Frankly, many of the proposed solutions leave our safety in the hands of
drivers, or in the effectiveness of the programming of on board computers.
While I agree wholeheartedly that attentive drivers and sophisticated
software will add to my safety, I'm reluctant on principle to turn my fate
completely over to others.  If the pedestrian, the driver, and the machinery
all play a role, the end result will be optimized.  If the ability of the
pedestrian to take reasonable precautions for his or her own safety is
compromised, the results will be diminished.

Anti lock brakes were supposed to reduce the frequency and severity of
accidents.  Some police report that drivers have reduced the care with which
they make braking or tailgating choices because they're counting on the
brakes to save them.  The net result has been that the hoped for safety
benefits for ABS haven't been as great as everyone hoped.

In my view, the more safety checks and balances, the better.  I know I make
mistakes as a pedestrian;  I'm relieved when a careful motorist saves my
bacon.  I realize motorists can err, too, so I walk defensively just in
case.  Technology, because it isn't distracted, could be more reliable than
either drivers or pedestrians.  However, technology has no intuition and
does precisely what it's programmed to do.  So, for me, it's best to cover
things from all three angles.

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of michael townsend
Sent: October 10, 2011 10:15 AM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] discussion of future car sounds

Michael, if we continue to split hairs on this issue, we'll get nowhere.
What I'm concerned about, as a car nut, is the manufacturers going along
with this across the board.  If you know anything about cars, you know that
manufacturers, especially the high end ones, have their proprietary
software, which you have to pay license fees to enter, as an example, when
you service a Volvo or Porsche, most mechanics can't work on them.
So if you're a high end shop, you pay a fee, something lie

Several hundred dollars or so, to even enter a site which gives you the
specs that you need to tune, diagnose or assess a Volvo's repair data or
update software access.

We can only hope that some agreement will be reach to allow all
manufacturers to be able to equip their cars with suitable noise emitting
equipment so that this can be implemented successfully.

I can understand your concerns about trucks and cars emitting different
sounds; and as an example, when I was a kid, I could tell an Oldsmobile from
a Pontiac; a
Fiat from an MG, but today's cars will fool you unless, they have
aftermarket exhausts, which separate the breed a bit.  \\
Don't need to ruffle feathers here, but these are my thoughts.

10 years ago we had!
Steve Jobs! Johnny Cash! And Bob Hope!
Now we've got No jobs, no cash and no hope!

Mike Townsend and Seeing Eye dog Brent
Dunellen, New Jersey  08812
emails:  mrtownsend at optonline.net
         michael.townsend54 at gmail.com
H:  732  2005643
C:  732  7189480

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Hingson
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:06 AM
To: 'Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety'
Subject: [Quietcars] discussion of future car sounds

David, Robert et al,

Another factor concerning sounds a silent or hybrid car emits must, I think,
indicate at least to some degree what car is coming.  Today, a truck does
not sound like a car, and for the most part, a bus does not sound like a
truck.  Different engines put off different sounds.

For my part, I want to continue to get that information.  One sound does not
fit all.

Best,

Michael Hingson

The Michael Hingson Group, INC.
 "Speaking with Vision"
Michael Hingson, President
(415) 827-4084
info at michaelhingson.com
To order Michael Hingson's new book, Thunder Dog, and check on Michael
Hingson's speaking availability for your next event please visit:
www.michaelhingson.com

Congratulations to Roselle for winning the title of American Hero Dog,
2011. Watch the awards ceremony, November 11 on the Hallmark Channel.

To learn about the KnfbReader Mobile please visit:
http://knfbreader.michaelhingson.com

-----Original Message-----
From: quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:quietcars-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of David Evans
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:22 AM
To: Discussion of new quiet cars and pedestrian safety
Subject: Re: [Quietcars] NHTSA Administrator on Rule

Dear Bob and All,

As an engineer, and a Blind pedestrian.  I need cars, electric or otherwise,

to sound like a car.
In that way, I and others, will be best able to identify and judge whether
the vehicle is stopped, or moving and maybe even how fast it is moving or if

it is turning or even going away from us.
I, an every pedestrian, Blind or sighted, deserves the have the best
protection we can provide to keep us safe as we walk about and cross
streets.
Crossing streets is one of the biggest fears that most Blind people have.
There is, and always will be, an element of luck and chance involved in
crossing any street.  As the Blind depend upon our hearing, to a much higher

degree than do others, it is incumbent upon the government to see to it we
have what we need to remain as safe as we can.  I do not believe that we can

just hope and trust the good intentions of the auto manufacturers to protect

our interest first.
I do not want your electric car to sound like the "good Humor" man selling
his ice cream.
I don't want it to sound like a loud awful piece of machinery either.
I just want it to make enough sound that I can clearly recognize it as a
car, tell if it is approaching, stopped or maybe turning.

I want to be able to hear a car, of any type, electric or not, coming from
at least a distance of 250 feet.
At least then I think that I can make a judgment as to whether it is safe to

cross or not.
I hopefully will not have them surprising me in parking lots and at
driveways either.
I had one lady almost back over me in her Toyoda and did not stop until I
hammered on the roof and back window after dropping my cane and climbing on
the back of her car.  My cane was sticking halfway out in front of her car
when she finally stopped.  Guess where I would have been if I had not had
the quick reaction to climb upon the back of the car and just let my cane
go.  If she had backed up faster than she did, I would have been injured for

sure other than just my nerves.
I think that using sounds that we can already identify and are some what use

to is the best approach and testing, in real life situations should be used
to make sure it works and provides the best warning we can have.
Nothing will ever be 100% safe, but we must do the best we can, for as many
as we can.
Putting a bell on the cat seems to be the best way of dealing with this
situation.
Outside of the U.S.A., only the U.K. and Spain seem to have Blind
populations that are taken seriously when it raises a issue about anything.
The U.K. still has no standards for access nor many Rights at all for the
protection of the Blind or Disabled.
We, here in the U.s. , were to first to raise the issue, which is now being
recognized and talked about in other countries, including Japan.
I for one, will welcome some standards that will be the same, I hope, where
ever I go or travel.

David Evans, NFBF and GD Jack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Wilson" <bwilson4web at hotmail.com>
To: <quietcars at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:22 AM
Subject: [Quietcars] NHTSA Administrator on Rule

Hi,

This article about implementing S.841 showed up in my Google news alert:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/putting-vroom-back-into-electr
ic-cars/

"The government today made it official - those quiet electric and
hybrid cars should sound more like - well - more like their
conventional gas-powered cousins.
. . .
Researchers concluded the best solution was to ensure that electric and
hybrid vehicles emit the same sound as vehicles with an internal
combustion engine. They determined the sound should change as the car
speeds up and slows down - to give pedestrians and other motorists even
better audio clues about how the vehicle is moving. How to get that
manufactured sound? Researchers suggested actual recordings of
conventional cars, or a digitally reproduced alternative. As for how
loud those added sounds should be? The suggested decibel level has yet
to be determined.
. . ."

This means hybrid electrics and electric cars will be just as deadly as
today's vehicles, no more nor less. As for implementation, the article goes
on to state:

". . .
By law, the government must start its final rule-making by next summer,
with a final rule in place by January 2014. Makers of electric and
hybrid vehicles will have three years to phase in the noise
requirements. By September of 2017, all new hybrid and electric cars
will have to turn up the decibels."

The NHTSA final report on the nature of sound is here:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publication
s/2011/811496.pdf

Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind Pedestrians, Phase 2: Development of
Potential Specifications for Vehicle Countermeasure Sounds" - DOT HS 811
496

Instead of making hybrids and electric cars safer than today's cars, they
will simply be just as deadly and that is a shame. For example, this weekend

I was driving home from an out of town trip and there was an accident on the

opposite side of the Interstate but I have learned this is the time I must
be on maximum alert for the traffic in my lanes because curious drivers slow

down and stop  of paying 100% attention to their local traffic, they lack
the self-discipline to keep driving.

Accident avoidance systems don't look at other accidents but stare with
never blinking, never distracted, cold, calculating cameras and radars at
the surrounding traffic and pedestrians. They react at computer, not human
speeds this converts fender-benders into misses and fatal and injury
accidents into a bad bump.

I was concerned that David McCurdy and the Automotive Alliance might get
hybrids and electric cars to sound like 'ice cream' trucks or some clown
tune. An organization that gets 98-99% of their funding from gas-only
powered cars would love to get more hybrid sales by making them sound silly
to prospective buyers. But synthetic engine noise is the least objectionable

approach and as I've pointed out in the past, makes them just as deadly as
today's gas powered cars.

Bob Wilson

_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/drevans%40bellsouth.n
et

_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/mhingson%40sbcglobal.
net

_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/mrtownsend%40optonlin
e.net

_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/gabias%40telus.net

_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Quietcars:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/mrtownsend%40optonlin
e.net

_______________________________________________
Quietcars mailing list
Quietcars at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
Quietcars:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/dewey.bradley%40kc.rr.com 