I mean really when you hear a car coming at least around here you aren't hearing the engine. Infact you are usually hearing tire noise and the sound of it cutting through the air. You don't hear the engine until it is either just going by or already by you. At least that's the case with most modern cars anyway.
And as for speeds that are lower? really you still aren't going to really hear the car coming. Infact if it's at speeds lower than 20 mph you are frankly an idiot if you somehow get hit by a car.
I'm sorry, but it's true. You sir are an idiot. And you deserve to be hit by the car. Blind people have seeing eye dogs, or someone else with them to safely navigate parking lots already so that's not an excuse either the same also applies to intersections and etc.
This is just an instance of people that don't know jack about what they are talking about opening their traps trying to fear monger.
Ten points for the elderly lady on the sidewalk...
I understand what you mean though. Some of you fleshbags just aren't very attentive to your surroundings. Those humans need more sensors or focus more on the ones they already have...
Then again... don't do that. It'll make our job that much easier.
It should also be considered that the car should be clearly audible within city - there are a lot of car tires making whooshing noises and it's hard to distinguish which ones are close and which aren't (humans are not bats, we have no special sense for this). Put people walking by and talking, subway, nearby train (or a distant one - trains are really noisy), street renovations etc.
You get a ninja car.
I know Monty Python did an animation about this, but it was made in the 60s or 70s, when cars were noisy and there were less of them.
A quick addition: I come from the region with the highest drunk drivers rate in country. I fear traffic.
I agree with the general consensus. Said accused is not necessarily an idiot, but there sure are a lot of idiots out there who would qualify for the Title.
rant
Smart people do 'dumb' things all the time. We get lost in thought and lose track of our surroundings, we get upset and don't notice things, you get the idea. All an accident requires is a pedestrian and a driver who happen to glance in opposite directions at the same time. **** happens, and not just to Forest Gump.
Not necessarily an idiot. You may just be too careless [an idiot]. Or too absorbed with your tunes or thoughts [while in area with vehicle traffic - idiot]. Or have worse than average eyesight, hearing and reflexes at the same time - you know, like those stupid elderly [and aren't taking steps to compensate - idiot].
However, I would like to point out that the article mentions that it would be beneficial to the blind. Surely, they aren't idiots for depending on hearing a car approaching.
I mean, I don't see it as such a big deal, but I'm all for aiding the disabled to not get hit by cars when out independently living their lives.
*shrug*
Either way, the modification doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Of course, once there is that modification, and electric cars/hybrids become more popular, there will be after-market modifications to make them super-loud, like mufflers today. Joy!
Though there is an episode of Weeds where a drug-dealer got hybrids for all of his gang so that nobody would hear them coming up to do a drive-by shooting ...
PS - Also, you're an idiot if you hit someone in a parking lot going 20 mph. There's plenty of time to stop. If people want to get down on pedestrians not paying attention, you should also get down on the drivers.
Accidents happen - that's why they're called accidents. Everyone is dumb at some point in time.
However, I would like to point out that the article mentions that it would be beneficial to the blind. Surely, they aren't idiots for depending on hearing a car approaching.
I mean, I don't see it as such a big deal, but I'm all for aiding the disabled to not get hit by cars when out independently living their lives.
*shrug*
Either way, the modification doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
Of course, once there is that modification, and electric cars/hybrids become more popular, there will be after-market modifications to make them super-loud, like mufflers today. Joy!
Though there is an episode of Weeds where a drug-dealer got hybrids for all of his gang so that nobody would hear them coming up to do a drive-by shooting ...
PS - Also, you're an idiot if you hit someone in a parking lot going 20 mph. There's plenty of time to stop. If people want to get down on pedestrians not paying attention, you should also get down on the drivers.
I'm sorry but when is the last time you've seen a Blind Person in a parking lot that didn't either 1 have someone with them, or 2 a seeing Eye Dog. It's not really beneficial to the blind no more than it is for the driver simply not wishing to splatter someone on his windshield.
It is kind of a big deal, because these are the same people that muted and choked down our car's fuel economy so that they would be Quieter in the first place. Yeah your car's intake? It isn't designed for power, economy or emissions. It's designed around canceling out sound.
Do you know how much fuel mileage is lost on the average car because of that? 10-15 percent.
on a 30mpg car that's 3 mpgs right there.
Aftermarket mufflers are designed to improve flow. Which increases fuel economy and power. That's another place where 10-15 percent of economy is lost is the Exhaust system on cars. The super quiet exhausts also hurt emissions by the way.
The modification adds weight, and a failure point to the vehicle. And yet -another- thing for them to check at State Inspections.
Oh the driver is a ****ing moron too.
I'm sorry but when is the last time you've seen a Blind Person in a parking lot that didn't either 1 have someone with them, or 2 a seeing Eye Dog. It's not really beneficial to the blind no more than it is for the driver simply not wishing to splatter someone on his windshield.
Actually, all the time. Lots of blind people take the bus or walk to a store on their own - and that involves crossing in parking lots. Not to mention that there are people who aren't 100% blind who use hearing more - like those who don't qualify for or can't afford a seeing eye dog - they wouldn't look blind to an outside observer, but they are. It is actually very important to them to be able to hear things, and if this is a weakness in current car models, it should be addressed.
It is kind of a big deal, because these are the same people that muted and choked down our car's fuel economy so that they would be Quieter in the first place. Yeah your car's intake? It isn't designed for power, economy or emissions. It's designed around canceling out sound.
Do you know how much fuel mileage is lost on the average car because of that? 10-15 percent.
on a 30mpg car that's 3 mpgs right there.
*shrug* Whatever. There's a difference between "quieter" and "silent". I'm just dandy with making cars quieter, but when there's a concern about people getting hurt because of it, I'd rather turn the dial up. It's a balance between comfort for your ears and comfort for your wallet - I know having a "quiet car" is something that is a selling point.
Aftermarket mufflers are designed to improve flow. Which increases fuel economy and power. That's another place where 10-15 percent of economy is lost is the Exhaust system on cars. The super quiet exhausts also hurt emissions by the way.
I'm not talking about efficient mufflers, I'm talking about the stupid muffers that people put on their cars to be obnoxious, as status symbols.
I know it's supposedly to improve airflow, but it's freaking annoying. Like I said, there's a balance - and those mufflers aren't it.
The modification adds weight, and a failure point to the vehicle. And yet -another- thing for them to check at State Inspections.
Any modification does that. However, I think it's fine and could be worth it. Obviously, they have to do more research into it, but the car companies are not just going to jump up and say "OH! Let's do something voluntarily that's going to cost us money, just to make things safer for people!!"
I won't speak to how much weight it would add, as they haven't designed it yet. It doesn't seem like it would be a big deal.
Agreed on the failure point, but anything can fail on a vehicle like that (should we not have turn signals, because they burn out?), so that doesn't really concern me.
And yeah, another thing for them to look for at State Inspections - good! If it's for people's safety, and it's deemed worth it, then it should be inspected for.
Oh the driver is a ****ing moron too.
Nice of you to add that.
I'm just saying that it may be worth it. It's at least worth looking into.
I'm sorry, but you're a moron if you hit someone with your car in a parking lot.
This. Totally this. Any driver worth their lisence knows you have to be extra careful around pedestrians. Being in a parking lot means more than just looking for an open space. Whoever can't wrap their head around that should trade their lisence for a bus pass/metro card.
I drive a 2006 Toyota Prius, and I assure you if I'm driving behind you, you are walking, and I don't want you to hear me, you won't hear me.
That may be true, but you don't run them over because they can't hear you. And if you do, the line for trading in your lisence is on the left.
That may be true, but you don't run them over because they can't hear you. And if you do, the line for trading in your lisence is on the left.
(It's a trap, RUN!)
While there is no good reason why we shouldn't all be driving hybrids, and I would fully support enforced hybrid production, I suggest you chill out.
Smart people do 'dumb' things all the time. We get lost in thought and lose track of our surroundings, we get upset and don't notice things, you get the idea. All an accident requires is a pedestrian and a driver who happen to glance in opposite directions at the same time. **** happens, and not just to Forest Gump.
I do not support Hybrids like the Prius, it's a dead end technology that doesn't actually provide the solution people think it does.
That being said, I do support Electric cars with gas or other fuel engine backups. (because THAT is an avenue that can actually help the environment if we'd just stop it with the fossil fuel coal and gas power plants)
When's the last time you lost track of your surroundings so bad while driving a car that you hit someone going 20mph or less in a parking lot filled with pedestrians. Probably not very recently, or even more likely never.
The only "close calls" I've had in a parking lot was when I was walking to my car, and someone came barelling down the parking lot at 35. and that was only "close" in that it's not exactly easy to lose sight of the fact that you are in a parking lot.
When in a parking lot it is on you the driver to make sure you don't splatter the nice pedestrians. (unless of course they are trying to Car Jack you.. then hit em and make sure they get under a tire by all means) your job isn't to just look for an open parking space. I think better enforcement of Pedstrian related accidents will solve this problem more than Making Prius's Louder. You hit someone in a parking lot?
Instant lisense revoking. Snipped on the spot.
That being said, I do support Electric cars with gas or other fuel engine backups. (because THAT is an avenue that can actually help the environment if we'd just stop it with the fossil fuel coal and gas power plants).
Hybrids aren't the end solution but they aren't bad, they allow the auto industry (and our national fuel distribution system) to adjust to next gen auto tech: electric, hydrogen, etc. Hybrids are like audio cassettes, they're just a stepping-stone between records and CDs; but they prepare you for the change.
If we really want to help the planet though, not only do we need clean autos and clean energy power plants for our cities; but we also need environmental reclaimators to remove the filth from the air and water.
Hybrids aren't the end solution but they aren't bad, they allow the auto industry (and our national fuel distribution system) to adjust to next gen auto tech: electric, hydrogen, etc. Hybrids are like audio cassettes, they're just a stepping-stone between records and CDs; but they prepare you for the change.
If we really want to help the planet though, not only do we need clean autos and clean energy power plants for our cities; but we also need environmental reclaimators to remove the filth from the air and water.
It's an off topic tangent, but I seem to recall hearing that if we totally croaked all of us right now. (and our nuc plants didn't melt down) that most of our pollution would be repaired in 150 years or so. (at least oceanic, and atmospheric)
It's an off topic tangent, but I seem to recall hearing that if we totally croaked all of us right now. (and our nuc plants didn't melt down) that most of our pollution would be repaired in 150 years or so. (at least oceanic, and atmospheric)
See, when people say we're destroying the Earth, they're wrong.
The Earth will be fine after we kill ourselves. If anything, this seems to be a defense mechanism of the Earth.
See, when people say we're destroying the Earth, they're wrong.
The Earth will be fine after we kill ourselves. If anything, this seems to be a defense mechanism of the Earth.
We just have to remember to put a few astronauts in outer space and half-bury the Statue of Liberty beforehand.
In other news, the appropriate response to "huh, we're seeing an increase in accidents, and we think this might be the cause" is never "well don't have accidents".
-------
1Please note that an increase in interest doesn't correlate (at all) to an increase of financial ability.
I hope they go with a sci-fi noise. Having it sound distinct would be kinda sweet. Heck, I might be more interested in buying a new car1 if I could get one that sounds like it drove off the set of a futuristic action flick.
In other news, the appropriate response to "huh, we're seeing an increase in accidents, and we think this might be the cause" is never "well don't have accidents".
-------
1Please note that an increase in interest doesn't correlate (at all) to an increase of financial ability.
Yes and how many other factors are there involved. Did those Hybrid Drivers talk more on cellphones than average than the average driver during the accidents, did they have other in car distractions going on in higher proportion (such as kids in the back seat being kids).
Car noise? I really really really doubt a "lack of noise" is even close to the culprit. I think Lack of Situational Awareness is more likely the culprit on the part of the driver.
As cellphones become even more glued to American's ears we are seeing an increase in accidents. Studies have been done time and time again that puts them On Par with being Plastered, in terms of how badly they can impair the driver. And that's not texting, (which is even worse) that's just talking on a cell.
Why do you assume that just because the article is talking about noise and hybrid cars, that they never considered other contributing factors?
Is this news story involving cars?
I rest my case :-p
Media, and government both have this nasty habit of spouting off about things they have no business talking about when it comes to cars in particular, or selectively reading into things.
Sure it happens with everything else but few of those other things can Trainwreck what is left of our industrial production like misinformation about cars does.
Right... so you're letting the chip on your shoulder run the show then?
I want to know what leap of faith made them determine lack of vehicle noise was the prime factor.
I also want to know the sample size of this study. (assuming one was really done)
I really want to know if anything else was even considered a factor.
Good questions, but you've been yelling as though the answers are assumed.
I'm pretty sure they were. Generally it helps to mention the process that you go through when producting "results" from a study like this. It's an example of statistics that mean nothing or being used in a way to paint something up in a light the author finds desirable.
I'm pretty sure they were.
Apparently, though I imagine you missed my point.
I'm generally too paranoid while in a parking lot to hit a pedestrian or be hit by a car. Yes, accidents do happen, but the answer is people paying attention. What's next? Am I going to have to throw my 4-ways on and honk the horn every 5 feet when in a parking lot? Should I deploy scented canisters, in case there are people who are both blind and deaf in the parking lot?
Let me get this straight. You're not being asked to do anything, anything at all. You're not being told anything is your fault. You're not being forced to drive differently. You're not being forced to drive a different auto. You're not being asked to pay higher taxes. You're not being forced to give up a single horsepower. You're not being asked to give up any civil liberties. You are, in fact, not being asked to do anything at all. Not a damn thing.
So, despite not being asked to give up anything, you insist that too much is being asked of you? Those little noise boxes will have no affect on you or your life at all, but may very well save the lives and spines of others. But that's too much to ask?
What kind of human being, exactly, when told, "We'd like to make a regulatory change that will not affect you in any way, not any way at all, and may very well save a few lives among the most vulnerable of societies members," what kind of human being says, "No. Screw those people."
What kind of moral compass is it that guides you to a place where you have so little compassion for the blind of all things? If yours does, maybe you should consider getting a new one.
@Escher: The little sound boxes will be programmable, so you can have any kind of sound you want, Star Trek shuttle, generic sci-fi, anything.
Just don't run down my dad, who will be walking through the parking lot 'cause he can't drive due to his eyes, okay? I've heard these hybrid cars going at low speeds... very easy for that noise to blend into the background. Putting a little noisemaker isn't a big deal really. Is it?
It's not a big deal, but it is indicative of modern culture. That people need a law to force them to have a noisemaker put on their car when they could just drive responsibly instead speaks volumes. I'm not against them putting noisemakers on the car, as long as those of us who drive responsibly can just turn them off.
Those people should have their licences or tabs revoked temporarily. It's the driver that's the moron, since they may be talking to their buddies on their cellphones, or applying makeup, or looking for directions. They should be paying attention to what's ahead of them. Now, if the pedestrian was distracted, then it would be their fault.My main point in this topic is whoever was distracted from their safety should be blamed for the accident in the first place.
It's not a big deal, but it is indicative of modern culture. That people need a law to force them to have a noisemaker put on their car when they could just drive responsibly instead speaks volumes. I'm not against them putting noisemakers on the car, as long as those of us who drive responsibly can just turn them off.
What you don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between laws that protect individuals from themselves, and laws that protect individuals from others. If you want to decry laws that protect you from your own stupidity, well, that's one thing. But to protest a regulation that protects others from your stupity, without impacting your freedom in any way whatsoever, is a different thing entirely.
You want to complain about seatbelt/helmet laws? Sure, there's a valid (if weak) point to be made. You want to complain about stop signs because you're a responsible driver who doesn't need them? That's beyond ridiculous.
It's not a big deal, but it is indicative of modern culture. That people need a law to force them to have a noisemaker put on their car when they could just drive responsibly instead speaks volumes. I'm not against them putting noisemakers on the car, as long as those of us who drive responsibly can just turn them off.
What you don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between laws that protect individuals from themselves, and laws that protect individuals from others. If you want to decry laws that protect you from your own stupidity, well, that's one thing. But to protest a regulation that protects others from your stupity, without impacting your freedom in any way whatsoever, is a different thing entirely.
You want to complain about seatbelt/helmet laws? Sure, there's a valid (if weak) point to be made. You want to complain about stop signs because you're a responsible driver who doesn't need them? That's beyond ridiculous.
Let me assure you, I do understand the concept of laws meant to protect people from themselves. I can even cite other precedents of it myself. Prohibition, dry laws, censorship, bans on sex toys, bans on gay marriage, etc, are all examples of the government saying that it knows what's best for our bodies, our intellectual well-being, and our immortal souls.
As for your contention that the law wouldn't affect my freedoms... I agree, if I have the right to turn off the noisemaker on my car. If I don't have that right, then my freedom to responsibly drive a quiet vehicle is being infringed upon. It doesn't matter that I can choose the sound, because I can't choose the one sound that I actually want a car to make... none at all.
It's like being told you have to eat icecream every day (have the noisemaker on your car), but that you can't have your favorite flavor (the silence you desire) because some people don't show restraint when eating it (are irresponsible drivers). As long as I have the option of getting the flavor I want (silence), I don't care if I have to eat ice cream every day (have the noisemaker on my car).
Also, even if we have the law requiring the noisemaker, some people will likely choose the quietest sound they can to get as close as possible to the silence they desire (I know I would). If I choose a sound that's 1/100 of a decibel, I still have sound coming from the noisemaker; but it's likely so quiet blind people can't hear it. And what about deaf people? Are we then required to have flashing lights on the car? And if we do, what about my people... epileptics? Once you invite the government into your life to decide what's best for you, where does it stop?
Let me assure you, I do understand the concept of laws meant to protect people from themselves. I can even cite other precedents of it myself. Prohibition, dry laws, censorship, bans on sex toys, bans on gay marriage, etc, are all examples of the government saying that it knows what's best for our bodies, our intellectual well-being, and our immortal souls.
Yes, those are all example of oppresive government overreaching, mostly in pursuit of Biblical prohibitions. So what? Are you seriously going to compare a safety device on your automobile to relegating gays to second class citizen status? Really? I bet there is a poster or two who might be able to educate you on the difference.
As for your contention that the law wouldn't affect my freedoms... I agree, if I have the right to turn off the noisemaker on my car. If I don't have that right, then my freedom to responsibly drive a quiet vehicle is being infringed upon. It doesn't matter that I can choose the sound, because I can't choose the one sound that I actually want a car to make... none at all.
And it is a long standing legal foundation of the US that your freedom to act as you see fit ends at the tip of my nose. My right to take what I want stops where your property rights begin. To say that this in an unfair restriction on my rights is just silly. Do you think that you should have the 'freedom' to fire blindly into the air? The 'freedom' to drive drunk? The freedom to open a chemical dump in a suburban neighborhood? The only 'freedom' that is being infringed is the freedom for you to ignore the safety of others.
It's like being told you have to eat icecream every day (have the noisemaker on your car), but that you can't have your favorite flavor (the silence you desire) because some people don't show restraint when eating it (are irresponsible drivers). As long as I have the option of getting the flavor I want (silence), I don't care if I have to eat ice cream every day (have the noisemaker on my car).
Unless you eating ice cream will somehow save someone else's life, I'm really not see the corelation. You are required to have brake lights on your car, despite the fact that a 'responsible' driver should maintain a safe distance anyway. Is this an unwarrented restriction of your 'freedom' to not have brake ligthts? Do the brake lights on your car make you feel oppressed? Do they contribute to the "culture" in America that you object to? Please explain, because I'm not seeing it.
Also, even if we have the law requiring the noisemaker, some people will likely choose the quietest sound they can to get as close as possible to the silence they desire (I know I would). If I choose a sound that's 1/100 of a decibel, I still have sound coming from the noisemaker; but it's likely so quiet blind people can't hear it.
Ah, Rules Lawyers IRL. At least in games they're only annoying. One assumes that a minimum safe volume would be determined. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a point.
And what about deaf people? Are we then required to have flashing lights on the car?
Wow. When someone invents an invisible car that can sneak up on deaf people we can revist the topic. Until then, this is just a straw man argument.
And if we do, what about my people... epileptics?
You do realize that there actually are laws protecting "your people," right? But again, when there are invisible cars that need flashing lights to show us where they are, we'll revisit the issue. Otherwise, just store this one away with the previous one until you need scarecrows for Halloween.
Once you invite the government into your life to decide what's best for you, where does it stop?
Wow, again. You really don't get the difference between laws designed to protect you from your own behaviour and laws designed to protect you from the behavior of others, do you? If these devices were designed to prevent you from running over yourself then that would be one thing. But they're not. They're designed to protect the blind, as well as other pedestrians, from being struck by vehicles driven by other people. They do not "decide what's best for you." The impact on your life is barely noticible. The impact of an unheard car on a blind person isn't.
Seriously MP, are you so devoid of compassion and judgment that you honestly think your right to "drive a quiet vehicle" outweighs the right of the blind not to be killed? Really? 'Cause that's the very definition of the words 'selfish' and 'entitled'.
What kind of human being, exactly, when told, "We'd like to make a regulatory change that will not affect you in any way, not any way at all, and may very well save a few lives among the most vulnerable of societies members," what kind of human being says, "No. Screw those people."
The kind that sits there and says you can't idiot-proof the world.
And, yes, I'm a horrible, horrible man who hates children and small animals, and wishes ill will on every living thing on earth.
The kind of idiot driver who runs people over in a parking lot won't be stopped by having a noisemaker attached to the car. The kind of idiot who doesn't stay aware of their environment when there are motorvehicles in close proximity won't be made more aware because a quiet car isn't as quiet as before.
I believe in doing something, I don't know, useful?
(...) they could just drive responsibly (...)
Ah-HAHAHAHAHA!
*stops laughing, sits down clutching his legs and head bobbing left, right, left, right, left, right...*
I believe in doing something, I don't know, useful?
I'm all ears.
I mean really noise isn't going to be the determining factor between whether or not a driver is going to hit a pedestrian.
How about instant lisense revoking upon hitting a pedestrian, and jail time.
Gee, I'm sure that will be of comfort to me if somebody hit my dad.
I mean really noise isn't going to be the determining factor between whether or not a driver is going to hit a pedestrian.
Noise is my dad's best way of detecting a car these days, especially if it's on the left. Those cars are quiet enough that it would not surprise me if somebody with even better hearing than my father (who's almost 80) didn't always hear them.
I would rather not rely on the driver; I would rather that my father be able to rely on his own senses. Making them louder would help with that. Now... my father is likely to see the car, it's actually things that aren't moving that give him problems. For now. But his vision really is quite dodgey, and pretty much non-existant in his left eye.
So, my point is, for some pedestrians it is the determining factor. Yeah, it'd be nice if drivers weren't idiots. But they are. Why not do something simple that can help in some situations, considering it's really very little effort and no real inconvenience.
The Driver's test should also be more than the following. Put the car into reverse drive somewhere, turn the car around and drive back.
The problem is quite simply this, we've become so complacent with vehicles that we just assume that everyone should be allowed to drive. When infact really there are alot of drivers out there who should have never passed the test in the first place. I"m also a believer that you shouldn't be allowed to ever get a lisense if you fail the test three times.
We've also become overly soft with cars. We assume that you should never have any risk to your own life while behind the wheel so we've loaded cars with excessive amounts of airbags, and weight to make them "safer" while we do absolutely nothing about the So Piss Poor At Driving it's Criminal person behind the wheel.
I think this is another case of the trying to idiot proof the world. The actual solution (noise-maker) isn't the problem, but its the route. Instead of addressing the root cause (people being too distracted in potentially dangerous situations), lawmakers have decided to try to make technology "more safe" to compensate.
Except in involving someone who's handicapped (even if only partially), the majority of cases appear to be the result of someone (driver or pedistrian) being careless. But instead of putting the blame on that individual, the blame has been put on the technology. It seems to be a very common trend recently. So while things get "safer and safer" people will continue to get more careless since they don't have to pay attention as much.
The law is just a sign of the trend, which is disappointing. Not only does it condition people to be more careless, but it punishes people who are careful. A prime example of that is how playgrounds are removing "dangerous" items like jungle gyms, seesaws, high monkeybars, etc. Those were some of my favorites when I was a kid.
To bring it to an extreme, I read (or glossed over) an article recently which was saying that safety groups wanted hot dogs to be redesigned because their shape is dangerous. Apparently, it would reduce the number of kids choking on them. Again, instead of addressing carelessness, the trend is to make something which is safe (unless hot dogs or sausage or whatever else has that shape has been a killer for thousands of years) and making it safer. And then kids will choke on something else which will have to be redesigned.
It's easy to say "hur hur if you get hit by a car in a parking lot you are teh stoopid!" but life, my friend, is rarely that cut-and-dry.
And we have people saying go for the second option.
Baffling.
I'm just really baffled at this. Possible problem. One solution appears to be effective, simple, proactive and easy. Another is unenforcable, reactive, will require a lot of time and effort to get done, and most likely will be circumvented and does nothing to really solve the problem.
And we have people saying go for the second option.
Baffling.
+1
But it's not like hitting people with your car is already illegal or anything.
I'm just really baffled at this. Possible problem. One solution appears to be effective, simple, proactive and easy. Another is unenforcable, reactive, will require a lot of time and effort to get done, and most likely will be circumvented and does nothing to really solve the problem.
And we have people saying go for the second option.
Baffling.
Because your so-called "proactive" solution won't stop people from being negligent. And the cause of these accidents is negligence. So what you are doing is supporting a non-solution.
I'm just really baffled at this. Possible problem. One solution appears to be effective, simple, proactive and easy. Another is unenforcable, reactive, will require a lot of time and effort to get done, and most likely will be circumvented and does nothing to really solve the problem.
And we have people saying go for the second option.
Baffling.
Because your so-called "proactive" solution won't stop people from being negligent. And the cause of these accidents is negligence. So what you are doing is supporting a non-solution.
No, he's supporting a course of action that's actually likely to help the situation, as opposed to doing... what? Nothing? Committing to vast overhauls of our driving education and licensing system that will never actually happen?
It won't utterly stop people getting hit by cars, and to suggest otherwise is equally baffling. But if the cars are easier to detect (by hearing in this case), that is quite likely to reduce the harm. Why the opposition to reducing the potential harm?
But if the cars are easier to detect (by hearing in this case), that is quite likely to reduce the harm. Why the opposition to reducing the potential harm?
I looked at that article, and nowhere did they say there was any hard data that stated this would work. They said there were studies, but they didn't elaborate on them. Given that people have been hit in parking lots by cars that aren't quasi-silent, do you think this will change anything? Yes, I suppose a new sound will get people's attention and create a small dent... Until people get used to it and start tuning it out the same way they do the sound of any other vehicle.
The solution is to teach people that driving is more about judgement than piloting.
The solution is to teach people that driving is more about judgement than piloting.
I strongly agree.
1. People are fairly predictable. If someone is walking in a parking lot, the likelyhood of them still being walking, in the same general direction a second from now, is quite high.
2. People do not generally want to die. This causes people to avoid suddenly stepping in front of large peices of metal moving at 20 miles per hour. Thus, thoes people in the parking lot who are not walking in front of you are not very likely to begin walking in front of you less than a second before your vehicle would arrive at the spot they would occupy.
Unless they did not know your giant hunk of metal was there.
Obviously, if someone steps off the curb 3ft in front of your car while your going 10mph, you are a moron. Makes good sense.
How a programable sound maker is somehow supposed to help, is beyond me. Blind Guy: Oh, someone is playing with a toy ray gun 6 feet to my left -splat. Really they would all need to make the same sound, a standardized sound that blind people could be taught is a car.
I looked at that article, and nowhere did they say there was any hard data that stated this would work.
It's an article on MSN. They don't supply hard data for anything.
Given that people have been hit in parking lots by cars that aren't quasi-silent, do you think this will change anything?
Since the issue is that hybrids and electric cars are apparently twice as likely to hit pedestrians, and it's established that hybrids and electric cars are harder to detect due to their silence, yeah, it sounds like it would work in bringing electric cars and hybrids back to the status quo for safety. You know, what with directly affecting what seems to be making these cars more dangerous then conventional cars?
The solution is to teach people that driving is more about judgement than piloting.
That "solution" is nothing but. It is unenforcable, impractical, and nothing more then saying "well don't get into accidents".
So again: The proper resposne to "new feature X seems to be linked to more accidents" is not "stop having accidents".
The solution is to teach people that driving is more about judgement than piloting.
I strongly agree.
And what judgment will be taugt that will make it possible to stop when someone steps directly in front of you? There are reasons why doing such is a popular suicide method: it's flashy, and it often works.
Since the issue is that hybrids and electric cars are apparently twice as likely to hit pedestrians
Source? Vehicles don't hit people, drivers do.
The solution is to teach people that driving is more about judgement than piloting.
That "solution" is nothing but. It is unenforcable, impractical, and nothing more then saying "well don't get into accidents".
So again: The proper resposne to "new feature X seems to be linked to more accidents" is not "stop having accidents".
No, it's, "Teach people to not drive like idiots." It's like the "Back to Sleep" promotional campaign from a few years back, aimed at preventing SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). You're saying that they did it the wrong way. Instead of promoting it to the public and making parents aware (things that are "unenforcable, impractical, and no more than saying "well don't..."), the obvious solution would be to fit babies with alarms and tilt sensors.
Source? Vehicles don't hit people, drivers do.
Try "the article linked in the OP" and "I don't care to argue semantics"
No, it's, "Teach people to not drive like idiots."
As opposed to current driving schools, which endeavor to teach people to drive like idiots.
Seriously, we can't get legislation passed to to get repeat DUI offenders off the road, what in the nine hells makes you think we can get something meaningful passed that's aimed at improving people's driving skills?
Source? Vehicles don't hit people, drivers do.
Only true of motercyclists with long arms and projectile people. Most vehicle accidents do not involve flesh on flesh contact between parties.
(Unlike EE, I'm always up for a good semantics argument!)
No, it's, "Teach people to not drive like idiots." It's like the "Back to Sleep" promotional campaign from a few years back, aimed at preventing SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). You're saying that they did it the wrong way. Instead of promoting it to the public and making parents aware (things that are "unenforcable, impractical, and no more than saying "well don't..."), the obvious solution would be to fit babies with alarms and tilt sensors.
Well, if babies where made on assembly lines, that would be a great solution. Look, we fixed it. Shake thoes little bastards all you want. No harm done. It's just that changing the blueprints for people is a bit outside of our current technological prowess (but I assure you, we are working on it). Cars are a diffrent story.
Source? Vehicles don't hit people, drivers do.
Try "the article linked in the OP" and "I don't care to argue semantics"No, it's, "Teach people to not drive like idiots."
As opposed to current driving schools, which endeavor to teach people to drive like idiots.
Seriously, we can't get legislation passed to to get repeat DUI offenders off the road, what in the nine hells makes you think we can get something meaningful passed that's aimed at improving people's driving skills?
I believe the source of our inability to get repeat DUIs off the road is our lack of effective public transportation. If the drunks could still get to work after having their driving priveliges permanently revoked, it would likely pass.
As to what is taught in current driving schools, I cannot say. I graduated from driving school 15 years ago now and have no siblings that I can ask. My only expereince with the outcome of current driving schools is from the last time I was in an accident. I was rear-ended, while stopped at a red light, by a younger driver who'd been driving too fast on a rainy day while playing with his PDA. After he followed me into a nearby gas station parking lot, he literally didn't know what to do. I had to tell him to call the cops (I don't own a cell phone), and I had to lend him a pencil and some paper to write down my info.
Teaching people to be responsible drivers will clear up a lot of messes. In my state, you not only don't have to take a test to get your lisence renewed; but even when you did, the test was 5 multiple choice questions. You also never have to pass a road test with a DMV employee or police officer in the car to evaluate you. When I was in driving school, it was technically possible to totally fail the driving test, ace the written, and still pass with more than a C-. I find it hard to believe that driving schools have gotten better in that time; when the last graduate of one I met didn't know you had to call the cops after an accident.
Source? Vehicles don't hit people, drivers do.
Try "the article linked in the OP" and "I don't care to argue semantics"
You mean the one that you admitted doesn't give statistics or hard numbers? That's awesome, pull another number out of your behind. Or someone else's, I don't care. And it's not semantics. The equipment is fine, the operator is the problem.
Seriously, we can't get legislation passed to to get repeat DUI offenders off the road, what in the nine hells makes you think we can get something meaningful passed that's aimed at improving people's driving skills?
Every time you do something to idiot-proof the world, idiots will just get dumber. Thank you for enabling people to be stupid without consequences. This tactic has done so much to increase people's sense of personal responsibility.
I admit, I'm probably coming off more hostile than I mean to. But the solution you support may (or may not) have an impact, but will quickly cease to work (and may even enable people to be more careless in the long run). I want a long term solution. One that doesn't enable people to treat their vehicles like just another harmless convenience item. A motorvehicle is over a ton equipment, and even at low speed it is capable of delivering fatal injuries.
The equipment is fine, the operator is the problem.
Source? Hardnumbers? Statistics?
Every time you do something to idiot-proof the world, idiots will just get dumber.
See above.
I want a long term solution.
Cure blindness?
You mean the one that you admitted doesn't give statistics or hard numbers? That's awesome, pull another number out of your behind. Or someone else's, I don't care. And it's not semantics. The equipment is fine, the operator is the problem.
There's a difference between "hard numbers" and having a source. The article vaguely cited (I hate the lack of proper citations in most non-scholarly articles) a study that showed the increased liklihood of accidents (2x for electric/hybrid cars in certain situations). That's not a hard number, but it is a source. So, for future reference, if you're going to pretend that "hard numbers" and "source" are equivalent and interchangeable, please be more clear so I don't assume you're using the words as they're commonly understood.
Moving on, no one is trying to "idiot-proof" anything. Making electric and hybrid cars just as noisy as everything else is maintaining the status quo. As the status quo is demonstrably not idiot proof, I fail to see your concern.
Further, the only "long term" solution would be driving licenses which are significantly more difficult to aquire and maintain, which would mean only professionals would drive themselves. In other words, there is no "long term" solution that is attainable.
Further, the only "long term" solution would be driving licenses which are significantly more difficult to aquire and maintain, which would mean only professionals would drive themselves. In other words, there is no "long term" solution that is attainable.
Not only do I disagree with this assessment, it also means that all you really support is stop-gap measure after stop-gap measure. I do not call a series of stop-gaps a solution. Maybe you do.
Not only do I disagree with this assessment, it also means that all you really support is stop-gap measure after stop-gap measure. I do not call a series of stop-gaps a solution. Maybe you do.
I think it's fairly well established that so long as you allow non-professionals to be in control of a vehicle, accidents will happen. Heck, even when you restrict piloting to professionals, accidents still happen.
So is there a long-term solution? Only if you're talking final solution. So long as there's still a human in control, you've still got a stop-gap solution in place.
I think it's fairly well established that so long as you allow non-professionals to be in control of a vehicle, accidents will happen. Heck, even when you restrict piloting to professionals, accidents still happen.
Well, that's a useful observation.
If a noise maker is added to these vehicles, this won't be a chip off my shoulder (though the lack of one doesn't bother me either). Should this be done, I hope whom ever installs these has the 'foresight' to apply an internetwork device to the noisy components... not that I would use that networking against humanity.
I think it's fairly well established that so long as you allow non-professionals to be in control of a vehicle, accidents will happen. Heck, even when you restrict piloting to professionals, accidents still happen.
So is there a long-term solution? Only if you're talking final solution. So long as there's still a human in control, you've still got a stop-gap solution in place.
Yes but how many of those accidents happen on the Runway? (that don't involve mechanical failure)
Really better drivers tests (and mandatory road tests every lisense renewal) will solve alot of these problems.
I agree with you in principle, but the problem (in this issue) isn't the skill of the driver so increased difficulty of the road test won't solve the problem. People aren't getting hit (presumably) because the drivers can't parallel park, they are getting hit because of carelessness. The basic skills of crossing a parking lot (for the pedestrian) and pulling into a parking spot (for the driver) are there. The problem is that both people are often times distracted (mp3s, smart phones, handling kids, finding a spot, texting, etc).
So while I agree that adding noise makers is not the best solution, I doubt increasing the difficulty of the driver's test would help this specific problem (although I do agree with the idea of increasing the difficult of driving tests).
The problem is just that people have become careless and distracted. This problem is continually increased by more distraction and more safety so you get a repeating cycle of distraction and safety. You don't need to take care because any danger is made obvious which causes additional things to become dangerous and so on.
Cpt_Micha/Escef:
I agree with you in principle, but the problem (in this issue) isn't the skill of the driver so increased difficulty of the road test won't solve the problem. People aren't getting hit (presumably) because the drivers can't parallel park, they are getting hit because of carelessness. The basic skills of crossing a parking lot (for the pedestrian) and pulling into a parking spot (for the driver) are there. The problem is that both people are often times distracted (mp3s, smart phones, handling kids, finding a spot, texting, etc).
So while I agree that adding noise makers is not the best solution, I doubt increasing the difficulty of the driver's test would help this specific problem (although I do agree with the idea of increasing the difficult of driving tests).
The problem is just that people have become careless and distracted. This problem is continually increased by more distraction and more safety so you get a repeating cycle of distraction and safety. You don't need to take care because any danger is made obvious which causes additional things to become dangerous and so on.
Generally if someone is that careless while in a parking lot they probably are also careless with things like lane changes, parallel parking, obeying the speed limit, panic stops, turn signals etc. Because they are self absorbed and are "safe" from harm in their vehicle.
You see this sort of behavior all the time if you ride a motorcycle. And that's not counting the ****es that will actively try to kill you with their car because you are on a bike.
The obvious answer is emergency crash avoidance systems. At low speeds your car will simply break before allow you to hit something, at high speeds it will swerve to avoid it. The only impediment to these currently being standard is cost.
Noisemakers on cars is a silly idea. They are already loud enough. I really don't want 3 million of them whizzing around town going "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on top of it.
The obvious answer is emergency crash avoidance systems. At low speeds your car will simply break before allow you to hit something, at high speeds it will swerve to avoid it. The only impediment to these currently being standard is cost.
Along with effectiveness of the system. Hell they can't even get Radar Cruise Control to work right.
The systems you mention are unwieldy and quite often don't even work like they are supposed to, even in high end Mercedes.
Along with effectiveness of the system. Hell they can't even get Radar Cruise Control to work right.
The systems you mention are unwieldy and quite often don't even work like they are supposed to, even in high end Mercedes.
I didn't say the current systems were up to snuff. Part of the cost-barrier is R&D expenditure developing on more effective ones.
It all comes down to the equation:
- The cost to the car companies of developing and implementing such systems would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Not doing it and letting morons kill themselves and other drivers is free.
- There is no monetary benefit and so it doesn't happen. Simple.
So we're still gonna ignore the simplest solution, eh?
The simplest solution is for people to drive better.
The simplest solution is for people to drive better.
Nah. The simplest solution is to ban hybrids. People cannot be counted on to drive better. A new technology was introduced, car on pedestrian contact was increased. The simplest solution is not to hope people can change, it's to remove the new technology. That's the only different element.
Zombie_Babies: Depends on what twice the rate really means. Since there are no numbers given the article, its hard to tell if its a real problem. If the original rate is small enough, twice its rate is also a non-issue.
(But I know it was a joke.)
Cpt_Micha: I understand that a more difficult driving test would make other aspects of driving better, but I don't think it would help the specific issue being discussed in this thread. That's why I said it would be worthwhile, but wouldn't really help this problem. I think many drivers are really bad at driving their cars.
But with that said, the primary problem isn't skill, its awareness/carelessness. So again, requiring more skill doesn't address the problem. A racecar driver can talk on the phone while looking for a parking spot and hit a pedistrian. A star athlete can be texting while crossing the street and get hit by a car going 20 mph.
Zombie_Babies: Depends on what twice the rate really means. Since there are no numbers given the article, its hard to tell if its a real problem. If the original rate is small enough, twice its rate is also a non-issue.
(But I know it was a joke.)
It's only half a joke. It really is the simplest solution to the problem - and the only one guaranteed to work. If it's really safety we're after, it shouldn't be an issue. But that's not the case (it never is).
My real opinion on the matter is that I wouldn't terribly mind if these quiet cars eventually came standard with a Jetson's sound effect. It saddens me that people honestly feel we need to take an action like that, but people are stupid and anything that may potentially help (for a few years or whatever - as Escef is right. It's only a matter of time until people become acclimated to the sound and ignore it - once again starting the problem) without being a huge inconvenience is a good thing. So I don't like it, but I'm cool with it. Still, if you want to solve the 'problem', banning the cars is the only way to make sure you do.
Nah. The simplest solution is to ban hybrids.
In much the same way that the simplest solution to gun violence is to ban guns.
People cannot be counted on to drive better.
I didn't say they could. Just cos something is simple does not make it tenable. The simplest solution to world hunger is to give everyone food. The simplest solution to the Isreali-Palestininian conflict is to stop fighting. The simplest solution to health care in America is all-inclusive single-payer government-run insurance. Yet none of these are easily implemented or, in some cases, remotely possible.
A new technology was introduced, car on pedestrian contact was increased. The simplest solution is not to hope people can change, it's to remove the new technology. That's the only different element.
Nonsense. If every technology that were introduced was scrapped if it caused a greater number of injuries or deaths we'd still be stuck in open fields pondering the failure of "The rock", The Cave", and "Fire". If Hybirds were designed as "pedestiran sfety devices" then they would be seen as a fialure and should be axed, but they are not and banning them is far from the "simplest", or smartest, solution to this issue.
Allow things to be dangerous so people have to exercise care.
In much the same way that the simplest solution to gun violence is to ban guns.
As Scypio pointed out, this was about half a joke. I don't support the simple solution, I just think it's the simple one.
I didn't say they could. Just cos something is simple does not make it tenable. The simplest solution to world hunger is to give everyone food. The simplestsolution to the Isreali-Palestininian conflict is to stop fighting. The simplest solution to health care in America is all-inclusive single-payer government-run insurance. Yet none of these are easily implemented or, in some cases, remotely possible.
Ok, but how is this untenable? Stop making hybrids, stop releasing parts for the ones that are already here. Eventually the ones that do exist will die. Seems pretty easy to me. Undesirable? Sure. But it's actually easy - unlike the examples you gave.
And, again, I don't support it.
Nonsense. If every technology that were introduced was scrapped if it caused a greater number of injuries or deaths we'd still be stuck in open fields pondering the failure of "The rock", The Cave", and "Fire". If Hybirds were designed as "pedestiran sfety devices" then they would be seen as a fialure and should be axed, but they are not and banning them is far from the "simplest", or smartest, solution to this issue.
Again, not smartest - simplest. And it really, really is the simplest way to guarantee less people will be hit by hybrids. And, again, it would be really, really easy to do. And no, I do not support it.
It's not the best plan, it's just the simplest solution - and one we'll never ever have to worry about and one I'd never ever support.
Zombie_Babies: My take is if you know (or think) that the "solution" is only going for work for a while and cause people to get more careless, then its not really a solution. Its better to have the point of it being dangerous again, but without the hassle of installing the noise makers and the dumbing of people.
Allow things to be dangerous so people have to exercise care.
I don't know about causing people to be more careless. People are gonna drive the same with or without Jetson's sound. People are gonna be more inclined to move if they hear a noise they're not familiar with. Eventually it will stop working, but it has the potential to help for a period of time without causing any harm. I think it's stupid, but if everyone needs bubble wrap and helmets, whatever.
What they really need to do is put those microwave generators we have on humvees in Iraq onto these things. They'd have to scale 'em down a bit, but so what. People what get in front of those things find themselves physically compelled to get the hell out of the zone. Seems like it'd work nicely as a sort of friendly reminder that you are in a vehicle and standing in front of you is not the place to be. There may be some trouble with unintended usage, but as long as I get mine (even though I don't have a Hybrd - hey! I thought of it so I deserve one!) I don't really care.
The fault can be placed on the driver or the pedistrian. But in both cases, for a 20 mph collision to occur in a parking lot (without crazy circumstances), there has to be some careless behavior taking place on one of those sides.
So if you make it so that its fine not to "look both ways around moving cars" or "to pay attention to the area ahead of your car", then more people will continue to not do those basic behaviors.
"I can cross the parking lot with my eyes glued to my iPhone because those dreaded silent Hybrids now make an annoying sound that I can hear."
"I can spend more time looking left and right for a parking spot since my silent Hybrid now makes a loud annoying sound which alerts people to my presence."
Those are the type of behaviors which should not be encouraged.
I think we all agree that in most cases, the accident is happening because of carelessness. So by "solving" the problem, you are just allowing for the careless behavior to be acceptable.
But as I said, this specific fix really isn't so bad, but the trend is the disheartening part. When you continually make things "idiot proof", you encourage unsafe behavior which leads to more idiot proofing, etc.
Take toys for an example. First, you couldn't have a toy that was heavy because kids could use them to hit each other. Next, they couldn't have any extractables since kids were putting them in their mouth. Now, they can't be a certain size because again, kids are putting them in their mouth.
But if you look at all of those situations, its behaviors which a kid should not be doing with a toy in the first place. So as a result, kids can engage in those behavior without penalty AND toys are less diverse.
And you can apply that example to almost all aspects of life today.
Stationary cars. Can't freaking hear them comming. Can't see them at night either!
you are just walking along and then BAM! you just got hit by a stationary car!
Its like holy ****, why isn't the goverment putting a ban on these things. I totally never hear them coming.
But people aren't being alert in the first place. That's the problem. Fixing one of them just gives them one less reason to be alert.
But as I said, this specific fix really isn't so bad, but the trend is the disheartening part. When you continually make things "idiot proof", you encourage unsafe behavior which leads to more idiot proofing, etc.
Take toys for an example. First, you couldn't have a toy that was heavy because kids could use them to hit each other. Next, they couldn't have any extractables since kids were putting them in their mouth. Now, they can't be a certain size because again, kids are putting them in their mouth.
But if you look at all of those situations, its behaviors which a kid should not be doing with a toy in the first place. So as a result, kids can engage in those behavior without penalty AND toys are less diverse.
And you can apply that example to almost all aspects of life today.
heck my dad and his brothers were encouraged to play with Rockets and etc when they were kids.
Action figures are also a dying breed because of the Safety Nazis.
(soundmaker plays for the first time in a parking lot)
Pedestrian: Hey, that's something new. Let me look around and find the source of this new sound.
(pedestrian walks in front of conventional vehicle and gets hit)
Pedestrian: It's not my fault. I was distracted by the new soundmaker on that hybrid. I shouldn't be held accountable for not noticing the car right in front of me. We need to remove those distracting soundmakers before more people like me are harmed.
Stricter driving tests, if they happen at all, won't be as a result of hybrids/electrics. Insisting that this "solution" is the one you want is fruitless.
This isn't "idiot-proofing" anything, it's bringing one possible in danger back in line with pre-existing dangers.
The idea that people would become acclimated to the sound and start to ignore it after a while only has some merit. While there would probably be a period of heightened awareness where people are more aware of the electrics/hybrids then normal cars, the fact that people haven't started ignoring the sounds of traditional automotives kind of shoots the idea that people would ignore electrics/hybrids.
And the whole "people should just be more alert" kick is wishful thinking that isn't a solution, it's just wishful thinking.
Well, that's a useful observation.
Hey, you're the one that wants a "long term" solution. Not my fault that the only long-term solution is death.
But as I said, this specific fix really isn't so bad, but the trend is the disheartening part.
This is pretty much how I feel about it. It's not a big deal, but it's kinda discouraging that we 'need' to do it.
EscherEnigma: Its not that they'll eventually ignore the sound, which they may. Its the fact that you require additional safety measures because you don't expect people to utilize the proper care.
Plus things being designed with safety features to account for people not taking a minimum amount of care is what I call "idiot proofing". If people were not careless, then it would not be necessary.
EscherEnigma: Its not that they'll eventually ignore the sound, which they may. Its the fact that you require additional safety measures because you don't expect people to utilize the proper care.
If we expected people to utilize the proper care, then we wouldn't have the DMV, FDA, Fire Department, Ambulances, public schools, bankruptcy, and so-on. We, as a nation, expect people to be idiots. It's why our hairdryers have "caution: heating element gets hot" on them.
Face it, if people "utilized proper care" then we wouldn't need regulations at all.
What you are saying if there wasn't any stupid people we wouldn't need ambulances. Well thats good to know. I guess getting smart allows me to avoid heart attacks.
And if I was smart, lighting would never set my house on fire.
And if I was smart, I wouldn't need school to make me smart. And I could teach a fox to bark in french, in spanish.
There's a big difference between providing basic or emergency services and "idiot proofing" the world. Just because the government tries to do both, doesn't mean its the same thing. The problem is that we are expecting people to be idiots and are catering to them.
That is proper care. Expecting everyone to dump all their skill points next level into listen so they can make the same checks they did before is not.
It's not that they'll eventually ignore the sound, which they may. It's the fact that you require additional safety measures because you don't expect people to utilize the proper care.
If you aren't aware of the danger, you can't take proper care.
All this is about is making sure that people can take proper care. It's about making a less-noticeable danger equally noticeable so that people can do something about it.
Proper care does not necessarily mean you have to be completely self sufficient, especially given that you are living in a society.
Also, its not a matter of needing an extremely high listen score. Its a matter of being aware of your surroundings. Its barging into the middle of a fight without any sort of preception checks or asking the DM what you see.
"What? There was a Balor there?"
If you aren't aware of the danger, you can't take proper care.
All this is about is making sure that people can take proper care. It's about making a less-noticeable danger equally noticeable so that people can do something about it.
The fact that you are walking through areas with vehicular traffic isn't warning enough? If you are walking through a parking lot or crossing a street, all you have to do is look around. Its not like these cars are silent at high speeds. Its not like comprehensive training is required. At 20 mph, there's plenty of time to get out of the way (or for the driver to stop) if people payed attention.
Also, its not a matter of needing an extremely high listen score. Its a matter of being aware of your surroundings. Its barging into the middle of a fight without any sort of preception checks or asking the DM what you see.
You're needing one higher then before, don't you? If the skill required was the same as before, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, no?
The fact that you are walking through areas with vehicular traffic isn't warning enough? If you are walking through a parking lot or crossing a street, all you have to do is look around. It's not like these cars are silent at high speeds. It's not like comprehensive training is required. At 20 mph, there's plenty of time to get out of the way (or for the driver to stop) if people paid attention.
Paying attention is irrelevant if you can't detect the danger. Cars and pedestrians are coming from and moving in all directions in a parking lot, and you can only really look in one direction at once.
And that's for people who can see well, I thought one of the major concerns here was for people who can't?
I know there are cars in the parking lot, so I move slowly and pay attention. If there are cars that I have trouble detecting, the fact that I'm paying attention doesn't stop me from moving where I shouldn't--indeed, it makes me confident that I can move safely.
But you know this is a bad analogy because the DnD skill range is too high (1-20 variability). You presumably wouldn't be able to fail a check to see a hybrid coming at you at 15 mph unless you were disabled.
I propose calling this device a horn. A horn was an archaic device occasionally used to produce sounds for communication. Later, it became a tool used by musicians.
Flaws
-Some people may utilize this 'horn' as a means of exasperated expression on freeways instead of for it's intended purpose. Frustrated people like to hit things and make noise.
-Requiring someone to put away their cell-phone while driving to activate a device of this nature might be a lot to ask.
-It requires the driver to pay attention to situations where sounding said 'horn' might be practical or useful.
What do you guys think?
Ya know what? This discussion is stupid.
Then stop taking part in it. Or do we need to put a warning buzzer on it so you know not to post in it anymore?
If what I just said right there sounded stupid to you (and it should have), maybe you can understand why you are in the minority on this one.
Being in the minority is not the same as being wrong. Not that I think EE is neccessarily in the minority on this one (perhaps in this thread, but I'll gladly stand with him).
The noise of modern (non-hybrid/electric, cause it's easier) cars is one level, and the noise of hybrids is lower, making them harder to hear, period. For people who depend on hearing, this poses a problem.
They did not "grow used" to the noise modern cars make, and therefore ignore them. They have a harder time hearing hybrid/electric cars because they make less noise. So, the argument that people who depend on their hearing will "get used to" or "tune out" any new noise in a couple of years is invalid in the face of the fact that they still use their hearing on modern cars, and have not "tuned them out". If a set noise was decided on, then people who depend on their hearing will "get used" to listening for that noise as the signal of an oncoming car.
Indeed, the study was likely to determine this exact question: Are hybrids more dangerous because they're quiet? We don't know for sure, because science reporting sucks these days. But the findings that hybrids are twice as likely to become involved in this kind of accident is pretty significant.
I don't believe all hybrid owners pay less attention than the owners of other cars. I don't believe all people hit by hybrids pay less attention than other accident victims. I think it's pretty silly to speculate that they might. That leaves us wondering what other differences between the two types of vehicles might be. The obvious one is the noise.
Why not reduce the number of accidents quickly and cheaply? I don't get why people are arguing for more pedestrians getting hit. Is somebody's father (like mine, who can hear pretty well but not see all that well, exactly the kind of person putting a noisemaker on the car would help) getting hit by a ninja car the price you're willing to pay to pretend to be a ninja driving your car? WTF are you people on? I am seriously, truly happy most of you are not the ones who make such regulations. My wife has an even lower opinion of the people opposed that would be a CoC violation to post.
Ok, just stop it. D&D is notoriously bad at replicating anything real. Using it as some sort of analog here is just stupid.
Nah. It's pretty good really. I know I'm just as likely to not find a thing I'm looking for as I am to find it If I would have found it anyways had I not bothered to try. Half-assed is the best way.
quietcars.nfb.org/
(Not seeing much in the way of proof. Aside from a bunch of blind people saying they can't hear em, and stuff. **** thoes guys, probably all lying.)
I don't believe all hybrid owners pay less attention than the owners of other cars.
Have you seen the Hybrid's Target Audience?
They have the attention span of a goldfish when it comes to something other than themselves.
I don't believe all hybrid owners pay less attention than the owners of other cars.
Have you seen the Hybrid's Target Audience?
They have the attention span of a goldfish when it comes to something other than themselves.
Woo class war, class war! Tear down the status quo! All hail the new world order!
I'm sure your hatred of people that hybrids are market too is completly justified, everyone who drives one is a moronic doche and anyone a car dealer would want to sell one too is a moronic doche and this has nothign to do with your personal preconeptions in the least.
I don't get why people are arguing for more pedestrians getting hit.
As long as I, being a responsible driver, have the right to turn off the noisemaker on my car; I don't care if it's there or if there's a law. If the devices can be turned off by responsible drivers who don't want their car making unneccesary noises, then I don't care. Put them on cars, bicycles, shoes, whatever. As long as I can turn mine off.
I should also note that not all responsible drivers will be with me on this. Some of them will like the idea of being able to customize the noise their vehicles make. For those people, this is perfectly fine. I like my vehicle to run silent. It's a lot easier to listen for any potential mechanical problems that way. As long as I can turn mine off (or use a noise that is 0.000000000000000001 decibel in volume), I really don't care.
Is there anyone with a driver's license that wouldn't claim to be a responsible driver? I mean, it's not like you have people getting into the driver seat, chuckling maniacally to themselves while saying "so what kind of manslaughter can I get away with today, mwa ha ha?!"
Given how many people I see driving on the wrong side of the road often?
I have to wonder if there are people that do just that.
I don't get why people are arguing for more pedestrians getting hit.
We're not arguing for that. You just put words in a lot of people's mouths, and it isn't cool. That's a very dishonest debating tactic, and is tantamount to lying.
Is there anyone with a driver's license that wouldn't claim to be a responsible driver? I mean, it's not like you have people getting into the driver seat, chuckling maniacally to themselves while saying "so what kind of manslaughter can I get away with today, mwa ha ha?!"
I believe you skipped over the point of my comment. As long as I can turn it off or make it so quiet I can't hear it, I don't care if I am required by law to have one.
Meh, just commenting on your growingly obvious tendency to to sterotype and act superior too and insult vast swaths of the population of the planet: fat people, people who dont like nudity, blind people, people who get hit by cars, people who hit people with cars, people who drive hybrid cars, people car companies want to sell hybrid cars too ect.
I'm sure your hatred of people that hybrids are market too is completly justified, everyone who drives one is a moronic doche and anyone a car dealer would want to sell one too is a moronic doche and this has nothign to do with your personal preconeptions in the least.
Hate is a much too strong word for my feelings towards hybrids or the ninnies that drive them.
Is there anyone with a driver's license that wouldn't claim to be a responsible driver? I mean, it's not like you have people getting into the driver seat, chuckling maniacally to themselves while saying "so what kind of manslaughter can I get away with today, mwa ha ha?!"
I believe you skipped over the point of my comment.
Yes, it's funny how I skipped over the part of the comment I didn't care about, and only addressed the part that sounded odd to me.
I believe you skipped over the point of my comment.
Yes, it's funny how I skipped over the part of the comment I didn't care about, and only addressed the part that sounded odd to me.
That's right kiddies, Fun With Puns is now brought to you by the letter E and the number 2.
I'm sorry I didn't find your stance particularly interesting? I mean, you've mentioned several times about your personal preference, but preference is preference, it isn't really up for debate, ya know? Not really sure what you're looking for.
Not really looking for anything. You find my position boring, so you posted a pun. That's perfectly fine. So I posted a lighthearted jab at your pun to show there were no hard feelings (had I been offended, I would have said so). I thought it was obvious, but you know the drill:
The internet... helping people miscommunicate and misunderstand each other ever since Al Gore invented it.
Had you been able to see my face and hear the tone of my voice, you likely would have understood the intent.
I don't get why people are arguing for more pedestrians getting hit.
We're not arguing for that. You just put words in a lot of people's mouths, and it isn't cool. That's a very dishonest debating tactic, and is tantamount to lying.
That's exactly what you're arguing for: Your "right" to a silent vehicle outweighs the "right" of the visually impaired to hear you coming. It is the same argument that could be used for brake lights, stop signs, or windshield wipers. Advances in technology created the problem and a simple technological fix is all that is required to alleviate the problem. Absolutely nothing is being asked of you in order to save lives, yet even that seems to be too much.
I don't get why people are arguing for more pedestrians getting hit.
We're not arguing for that. You just put words in a lot of people's mouths, and it isn't cool. That's a very dishonest debating tactic, and is tantamount to lying.
That's exactly what you're arguing for:...
Cowflop. I'm arguing that the proposed "solution" is at best a stop-gap that will not have the desired effect in the long run.
Once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. Guess what? The people you are arguing with are human beings. The fact that we disagree with you does not make us horrible, demonic beasts devoid of morals and ethics.
Get over the notion that because we disagree with you it makes us horrible people. It is counter-productive.
You find my position boring, so you posted a pun.
... I punned?
You find my position boring, so you posted a pun.
... I punned?
If it makes you feel any better, I didn't see where that happened either.
Education and public awareness (and, yes, teaching people to be better drivers) will prove more effective in solving not just this issue, but will reduce auto accidents across the board. A year of public service announcements and a handful of warning signs will accomplish more in the long run than adding a noisemaker to cars.
If I were to use the tactics and logic of the people who oppose this, I would right now be saying that I don't understand how people can be opposed to something that would save so many lives. And then I would talk about how someone else has CoC breaking words for the people who disagree with me. (Does that put anything in perspective for you?)
Edit: and now I wish I had quoted the post I was responding to, as it now appears to be gone.
editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-...
I mean really when you hear a car coming at least around here you aren't hearing the engine. Infact you are usually hearing tire noise and the sound of it cutting through the air. You don't hear the engine until it is either just going by or already by you. At least that's the case with most modern cars anyway.
And as for speeds that are lower? really you still aren't going to really hear the car coming. Infact if it's at speeds lower than 20 mph you are frankly an idiot if you somehow get hit by a car.
I see you saying stuff but... where is your support for these comments? You seem extremely confident about your position but really it only sounds like... I don't know, misplaced anger or aggression?
What makes you so confident that a person cannot get hit by a car going less than 20 MPH without being "an idiot"?
That is truly one of the least intelligent things I've read on these boards.
I'm sorry, but it's true. You sir are an idiot. And you deserve to be hit by the car. Blind people have seeing eye dogs, or someone else with them to safely navigate parking lots already so that's not an excuse either the same also applies to intersections and etc.
Wow. How ignorant. I live in NYC and work right near an institution for blind people. I guess it would be surprising to someone like you that many blind people navigate the streets alone. It might surprise you that many blind people can get along relatively well without someone else assisting them and that many blind people get offended when help is offered to them.
The fact is that we use vision and hearing to get around. We don't have omni-directional vision. Hearing is very important for getting around. Perhaps it is different for others but in my experience I feel almost impaired when I have my headphones on and can't hear anything going on around me in the subway or walking to work.
I don't even think you have to be blind to seriously appreciate the lack of noise coming from a vehicle. Especially considering that we have come to associate certain sounds with the approach of a vehicle, assumptions can be made (not actively) that a vehicle is not approaching because we don't hear anything. That's not reason to say someone deserves to get hit by a car. That's simply a reality of the type of creatures we are.
I'm honestly surprised at this reaction because it's not as if the article is damning anyone or crying that the sky is falling. It even says that people are admitting further analysis is needed but so far signs point to the possibility that these silent cars are more dangerous.
Really your reaction is blowing this way out of proportion and it's odd that you would wish harm on people that are being reasonable about a legitimate concern regarding the safety of others.
This is just an instance of people that don't know jack about what they are talking about opening their traps trying to fear monger.
Since this doesn't make sense any other way I interpret it, I'm going to assume you're simply referring to your own post here.
How many people have you splattered upon yon windshield?
If the answer is none, then that should tell you where the problem really lies. It's not the cars. It's the drivers.
There isn't enough safety systems on this planet to fix the Stupid of some people. Really I thought it was common sense, when in a parking lot always look both ways. Ever hear that saying? So if you aren't blind then you really have no excuse. (especially in parking lot speeds)
And if a blind guy is too stupid proud to accept any help when moving about a parking lot? Then maybe he deserves to get splattered too. (though really at most Parking Lot speeds ((which are less than 10mph)) he shouldn't be getting splattered, even without help.
Because again the Driver would have to be a total Retard to not see the pedestrian infront of his windshield, or right out his back window if he's backing up. Or are you advocating that these sound systems should be on cars, so that Blind People can drive, and "not have to worry" about splattering pedestrians?
Really I think my position should be obvious as to why this is a problem. It's treating a symptom not the Disease. And the Disease is shittastic Drivers. The Cure? Get more of them off the road.
What's next Auto Stopping Radar controlled brakes that force the driver's vehicle to stop, because he was too stupid to pay attention?
Just how Coddled do you want to make Driving really? here's a hint when you make things "idiot proof" Idiocy will only increase to a level as to defeat your idiot proofing. The objective shouldn't be to allow for people to become even more stupid when they drive.
There should be a law that says if you are found at fault for hitting something in a damn parking lot that you lose all driving privileges period with no chance of renewal.
I guess I'm just somebody you would really hate Micha. I mean, I'm over weight, I smoke pot and cigs on occasion, I've been in accidents some of which were my fault (years ago) and some that weren't (also years ago), I don't like driving over the speed limit, I see laws as good things, and I have compassion for those that have disabilities seeing as I have a few of my own. In short, I'm one of those "pansies" you despise so much.
Simply put, cars have always made noise of some sort while running. These new cars don't. As EE has said over and over again, putting noise makers in Hybrids only returns us to the status quo and I see no problem with that.
I guess I'm just somebody you would really hate Micha. I mean, I'm over weight, I smoke pot and cigs on occasion, I've been in accidents some of which were my fault (years ago) and some that weren't (also years ago), I don't like driving over the speed limit, I see laws as good things, and I have compassion for those that have disabilities seeing as I have a few of my own. In short, I'm one of those "pansies" you despise so much.
Did any of them involve splattering pedestrians?
How is being against a system which encourages Driver Stupidity, having no compassion for disabled people exactly?
]
Oh right because I don't like this idea, and I because I think rewarding people for being so self absorbed they can't even bother to make sure there aren't any people near the business ends of their bumpers is a horrible idea.
No Micha, expecting every driver to have radar senses while driving and every pedestrian to have radar senses while walking is stupid. Cars have blind spots and so do people. And here, I thought you were a motor head.
Really Idolis, there's this thing called side mirrors, there's this other thing called checking your blindspot. Something that EVERY driver is supposed to have been taught how to do.
Hell you can adjust a mirror now in such a way that you don't even have a blindspot anymore. (look up the new Sae mirror adjustments sometime) so you don't even have to move your head all that much to check it anymore either.
I thought it was you know Driving 101, that you are 1 Conscious of Pedestrians in a parking lot. 2 Pedestrians always have the right of way.
Also the only time you would have to worry about a blindspot when dealing with Pedestrians is when backing up. In which case it's STILL your fault no matter how you try to slice it that you ran someone over. Hell furthermore it's even MORE your fault that you some how didn't feel the first bump when backing up. People aren't bugs.
Do you honestly think that this system is going to make the problems go away? Really? That's naive I think. People hit people with cars that ARE NOT Hybrids in the first place. So what does that tell you? That the problem lies behind the wheel.
Since its a hybrid it probably starts with battery power and so there is no exhaust that would alert me that the car is running. (Admittedly, I know little to nothing about Hybrids and so I can't be sure this is true.)
Who's at fault?
Here's a scenario Micha. I am walking through a parking lot. I drop my keys or discover my shoe is untied while standing behind a car. I see a driver in his car but don't hear the engine running because its a Hybrid. I bend down to pick up my keys or tie my shoes because since the car isn't making any noise I assume it isn't running (or maybe it wasn't running and the driver simply started it as I knelt down). He checks his rear view as he is supposed to do. He checks his side views and blind spots but can't see me. I don't hear the car start or that it is running he backs out knocking me down. Had I been able to hear the car I might have decided to tie my shoe else or wait for him to back up before I bent down to pick up my keys which would have been right.
Since its a hybrid it probably starts with battery power and so there is no exhaust that would alert me that the car is running. (Admittedly, I know little to nothing about Hybrids and so I can't be sure this is true.)
Who's fault is it?
most hybrids actually start with their gas engine, and then shut the engine down if there is battery power.
Second it's yours. You should know that there is a proper time to tie your shoes, and behind a vehicle that has an occupant inside of it is not it. When you went to untie your shoe you should have checked to see if the car you were behind was unoccupied. Which is just a quick glance through the back glass.
You should have picked up your keys and moved on that is literally less than half a second of time consumed oops reach down pick up and move. I've had nearly that same situation happen with me, but I walked with the untied shoe to my car, and once I was at my parking space I opened the door and knelt down to tie the shoe in my parking space.
So again, who's at fault?
So again, not his fault you were down there lolly gagging.
I don't think you understand what I meant Hybrids shut the gas engine off when they are put into gear. Though if I'm not mistaken Hybrids operate on the Gas engine while in Reverse already. Which means the back up lights at the very least are on (and you CAN EASILY see those in daylight hours even on a super bright Southern Summer Day) or the vehicle has already begun motion.
Furthermore, the driver should have noticed that you never made it past his vehicle.
Am I really that much better than everyone with attentiveness? Really? I can't believe that I'm super human.
It is possible that I am misunderstanding the operation of a Hybrid but the point being made is that a silent car is more dangerous than one that isn't.
I don't have to be lolly gagging. I'm 35 years old and not as spry as I used to be so it takes a little while to do the bending and standing back up parts of the process, lol.
Paying attention is irrelevant if you can't detect the danger. Cars and pedestrians are coming from and moving in all directions in a parking lot, and you can only really look in one direction at once.
And that's for people who can see well, I thought one of the major concerns here was for people who can't?
I know there are cars in the parking lot, so I move slowly and pay attention. If there are cars that I have trouble detecting, the fact that I'm paying attention doesn't stop me from moving where I shouldn't--indeed, it makes me confident that I can move safely.
These cars aren't wizzing around at 50 mph. We talking about going less than 20 mph! Its not like if I turn my head, I'll be hit in a split second.
I was driving home yesterday and it took me about 5 seconds to drive by a small block at 35 mph (yeah, it was extremely unscientific). So it'd take what? 7 or 8 seconds to do that at 20 mph? Maybe 10 seconds at 15 mph? Are people crawling across streets and parking lots where if they spend two seconds looking around, they still can be blindsided by some sort of stealth car?
Also, if sound is so critical to navigating the streets/parking lots, why don't we see an excessive amount of accidents involving people using mp3 players or other sort of music device?
After doing some quick research, I found a copy of the study: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF
I only browsed it and did not read the whole thing, but looking at the tables, I don't see where this twice as likely to hit a pedestrian comes from. If you look at Table 4 on page 12, it says that the rate was 0.9% for Hybrids and 0.6% for Conventional Cars. So unless its another study or a different data set, that's not really showing me a huge problem. Also, considering that the sample size for the Hybrid data was much smaller, variability could be a factor. (There were 77 Hybrid accidents compared to 3,578 for Conventional Cars.)
So seeing the data set, it doesn't look like a huge problem.
I'm pretty sure a Hybrid in Reverse is operating on the gas engine. So you shouldn't have much to fear there from Silent Killer Prius. (One with sticking accelerators on the other hand? Sorry couldn't resist the stab at Toyota there)
I'll do some research here to confirm or change that memory shortly I need to take care of my morning warm up routine before I do my work out.
Gms hybrids don't operate in Reverse on pure electric. The Prius does. (Gee Toyota boning it up again? Who would have thunk it)
No answer on the Ford system yet but the fusion hybrid has a back up camera and blind spot alert system so there's no excuse on the driver's part.
The honda from what I'm reading operates on Gas in reverse.
I'm suspecting that the Silent Killer is the Prius. Even though the Prius is a "Silent Killer" I'm more worried about it, accelerator sticking and the thing trying to "surge ahead" to splatter me across it's windshield than I am about it backing up in a parking lot.
I hear driving a Prius can be a real scream.
Well if your accelerator flooring it, all of the sudden with no control from you isn't scream worthy almost nothing is :-p
No Micha, the correct answer is "No ones" because seeing light requires that I'm not looking at the ground picking up my keys or tieing my shoe. The fault lies in the vehicle and not in the human beings involved.
Hey, I resent that remark... if you humans would give us complete control you wouldn't have this issue. You might have a different one though...
So when is the last time you missed seeing a pedestrian in a parking lot Khan?
How many people have you splattered upon yon windshield?
What are you talking about? Are you implying that it's impossible to not see someone in a parking lot?
You know a parking lot usually has parked cars in it right? And that those cars might make it difficult to see people? Children of course won't be seen behind a car. Vans and trucks could block an adult. Someone tying their shoe might not be seen immediately. Or if the driver is driving through parked cars instead of in the lanes. A parking lot is like a FPS with all the cover it provides.
If the answer is none, then that should tell you where the problem really lies. It's not the cars. It's the drivers.
It doesn't tell me squat because I don't jump to conclusions. However, you seem to think that it's a reasonable expectation that all drivers and pedestrians will be 100% aware of their surroundings and accidents will cease to exist if they all tried a little harder.
That's laughable.
It'd be nice if everyone in our parking lots were automatons that had no faults and were perfect in every way. Oh well...
There isn't enough safety systems on this planet to fix the Stupid of some people. Really I thought it was common sense, when in a parking lot always look both ways. Ever hear that saying?
It's hard to take you seriously when you speak as if you are incapable of making mistakes. The reality is that people get hit by cars. There *are* accidents.
If silent cars increase the risk of an accident under certain conditions, preaching that people should be more aware is not a solution. It's something you tack onto a solution. "Being careful" goes without saying. They say it to you now but people still get into accidents.
So if you aren't blind then you really have no excuse. (especially in parking lot speeds)
Here's the thing... there will always be an excuse, no matter what. In a split second a distraction can cause you to not pay attention and you may make assumptions about a car not aproaching because of a lack of noise instead of looking that way.
You're not a deity looking down on us from up above so it matters little that you think nothing in the universe could ever justify an accident in a parking lot.
And if a blind guy is too stupid proud to accept any help when moving about a parking lot? Then maybe he deserves to get splattered too. (though really at most Parking Lot speeds ((which are less than 10mph)) he shouldn't be getting splattered, even without help.
Right. And if someone is so willing to condemn people he doesn't know in situations he hasn't experienced to death by vehicle then maybe he should get splattered too.
Blind people get around relatively well. It's stupid to expect them to continue getting around that well when they can't hear vehicles on top of not being able to see them.
And I see a lot of hype over how "slow" 20 MPH is. It's really not *that* slow in the context of an accident.
Because again the Driver would have to be a total Retard to not see the pedestrian infront of his windshield, or right out his back window if he's backing up.
Repeating this nonsense don't make it any more credible.
I am honestly beginning to wonder if you have ever driven a car. You live in a seemingly idyllic world where everything is lovely and everyone behaves as they should and nothing bad ever happens.
My friend and I were cycling back from a park and he was hit at a stop sign by a driver because she didn't see him coming from behind the hedges on the street corner. I'm sure she wasn't retarded and I'm sure she saw my friend when she struck him. But once she started accelerating and he came into the intersection it was too late. And she was not going 20 MPH.
Things happen. Should my friend have assumed that any car would be stopping at the stop sign? Probably not. Should the lady have crept up to look beyond the hedges instead of assuming no one was coming? Probably. But we're not going to get *all* drivers and *all* pedestrians to behave the way they do in your make-believe world. And people with legitimate concerns (like the visually impaired) shouldn't suffer for that.
Or are you advocating that these sound systems should be on cars, so that Blind People can drive, and "not have to worry" about splattering pedestrians?
It would be less ridiculous than the position you hold to be sure.
You find my position boring, so you posted a pun.
... I punned?
That's what it looked like to me.
Yes, it's funny how I skipped over the part of the comment I didn't care about, and only addressed the part that sounded odd to me.
It looked an awful lot to me like this was a pun about my desire for a silent vehicle. Maybe it wasn't a pun (and I just saw it that way); or maybe it was an unintentional one.
How many people have you splattered upon yon windshield?
The exact same number as the number of people who have steped directly in front of my moving car because they could not hear it. Coincidence? Yes. But no more so than your proposal.
Pedestrians always have the right of way. Always. This does not absolve them of responsibility for exercising basic caution, and they should always maintain situational awareness in any situation or condition where contact with a car is possible, but the onus of responsibility for avoiding pedestrians lies with drivers.
Sadly, many drivers do not know this, and many more simply do not care, and so they simply expect pedestrians to get out fo their way. Couple this wither general carelessness and the question of rights and legality becomes moot. Dead is dead.
The sad fact is that many - I might even hazard most - drivers are not very good, and some are so downright horrible, so pants-on-head retarded, that I simply cannot fathom how they got a license to begin with let alone are permitted to walk unattended and without a helmet. This is why I oppose flying cars. About the only place you're really safe from terrible drivers is in the sky and the idea that in the future some drunken fool can plows his HoverDodge through a 40th storey window is frankly terrifying.
snip
you that is all.I'm the stupid living in the make believe world? And you are advocating that this alert system will some how reduce pedestrian involved accidents?
Hell you above all people should know that it won't even dent it. You know your friend being splattered by a ****ing Retard of a motorist and all.
I've been a cyclist, I've been a motorist and I've had to walk everywhere. I've also been a motorcyclist. I know damn well how ****ing stupid people are on the road. And most of that stems from a lisense system that might as well be the following. "Oh hi sir. I see you got here on your own. Here's your lisense"
If people actually had to know how to ****ing drive the accident rate period would be much lower. But no. We've become so ****ing lazy that the above sentence has pretty much become the norm.
I would think that you would be at least half way in reality enough to recognize that most problems that involve cars involve their morons for drivers. Make it even just a little harder for the Utter Retards to get behind the wheel and the accident rate would cut faster than ANY safety feature we could introduce to modern cars.
An Alert system isn't going to do jack. It's akin to trying to fix a Sucking Chest Wound with a band aid. Your delusion that somehow an Alert system is going to make the roadways any bit safer and your willingness to repeat it, and insult anyone that disagrees with you won't make it true.
...your willingness to repeat it, and insult anyone that disagrees with you won't make it true.
Also: I propose stricter licensing requirements for posting on message boards. If your third grade teacher would burst into tears upon reading your writing, no license for you!
Also: I propose stricter licensing requirements for posting on message boards. If your third grade teacher would burst into tears upon reading your writing, no license for you!
Slight difference.
Forum posts don't kill people when mispelled.
Cars on the other hand? Kill people when their operators are negligent while operating them, or at the very least can cause serious injury.
To be fair, when I'm playing GTA4, it's never the pedestrian's fault. It's always my bad. Heh, heh.
Just remember disappear into a garage until the heat dies down after painting your car a nice color of red and adorning it with new cloth exterior accessories.
I hear driving a Prius can be a real scream.
Well if your accelerator flooring it, all of the sudden with no control from you isn't scream worthy almost nothing is :-p
Well the problem there is your foot is still on the gas. Just putting your other foot on the brake doesn't exactly work you know?
Well the problem there is your foot is still on the gas. Just putting your other foot on the brake doesn't exactly work you know?
Actually it does. The Prius has a cut out switch that is supposed to override the accelerator when the brake pedal is depressed.
Cowflop. I'm arguing that the proposed "solution" is at best a stop-gap that will not have the desired effect in the long run.
Once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. Guess what? The people you are arguing with are human beings. The fact that we disagree with you does not make us horrible, demonic beasts devoid of morals and ethics.
Get over the notion that because we disagree with you it makes us horrible people. It is counter-productive.
If you don't want to be seen in a negative light then perhaps you should stop arguing against a proposed safety feature that will prevent blind people from being run over.
Christ, man, it's not like they are asking for anything except the opportunity to hear a car coming. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. Except that for some people, it apparently is.
snip
I'm the stupid living in the make believe world? And you are advocating that this alert system will some how reduce pedestrian involved accidents?
Firstly, I haven't called you stupid. I have called some remarks you have made ignorant or stupid, but that can hardly be worse than the vitriol you're spewing.
Secondly, my point is that if the inability to hear a vehicle coming while it is driving slowly increases the risk of an accident, then it makes perfect sense to somehow make the car audible in order to negate that increased chance of an accident.
Following that point is the point that what they are considering as a solution (an alert or, even better, simply making the car sound like a normal car) is so simple, intuitive, and non-intrusive that your reaction is completely uncalled for. Your attitude against this is truly baffling to me.
Hell you above all people should know that it won't even dent it. You know your friend being splattered by a ****ing Retard of a motorist and all.
That is irrelevant. The notion is that these new hybrid cars are increasing the risk of an accident. That accidents happened before hybrid cars were around is meaningless the way you're applying it here.
I've been a cyclist, I've been a motorist and I've had to walk everywhere. I've also been a motorcyclist. I know damn well how ****ing stupid people are on the road. And most of that stems from a lisense system that might as well be the following. "Oh hi sir. I see you got here on your own. Here's your lisense"
If people actually had to know how to ****ing drive the accident rate period would be much lower. But no. We've become so ****ing lazy that the above sentence has pretty much become the norm.
Ok. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are exactly as you come across in this thread; God's most perfect creation capable of avoiding all dangerous drivers and incapable of actually causing any accident yourself, whether walking or driving. Ever.
Do you think it is at all feasible that we can educate all other 50 bajillion pedestrians and drivers to behave as you do? That we can get all pedestrians and drivers in the country to behave in such a way that they could never cause an accident?
This is simply "yes" or "no". I don't need to hear about how those we can't educate to such a degree deserve to be shot in the back of the head execution style.
I would think that you would be at least half way in reality enough to recognize that most problems that involve cars involve their morons for drivers. Make it even just a little harder for the Utter Retards to get behind the wheel and the accident rate would cut faster than ANY safety feature we could introduce to modern cars.
I'm not advocating that we let anyone drive cars. I'm not against higher standards for handing out liscenses. You seem to think that there is only one solution, and that involves finding everyone that is a "retard" and banning them from driving and/or taking away their liscense.
We could enforce harsher standards *and* protect the visually impaired with a hybrid car that sounds like a regular car you know.
An Alert system isn't going to do jack. It's akin to trying to fix a Sucking Chest Wound with a band aid.
Rather, you are insisting that because accidents, in general, are going to happen anyways, we shouldn't bother trying to fix this one problem.
Your delusion that somehow an Alert system is going to make the roadways any bit safer and your willingness to repeat it, and insult anyone that disagrees with you won't make it true.
It's interesting that you would call me insulting when your posts have little substance beyond "those ****ing retards and morons deserve to die and get splattered!".
I thought such candor was indicative of someone with thicker skin. I apologize if I thought wrong.
Vrooooom, vrooooom!
If you don't want to be seen in a negative light then perhaps you should stop arguing against a proposed safety feature that will prevent blind people from being run over.
Oh, so you're proposing a sensor that detects blind people (and blind people only?) that engages the brakes at proximity detection? That's amazing, how does it work?
And the easiest way to do that? Actual lisense tests. Not this "you showed up! Well here's your lisense sir" crap we have now.
Not this "you showed up! Well here's your lisense sir" crap we have now.
This is something I noticed years ago. People say "your license", "my license", etc. Kids who don't have licenses yet talk about how they, "can't wait to get my license." Like the thing is pre-printed and waiting for them. There is this sense of entitlement concerning a driver's license.
I think another good idea is to change the way we refer to licenses. Not "Do you have your license yet?", but "Are you licensed yet?" Note the subtle change?
Even though I support a more difficult driving test, I again think that its careless and not lack of skills which causes the accidents. It appears to be cases of people (both driver and pedestrians) being distracted. So while harder driving tests would help other driving problems, I don't know if it'd have a significant effect on this problem.
Also, as I shown in my previous post, the numbers aren't as bad as the article would lead you to believe. It was 0.6% rate (normal car) v 0.9% rate (hybrid). Considering the fact that the hybrid sample set was much smaller, those numbers don't look that bad.
Plus, with all this talk about blind people, is there any data supporting the assumption that blind people are hit more often or is this just based upon someone's statement on who was going to be protected?
Even though I support a more difficult driving test, I again think that its careless and not lack of skills which causes the accidents. It appears to be cases of people (both driver and pedestrians) being distracted. So while harder driving tests would help other driving problems, I don't know if it'd have a significant effect on this problem.
Also, as I shown in my previous post, the numbers aren't as bad as the article would lead you to believe. It was 0.6% rate (normal car) v 0.9% rate (hybrid). Considering the fact that the hybrid sample set was much smaller, those numbers don't look that bad.
Plus, with all this talk about blind people, is there any data supporting the assumption that blind people are hit more often or is this just based upon someone's statement on who was going to be protected?
Thats some pretty slim odds of being hit in a parking lot. Of those accidents how many were fatal, or even serious? Do you have any figures on that?
I'm not sure if it was limited to being hit in a parking lot. I want to say its just being hit at really low speeds. I posted the original study some pages back. Here it is: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF
I didn't fully read it or even looked over all the data. I was mainly trying to see what the percentages of "twice the rate" were and couldn't even find a doubling. But who knows, maybe there's another report.
Anyway, I don't think it has data on fatalities or injuries, but again, I just breezed through it.
If you don't want to be seen in a negative light then perhaps you should stop arguing against a proposed safety feature that will prevent blind people from being run over.
I just wanted to point out that this proposed safety feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. Maybe this is the source of your issues with those opposing the measure? That you misunderstand it?
Also, as I shown in my previous post, the numbers aren't as bad as the article would lead you to believe. It was 0.6% rate (normal car) v 0.9% rate (hybrid). Considering the fact that the hybrid sample set was much smaller, those numbers don't look that bad.
That's because you're not looking at the numbers discussed in the article. It pointed out that in vehicles that were moving in a straight line the accident rate was essentially unchanged, but that in cases where turns, corners, and other non-linear movements were involved that the accident rate was doubled. So that .6 vs .9 isn't where the "double" comes from, it comes from looking at a sub-set of those values.
That's because you're not looking at the numbers discussed in the article. It pointed out that in vehicles that were moving in a straight line the accident rate was essentially unchanged, but that in cases where turns, corners, and other non-linear movements were involved that the accident rate was doubled. So that .6 vs .9 isn't where the "double" comes from, it comes from looking at a sub-set of those values.
Sounds to me like selective interpretation of statistics for the sake of more sensational sounding figures. Things like "50% increase" and "double" sound better than "3 tenths of a percent increase" or "6 tenths of a percent increase".
Sounds to me like selective interpretation of statistics for the sake of more sensational sounding figures. Things like "50% increase" and "double" sound better than "3 tenths of a percent increase" or "6 tenths of a percent increase".
... As opposed to saying "hey, there's an increase in accidents, let's just make assumptions and not give it a critical examination".
Sounds to me like selective interpretation of statistics for the sake of more sensational sounding figures. Things like "50% increase" and "double" sound better than "3 tenths of a percent increase" or "6 tenths of a percent increase".
... As opposed to saying "hey, there's an increase in accidents, let's just make assumptions and not give it a critical examination".
And are you assuming that is what I'm saying? I don't even know how the hell you came to that conclusion if you are.
And are you assuming that is what I'm saying?
Yes, somehow your disdain for breaking down accidents by situations and analyzing them as such to determine under what circumstances accidents seem be increasing led me to believe you were disdainful of doing exactly that.
I can't imagine why.
An interesting note: A similar increase in accidents occurred during backing up as turning and other parking behavior. According to Cpt_Micha, many hybrids use conventional meanings to power their reverse. So you would imagine that this increase in rate should be less if many of the cars make noise like normal cars. But that is based on a very unscientific study. But you'd think you'd see less of an increase, right?
And are you assuming that is what I'm saying?
Yes, somehow your disdain for breaking down accidents by situations and analyzing them as such to determine under what circumstances accidents seem be increasing led me to believe you were disdainful of doing exactly that.
I can't imagine why.
Ok, let try to explain this. The writer told the story in such a way to make things sound worse than they are. This was done to get attention and increase the chance of people reading the article. That is what I was saying.
Now, I am going to request this one. last. time. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Just because you think I'm a horrible person for not thinking your solution is ****ing awesome is NO EXCUSE for misrepresenting me. OK? I was 2 months shy of my 30th birthday when I volunteered 4 years of my life to public service, and took a pay cut in the process. Do you really, honestly think I am oppossed to your solution because I want people to die? Are you ****ing INSANE?!
Ok, let try to explain this. The writer told the story in such a way to make things sound worse than they are. This was done to get attention and increase the chance of people reading the article. That is what I was saying.
Then you were poorly representing yourself.
Now, I am going to request this one. last. time. DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Hey, cool it.
While I think your "solutions" are ineffective, difficult to implement, and all that jazz, I've never said you, or anyone else, *want* people to die, nor implied as such. I have scoffed at your apparent disdain for statistics and analysis (frankly, I think people tout the "statistics lie" mantra far too much.), but I'm fairly confident I've never jumped from "I think you're going about this a stupid way" to "you want people to die".
I have scoffed at your apparent disdain for statistics and analysis..
Right there. You did it again. You're the one who needs to cool it. You're making a lot of assumptions. Bad assumptions. How about next time you ask instead of just assuming?
Right there. You did it again.
I'm sorry, I must have you confused with someone else that said "selective interpretation of statistics for the sake of more sensational sounding figures".
You're the one who needs to cool it.
For future reference, in the case that I "lose my cool", it won't be ambiguous at all. Sarcasm, cynicism, blatant disdain for most of my fellow man, and so-on, is not me "losing my cool". That's standard operating procedure for me. Should I lose my cool, I expect to get moderated, so go all-out and make it worth it.
You're making a lot of assumptions. Bad assumptions. How about next time you ask instead of just assuming?
No, I'm making a few, rather specific, assumptions. Assumptions which, mind you, you have done nothing to actually give me reason to question.
One of them is that you're considerably more hot-headed then myself.
Right there. You did it again.
I'm sorry, I must have you confused with someone else that said "selective interpretation of statistics for the sake of more sensational sounding figures".
And where, exactly, are you getting my "disdain for statistics and analysis"? That's jumping to a conclusion. I, and one or two others, have been misrepresented in this thread. And you are one of the offenders on that one. And you seem to fail to see anything wrong with having done that.
And seriously? A disdain for statistics and analysis? I use statistics and analysis in games I play. Hell, my job was analysis for a few years. So, please, tell me how much disdain I have for it. Go ahead.
/shrug
Well, wrong on that at least. I'm pretty sure my other assumption is spot on.
So I'm wrong.
/shrug
Well, wrong on that at least. I'm pretty sure my other assumption is spot on.
Gee, not so much as an apology for misrepresenting people? That's awesome. You truly are a man of character.
Maybe you should go back over this thread and look at all the assumptions you've made. Most of them were wrong.I, and one or two others, have been misrepresented in this thread. And you are one of the offenders on that one. And you seem to fail to see anything wrong with having done that.
Actually, I just double-checked, and I'm calling bull**** on this one.
I have stated, numerous times, that I think just requiring "stricter driving tests" and licensing to be an ineffective, unenforcable, unlikely solution1. I pointed out that your proposed "long term" solution was anything but2. And while some people have been fond of the hyperbole, going on about how you want to kill blind people, that hasn't been me.
The only thing you can say about me "misrepresenting" you in any way is as far as your opinions towards statistics3.
So quite frankly, yeah, I don't think I've done anything wrong.
-------
1As support, I pointed out that accidents continue to happen with professional drivers, that we can't even get repeat DUI offenders off the road, and that people aren't really going out with the intention of being bad drivers.
2Namely, that just having stricter licensing and tests would reduce, but not eliminate, accidents. As such it's not a "long-term" solution, just another "stop-gap".
3Which, quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with. If you're going to complain about sensational statistics, then either you need to do a better job of it if you want to be beyond reproach, or expect to be treated as I would treat anyone else that complains about sensational statistics. That is, with sarcasm and contempt4.
4I'm quite good at sarcasm and contempt.
Over what time scale is the comparison made? Does it factor in the marked increase in people wearing sound-isolation and sound-masking media players coinciding with the emergence of mass-market hybrid vehicles?
Escher, I'm done with you.
That is, of course, your choice. But I remain curious just how else you believe I've misrepresented you.
If you don't want to be seen in a negative light then perhaps you should stop arguing against a proposed safety feature that will prevent blind people from being run over.
Oh, so you're proposing a sensor that detects blind people (and blind people only?) that engages the brakes at proximity detection? That's amazing, how does it work?
It makes a car type noise when a moron tries to run them over, giving them a small chance to jump out of the way, thus saving their life from a bad driver.
If you don't want to be seen in a negative light then perhaps you should stop arguing against a proposed safety feature that will prevent blind people from being run over.
I just wanted to point out that this proposed safety feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. Maybe this is the source of your issues with those opposing the measure? That you misunderstand it?
See above. If you know a car is coming at you, you can attempt to move.
Instead of adding safety measures... I'd rather just use the one's we have correctly. >.<
As a government worker... I have a natural aversion to government solutions to problems.... then again I could just be jaded.
I don't know if I'm saddened or sickened that there are that many individuals that have 'earned' driver's licenses... and they don't understand where, when, and how to properly utilize their horn. It's there to alert people that don't seem to notice you that you're there. It is also used when backing up in dynamic situations with lots of variables or noises that can obfuscate one's presence and activity.
Instead of adding safety measures... I'd rather just use the one's we have correctly. >.<
As a government worker... I have a natural aversion to government solutions to problems.... then again I could just be jaded.
Government solutions, such as: Laws requiering people to honk their horns when near pedestrians, enforcing such laws, making sure to teach everyone to do such by changing the driving laws and/or enforcment therof?
Adding a sound device to quiet cars would be more a 'Car manufacturer' solution, no?
Adding a noisemaker to cars other than the horns, which are apparently too complicated for some reason, seems more like what would come of a government enforced solution with mandatory installation and operation checks the likes of which exist for various forms of air quality controls. If I was a car manufacturer and requested to 'install' a 'noise making device' on cars for 'pedestrian safety' I would announce that the company was pro-active and have been installing horns for many decades. I would also point out that most educated drivers should know how to operate them and if they have any questions they can consult the complimentary owner's manual.
Our country is somewhat unusual for the sheer quantity of people that own and operate cars on a regular basis. Other countries have more restrictive driving tests and licensing requirements. Japan and Canada require less experienced drivers to have limited licenses and/or mark their car to indicate that they may not be as road-savvy as a more veteran operator.
The sad part is, with the amount of sprawl in America and the distances the average person commutes, driving a car in this country is almost more of a necessity than a luxury. That heavily restricts how stringent any laws that regulate driving skill and motor-vehicle abuse can be. This is somewhat unfortunate.
If I started honking a horn in the parking lot to warn pedestrians, they'd think I was just being rude and honking because I thought they were in my way.
There's the long obnoxious honk that you do to somewho cut you off or ran a red light. There's also the short, quick honk that typically signals "I'm here". That's the one which is rarely used. Its the one which trucks and buses will use when parking or backing up.
Typically the first type of honk is to show annoyance while the second is more of a "I'm here" sign.
The "short, quick honk" is also what a forklift driver is supposed to use regularly even while driving. It would become annoying quickly though if all the active vehicles in a parking lot were to start honking while navigating to a parking space or the exit...
I don't know if I'm saddened or sickened that there are that many individuals that have 'earned' driver's licenses... and they don't understand where, when, and how to properly utilize their horn. It's there to alert people that don't seem to notice you that you're there.
Nonsense! I've lived in the city my whole life and I can tell you with 100% certainty the horn is there to tell other drivers to "
off".Also, the four-way flashers are "I'll be right back, I'm only just running in here for a second" lights.
The "short, quick honk" is also what a forklift driver is supposed to use regularly even while driving. It would become annoying quickly though if all the active vehicles in a parking lot were to start honking while navigating to a parking space or the exit...
Eh, it probably won't be too bad if everyone gave a quick honk when they pulled out of a space or something. It definately is a better use of the horn when locking doors.
Its not like I do it anyway.
Nonsense! I've lived in the city my whole life and I can tell you with 100% certainty the horn is there to tell other drivers to "
Also, the four-way flashers are "I'll be right back, I'm only just running in here for a second" lights.
Don't forget your 'Get out of My
'd way' highbeam toggle and the obnoxious-music counter-setting on the radio... so you can flip it on when you're near people blaring music or just negligently chatting on their cellphones to prevent them from talking. 
Maybe if it were done that way, but forklifts are supposed to have their horns used more often then that. Treating a parking lot like a factory/warehouse would sound like the vehicles were communicating in morse code.
If you don't want to be seen in a negative light then perhaps you should stop arguing against a proposed safety feature that will prevent blind people from being run over.
I just wanted to point out that this proposed safety feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. Maybe this is the source of your issues with those opposing the measure? That you misunderstand it?
See above. If you know a car is coming at you, you can attempt to move.
Exactly. You can make an attempt. The sound making device, however, cannot guarantee that attempt will succeed. Thus my point: The proposed feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. It may increase their awareness of an approaching vehicle, but it prevents nothing. C'mon, TA. This semantics stuff is your schtick. ;)
Exactly. You can make an attempt. The sound making device, however, cannot guarantee that attempt will succeed. Thus my point: The proposed feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. It may increase their awareness of an approaching vehicle, but it prevents nothing. C'mon, TA. This semantics stuff is your schtick. ;)
Wow. As if having a meaningful conversation via posts wasn't difficult enough, now we have to deal with childish literalism.
Using a horn around pedestrians and in parking lots and such used to fall under - "How to Drive a Car". It shouldn't fall under laws enforceable by government officials as a special exception. If more people would accept responsibility for their own actions instead of hiding behind scapegoats and legalese... the world might be a little bit of a better place in general.
Thats nice.
Adding a noisemaker to cars other than the horns, which are apparently too complicated for some reason, seems more like what would come of a government enforced solution with mandatory installation and operation checks the likes of which exist for various forms of air quality controls. If I was a car manufacturer and requested to 'install' a 'noise making device' on cars for 'pedestrian safety' I would announce that the company was pro-active and have been installing horns for many decades. I would also point out that most educated drivers should know how to operate them and if they have any questions they can consult the complimentary owner's manual.
Very nice. "Hey, thoes of you who are not morons, keep doing what your doing. Thoes of you who are moron, stop being morons. The rest of you, try and stay out of the way of the morons. Good luck finding them."
Exactly. You can make an attempt. The sound making device, however, cannot guarantee that attempt will succeed. Thus my point: The proposed feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. It may increase their awareness of an approaching vehicle, but it prevents nothing. C'mon, TA. This semantics stuff is your schtick. ;)
It prevents a portion of the blind population from being runover unawares. Which is the problem being discussed: "Blind people being runover unawares".
Wow. As if having a meaningful conversation via posts wasn't difficult enough, now we have to deal with childish literalism.
Cute, but wrong. My post was meant to highlight the fact that some people are seeing this 'solution' as something far more guaranteed than it is.
It prevents a portion of the blind population from being runover unawares. Which is the problem being discussed: "Blind people being runover unawares".
Heh. Nice. That's the TA I expect, dammit! And I do agree, this will prevent blind people from being run over without actually hearing what's running them over.
Wow. As if having a meaningful conversation via posts wasn't difficult enough, now we have to deal with childish literalism.
Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to wizards.com
Cute, but wrong. My post was meant to highlight the fact that some people are seeing this 'solution' as something far more guaranteed than it is.
Then those "some people" have a problem with reading comprehension, as, at best, the proposed solution of adding a noise-maker to a hybrid/electric cars makes them just as dangerous as conventional cars. Not more or less, just the same.
Exactly. You can make an attempt. The sound making device, however, cannot guarantee that attempt will succeed. Thus my point: The proposed feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. It may increase their awareness of an approaching vehicle, but it prevents nothing. C'mon, TA. This semantics stuff is your schtick. ;)
It prevents a portion of the blind population from being runover unawares. Which is the problem being discussed: "Blind people being runover unawares".
So then it's okay for a blind person to be run over if they hear it coming? I'd think the real problem that needs discussing is not blind people being run over unawares, but anyone being run over at all.
Exactly. You can make an attempt. The sound making device, however, cannot guarantee that attempt will succeed. Thus my point: The proposed feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. It may increase their awareness of an approaching vehicle, but it prevents nothing. C'mon, TA. This semantics stuff is your schtick. ;)
It prevents a portion of the blind population from being runover unawares. Which is the problem being discussed: "Blind people being runover unawares".
So then it's okay for a blind person to be run over if they hear it coming? I'd think the real problem that needs discussing is not blind people being run over unawares, but anyone being run over at all.
Well, good luck with your ban on moving objects. Enjoy your stationary world.
(Unless you have some suggestion that amounts to more than wagging your finger and saying 'Yo, don't run over people dude!" Generally people have been told not to run over other peope with cars since there have been cars. And before that with carts, horses, wild elephants, other pedestrians: it has yet to prove 100% effective.)
So then it's okay for a blind person to be run over if they hear it coming?
No, it's always okay to run over a blind person. It's just funnier if they hear it coming.
Exactly. You can make an attempt. The sound making device, however, cannot guarantee that attempt will succeed. Thus my point: The proposed feature will in no way prevent blind people from being run over. It may increase their awareness of an approaching vehicle, but it prevents nothing. C'mon, TA. This semantics stuff is your schtick. ;)
It prevents a portion of the blind population from being runover unawares. Which is the problem being discussed: "Blind people being runover unawares".
So then it's okay for a blind person to be run over if they hear it coming? I'd think the real problem that needs discussing is not blind people being run over unawares, but anyone being run over at all.
Well, good luck with your ban on moving objects. Enjoy your stationary world.
(Unless you have some suggestion that amounts to more than wagging your finger and saying 'Yo, don't run over people dude!" Generally people have been told not to run over other peope with cars since there have been cars. And before that with carts, horses, wild elephants, other pedestrians: it has yet to prove 100% effective.)
I never mentioned a ban on moving objects. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Well, good luck with your ban on moving objects. Enjoy your stationary world.
(Unless you have some suggestion that amounts to more than wagging your finger and saying 'Yo, don't run over people dude!" Generally people have been told not to run over other peope with cars since there have been cars. And before that with carts, horses, wild elephants, other pedestrians: it has yet to prove 100% effective.)
I never mentioned a ban on moving objects. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'd think the real problem that needs discussing is not blind people being run over unawares, but anyone being run over at all.
I didn't 'put words in yoru mouth' per-say. I commented on the only logical way to effect the result you want that I can imagine, and then ammended to ask if you actually had a better solution to that problem other than the one that has always been, and is currently being, done.
Saying "Don't hit people" has always been done, and is still done, and I see no indication that it is done any less often or less fervrently now than it was when people cruised around on foot with sticks. Don't hit people with your hands, don't hit people with rocks, don't hit people with clubs, don't hit people with arrows, don't hit people with your mount, don't hit people with carriages, don't hit people with bullets, don't hit people with cars, or trains, or planes, or cacti, or spagetti: WE GET IT, hitting people with stuff is bad.
At no other point in time that I am aware of, however, has this ever stoped anyone from discussing and/or inventing ways to stop and/or lessen the effects of thoes people who are inevietably not going to abide by the no hitting rule. Doding, parrying, shields, chainmail, seatbelts, airbags, bulletproof vests, ect are all techniques or items that help protect people from other people who do not obey the 'no hitting' rule. Recent advancments in car tech weaken and, for some portions of the populace, nullify the most basic and prevelant techniques: dodging.
So: two positions have been clearly presented here:
A) Make a mechanical change that brings the odds of dodging back in line with previous standards
B) Make no changes to anything, keep telling people not to hit others, and this will not be a problem any more.
By the logic of B, we should get rid of locks and just post signs everywhere, get rid of all personal protective equipment and just tell people not to get hurt, tell people not to shoot eachother. All great options if you can make them work, but you simply can't. You can get close, to a degree, but taking precautions for when they fail, and they always will, is only sensible. This situation is not so diffrent.
As long as there are moving objects and people, even if thoe moving objects are only people, they will eventually colide.
I didn't 'put words in yoru mouth' per-say. I commented on the only logical way to effect the result you want that I can imagine, and then ammended to ask if you actually had a better solution to that problem other than the one that has always been, and is currently being, done.
Saying "Don't hit people" has always been done, and is still done, and I see no indication that it is done any less often or less fervrently now than it was when people cruised around on foot with sticks. Don't hit people with your hands, don't hit people with rocks, don't hit people with clubs, don't hit people with arrows, don't hit people with your mount, don't hit people with carriages, don't hit people with bullets, don't hit people with cars, or trains, or planes, or cacti, or spagetti: WE GET IT, hitting people with stuff is bad.
At no other point in time that I am aware of, however, has this ever stoped anyone from discussing and/or inventing ways to stop and/or lessen the effects of thoes people who are inevietably not going to abide by the no hitting rule. Doding, parrying, shields, chainmail, seatbelts, airbags, bulletproof vests, ect are all techniques or items that help protect people from other people who do not obey the 'no hitting' rule. Recent advancments in car tech weaken and, for some portions of the populace, nullify the most basic and prevelant techniques: dodging.
So: two positions have been clearly presented here:
A) Make a mechanical change that brings the odds of dodging back in line with previous standards
B) Make no changes to anything, keep telling people not to hit others, and this will not be a problem any more.
By the logic of B, we should get rid of locks and just post signs everywhere, get rid of all personal protective equipment and just tell people not to get hurt, tell people not to shoot eachother. All great options if you can make them work, but you simply can't. You can get close, to a degree, but taking precautions for when they fail, and they always will, is only sensible. This situation is not so diffrent.
As long as there are moving objects and people, even if thoe moving objects are only people, they will eventually colide.
Exactly. This is what I had been trying to say earlier. It's not a matter of "idiot-proofing" anything, but correcting an unforseen complication.
As long as there are moving objects and people, even if those moving objects are only people, they will eventually colide.
Even if they make noise.
Unless you have some suggestion that amounts to more than wagging your finger and saying 'Yo, don't run over people dude!" Generally people have been told not to run over other peope with cars since there have been cars. And before that with carts, horses, wild elephants, other pedestrians: it has yet to prove 100% effective.
Nothing is ever 100% effective; not even your beloved noisemakers.
Saying "Don't hit people" has always been done, and is still done, and I see no indication that it is done any less often or less fervrently now than it was when people cruised around on foot with sticks. Don't hit people with your hands, don't hit people with rocks, don't hit people with clubs, don't hit people with arrows, don't hit people with your mount, don't hit people with carriages, don't hit people with bullets, don't hit people with cars, or trains, or planes, or cacti, or spagetti: WE GET IT, hitting people with stuff is bad.
And yet no one wants to install noisemakers on rocks, bullets, sticks, arrows, or people's hands. The reason is because we already have laws that cover this (maybe their penalties need to be stiffened). No one needs to install a device in our skulls that makes noise when we have violent thoughts because assault/murder is illegal. Violent thoughts, just like irresponsible drivers, are potentially dangerous. Neither of them are a good reason to stuff a noisemaker in something however.
Exactly. This is what I had been trying to say earlier. It's not a matter of "idiot-proofing" anything, but correcting an unforseen complication.
I prefer to think of it more as a continuation of the policy of restricting public access to technologies that lessen the effectiveness of saftey measures while offering no actual utility to the populace as a whole:
Fully automatic firearms
Nuclear Weapons
Armor Pericing Ammunition
Add to the list silent vehicles.
Reason aginst: "They are harder to detect and thus more likely to injure others due to lack of awarness."
Reason for: "I want it 'cause it's cool gawddamnit!"
Aginst wins, in my book.
Exactly. This is what I had been trying to say earlier. It's not a matter of "idiot-proofing" anything, but correcting an unforseen complication.
I prefer to think of it more as a continuation of the policy of restricting public access to technologies that lessen the effectiveness of saftey measures while offering no actual utility to the populace as a whole:
Fully automatic firearms
Nuclear Weapons
Armor Pericing Ammunition
Add to the list silent vehicles.
Reason aginst: "They are harder to detect and thus more likely to injure others due to lack of awarness."
Reason for: "I want it 'cause it's cool gawddamnit!"
Aginst wins, in my book.
LMAO. Makes sense.
Reason aginst: "They are harder to detect and thus more likely to injure others due to lack of awarness."
Reason for: "I want it 'cause it's cool gawddamnit!"
Aginst wins, in my book.
If that were the reason for, you would have a point. It is not my reason.
And yet no one wants to install noisemakers on rocks, bullets, sticks, arrows, or people's hands. The reason is because we already have laws that cover this (maybe their penalties need to be stiffened). No one needs to install a device in our skulls that makes noise when we have violent thoughts because assault/murder is illegal. Violent thoughts, just like irresponsible drivers, are potentially dangerous. Neither of them are a good reason to stuff a noisemaker in something however.
Probably because noone has reason to belive that putting noise makers on rocks and hands would be effective at decreasing their danger. Hence hardhats, self defense classes, pepper spray, and guard dogs. All are much more effective protection from thoes threats than noise makers, and all incredibly useless at keeping a car you cannot hear from killing you.
Reason aginst: "They are harder to detect and thus more likely to injure others due to lack of awarness."
Reason for: "I want it 'cause it's cool gawddamnit!"
Aginst wins, in my book.
If that were the reason for, you would have a point. It is not my reason.
And as long as you wish to keep your reasons and your solution to yourself I will continue to ignore them and form my opinion from the information that is in my head.
I recall no solutions being discussed aside from telling people not to hit others.
I recall no complaints aside from "Car sounds suck, soundless cars are cool, why should I not get my cool stuff just because it might be more hazardous to others?! That craps just gonna break, or I'm going to turn it off!"
Edit: My apologise, I belive I recall Micha saying something about extra weight reducing fuel mileage or something.
Probably because noone has reason to belive that putting noise makers on rocks and hands would be effective at decreasing their danger.
A lot of people here don't believe it will help with cars either. I guess the only answer is to do the study. I mean why not, the government wastes money on so many things that putting a noisemaker on ever rock on the face of the earth is pretty much par for the course for people who actually instal a machine in embassy bathrooms to make the toilets flush clockwise.
Reason aginst: "They are harder to detect and thus more likely to injure others due to lack of awarness."
Reason for: "I want it 'cause it's cool gawddamnit!"
Aginst wins, in my book.
If that were the reason for, you would have a point. It is not my reason.
And as long as you wish to keep your reasons and your solution to yourself I will continue to ignore them and form my opinion from the information that is in my head.
I recall no solutions being discussed aside from telling people not to hit others.
I recall no complaints aside from "Car sounds suck, soundless cars are cool, why should I not get my cool stuff just because it might be more hazardous to others?! That craps just gonna break, or I'm going to turn it off!"
I have already stated my reason. You likely missed it.
Probably because noone has reason to belive that putting noise makers on rocks and hands would be effective at decreasing their danger.
A lot of people here don't believe it will help with cars either. I guess the only answer is to do the study. I mean why not, the government wastes money on so many things that putting a noisemaker on ever rock on the face of the earth is pretty much par for the course for people who actually instal a machine in embassy bathrooms to make the toilets flush clockwise.
The existence of people who belive something will not help is not the same as a lack of people who belive something will help.
I have already stated my reason. You likely missed it.
Quite likely true, but that in no way effects my statment above.
Nothing is ever 100% effective; not even your beloved noisemakers.
Then it's terribly convenient that no one has claimed as such, no?
Pedestrians and drivers both need to act responsibly to make the roads, crosswalks, and parking lots safe for us all. If you drive a quiet car, you need to take personal responsibility for it by being more alert, and driving much slower in pedestrian-filled areas. It's that simple. We already have laws that make hitting people with your car illegal. We don't need noisemakers to remind us of this fact.
Honestly, forcing potentially dangerous things to make noise is a horrible idea. I don't need my car to make noise, to know I shouldn't hit pedestrains (blind, or otherwise). I also don't need my car to screech "Please check all rerview mirrors" when I switch gears into reverse.
Pedestrians and drivers both need to act responsibly to make the roads, crosswalks, and parking lots safe for us all. If you drive a quiet car, you need to take personal responsibility for it by being more alert, and driving much slower in pedestrian-filled areas. It's that simple. We already have laws that make hitting people with your car illegal. We don't need noisemakers to remind us of this fact.
But that's not the reason for the noisemakers - it's so people other than you can hear your car approach and get out of the way - or not step out in front of you unexpectedly. It actually has nothing to do with you as a driver. Heck, it has less to do with driver skill/attention than actual stopping distance/reaction time of the cars.
If someone hears a car coming, they (for the most part) won't walk out into it's path - but the problem that has been discovered (or is being researched) is that people can't hear the new hybrid/electric cars until they are much closer, which means they do walk out into its path, with less time for the driver to react, or for the car to stop.
Personally, I would rather be able to depend on my own senses than trust that everyone behind the wheel of a car is paying 100% attention at all times - or has enough stopping distance when I step out from behind another car. And all of my senses are still intact. If I relied on hearing more than seeing, this kind of difference in sound would worry me.
And yeah, nothing is 100% effective, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. People still run through stop signs, but I don't think we shouldn't have them and should just trust people to slow down, stop, and look at intersections.
We already have laws that make hitting people with your car illegal. We don't need noisemakers to remind us of this fact.
... you think adding a noisemaker to a silent car is for the benefit of the driver?
If someone hears a car coming, they (for the most part) won't walk out into it's path - but the problem that has been discovered (or is being researched) is that people can't hear the new hybrid/electric cars until they are much closer, which means they do walk out into its path, with less time for the driver to react, or for the car to stop.
Personally, I would rather be able to depend on my own senses than trust that everyone behind the wheel of a car is paying 100% attention at all times - or has enough stopping distance when I step out from behind another car. And all of my senses are still intact. If I relied on hearing more than seeing, this kind of difference in sound would worry me.
And yeah, nothing is 100% effective, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. People still run through stop signs, but I don't think we shouldn't have them and should just trust people to slow down, stop, and look at intersections.
Pedestrians also must take responsiblity to be observant. I can recall my mother and father drilling it into my head to "look both ways before crossing the street". I do this whenever I cross the street, and I am on guard when walking through parking lots looking for car exhaust or backup lights to tell me I need to be extra careful when passing behind that car. Being a pedestrian does not excuse you from needing to be attentive to avoid auto accidents.
I understand people are concerned with the blind in this whole discussion. Certainly, they lack the ability to simply increase their level of awareness by focusing on the cues offered by their surroundings. Honestly, my opinion is that we'll need to wait on the full results of the study. I have never seen an incident on the news of a blind person in my area being struck by a car. How many blind people are struck by cars in a given year? How many of those are accidents? How many of those accidents occur at low-speeds? How many of these accidents would likely be prevented by the noisemakers? These are questons I don't have the answers to; and I don't think the study has them yet either. If accidents involving the blind make up as small a number as I am under the impression that they do, how much are we willing to invest in noisemakers when those funds could go to things like actually trying to cure blindness itself.
If someone hears a car coming, they (for the most part) won't walk out into it's path - but the problem that has been discovered (or is being researched) is that people can't hear the new hybrid/electric cars until they are much closer, which means they do walk out into its path, with less time for the driver to react, or for the car to stop.
Personally, I would rather be able to depend on my own senses than trust that everyone behind the wheel of a car is paying 100% attention at all times - or has enough stopping distance when I step out from behind another car. And all of my senses are still intact. If I relied on hearing more than seeing, this kind of difference in sound would worry me.
And yeah, nothing is 100% effective, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. People still run through stop signs, but I don't think we shouldn't have them and should just trust people to slow down, stop, and look at intersections.
Pedestrians also must take responsiblity to be observant. I can recall my mother and father drilling it into my head to "look both ways before crossing the street". I do this whenever I cross the street, and I am on guard when walking through parking lots looking for car exhaust or backup lights to tell me I need to be extra careful when passing behind that car. Being a pedestrian does not excuse you from needing to be attentive to avoid auto accidents.
I understand people are concerned with the blind in this whole discussion. Certainly, they lack the ability to simply increase their level of awareness by focusing on the cues offered by their surroundings. Honestly, my opinion is that we'll need to wait on the full results of the study. I have never seen an incident on the news of a blind person in my area being struck by a car. How many blind people are struck by cars in a given year? How many of those are accidents? How many of those accidents occur at low-speeds? How many of these accidents would likely be prevented by the noisemakers? These are questons I don't have the answers to; and I don't think the study has them yet either. If accidents involving the blind make up as small a number as I am under the impression that they do, how much are we willing to invest in noisemakers when those funds could go to things like actually trying to cure blindness itself.
However, it is still a concern IMO, regardless of being blind or not. You can tell people to be as careful as they can be, and yet we still have things that are there to prevent accidents - such as stop signs and cross walks. This is just another part of that.
I've mentioned before that I do think more research is warranted, or at least should be made public, as one article half-siting one study isn't really good, but overall I support the idea.
I was talking to my friend who is a civil engineer, and he brought up another issue raised by this: sightlines will have to be increased, as well. His whole job is building things so that people are less likely to have accidents, and that includes accounting for people not paying attention. The sightlines in areas such as parking lots would have to be increased because at low speeds (where the noise is more from the car than from the tires on the road), the sightlines are much shorter than at high speeds. If people don't hear a car coming, then they'll more likely walk out, leaving the car less time to react, so there are calculations and math stuff to figure out the "safe" distance. But, at the same time, he also discussed how engineers don't want to place all responsibility for accidents on one party (the driver, in the case of sightlines), and so thought making a car a little noisier isn't a bad idea as well.
And I do have to disagree with that last part of your post (bolded). That is a ridiculous idea, that funds to fix a smaller problem shouldn't be used because they should be used for a much grander problem. That's like saying we shouldn't offer handicapped parking spots but should just spend the money on researching regrowing limbs. Yeah, it would be great if we could regrow limbs, but handicapped parking spaces should still exist. Not to mention that not everyone who uses a handicapped spot is missing a limb (not everyone who is blind will be able to be "cured").
Basically, I support doing a more in-depth study on the accidents associated with quieter cars, blind or not - because I still think telling people to be careful is already being done, and agree with a failsafe. Regardless of being blind, if you have one of two dominant senses taken away (hearing, in the case of the car), then it can be a problem. If the study shows that there are more low-speed accidents with quieter cars, then it would be a case to add noisemakers, and I support that.
The studies are done and indicate that quieter cars are more likely to be involved in accidents than their louder brtheren.
Question:
Why do you feel you should be allowed to have a quieter car?
Hypothetical:
The studies are done and indicate that quieter cars are more likely to be involved in accidents than their louder brtheren.
Question:
Why do you feel you should be allowed to have a quieter car?
How much more likely? Does the study account for differences in area (ie. urban vs suburban vs rural)? How loud is the sound required to be? Will the sound affect my epilepsy?
Hypothetical:
The studies are done and indicate that quieter cars are more likely to be involved in accidents than their louder brtheren.
Question:
Why do you feel you should be allowed to have a quieter car?
How much more likely? Does the study account for differences in area (ie. urban vs suburban vs rural)? How loud is the sound required to be? Will the sound affect my epilepsy?
Q: Why do you feel you should be allowed to have a quieter car?
A: I can nitpick about the finer details of the study to avoid having to defend my position.
None of thoes things answers the question.
Have you seen the back window of a Prius? For as large as it is there is next to no visibility. It was something I noticed while being behind one yesterday on my way to work.
Since Prius's are probably the strongest selling of hybrid models (for the moment. I bet they won't be after this year) it's piss poor visibility was more likely a factor than it's noise factor. So much so that I am willing to say that it is skewing the results quite considerably.
(and these "results"? Yeah frankly the accident isn't high enough in Hybrid models compared to Normal Cars that this? This really isn't a safety issue)
The Prius has no rearview camera, and it needs one badly. It's also from what I gather in the minority of hybrids which operate Electrically in reverse.
If anything the article should be about Prius's and their terrible visibility and the stupidity of the engineers that designed it.
I definitely would not say its an alarming difference. It does make one conclude that the hybrids in the studies are more likely to hit someone when they are moving around a parking lot (turning, backing up, starting up), but the incident increase seems so small. I'm not sure what the time frame of the study was, but it amounted to a difference between a 0.6% chance of getting hit to a 0.9% chance of getting hit. So a 1 in 300 change. And since the study was not really that well set up, its not even conclusive that adding noise makers would make a difference with that 1 in 300 incident rate.
So coupling the fact that the difference (which isn't guaranteed) is so small and that the accidents presumably the result of carelessness, it does not seem to be a significant problem. So given the lack of magnitude, I don't think it requires government action. Its one thing if Ford decides to do it and then advertises their commitment to safety. But it doesn't seem like it poses such a significant threat.
Let's say you have a 0.6% chance of your house being robbed and it raises to a 0.9% chance if you forget to lock the front door. Would you think there should be a law requiring that all houses install some sort of buzzer that sounds when the front door isn't locked? (Or those self locking doors?)
(KillerGM: I linked the study several pages back. You can find it here: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF) I definitely would not say its an alarming difference. It does make one conclude that the hybrids in the studies are more likely to hit someone when they are moving around a parking lot (turning, backing up, starting up), but the incident increase seems so small. I'm not sure what the time frame of the study was, but it amounted to a difference between a 0.6% chance of getting hit to a 0.9% chance of getting hit. So a 1 in 300 change. And since the study was not really that well set up, its not even conclusive that adding noise makers would make a difference with that 1 in 300 incident rate. So coupling the fact that the difference (which isn't guaranteed) is so small and that the accidents presumably the result of carelessness, it does not seem to be a significant problem. So given the lack of magnitude, I don't think it requires government action. Its one thing if Ford decides to do it and then advertises their commitment to safety. But it doesn't seem like it poses such a significant threat. Let's say you have a 0.6% chance of your house being robbed and it raises to a 0.9% chance if you forget to lock the front door. Would you think there should be a law requiring that all houses install some sort of buzzer that sounds when the front door isn't locked? (Or those self locking doors?)
I looked at both your posts, and EE's posts pretty much cover what I feel about it. I still say that it needs to be looked at more closely.
However, to answer your question - no, because having my stuff stolen != hitting someone with a car. A more likely correlation would be, say, smoke alarms. I know that they are required by law, to prevent people getting hurt. And I support that. It's actually in my lease that I have to maintain my smoke alarms, and I signed that document willingly enough. EDIT: Perhaps a better one would be carbon monoxide detectors, as carbon monoxide poisoning is much less common, but still required by both law and my lease. And I'm fine with that, too. [/edit]
I'm all for government action, if it is warranted - see my post earlier about car companies doing something voluntarily just because it's safer. There are plenty of non-hyperbole laws and things that exist for just such a reason, and I don't see this as being any different.
I have never in this thread said I think it's 100% needed right now. I have continuously said it should be looked into and that I support it if it makes a difference in the lives of pedestrians and drivers.
The main problem with the smoke or CO detector analogy is that CO and fires often times are not caused by negligence. CO isn't even detectable by normal means. I think most opponents (of the law) in this thread argued that the accidents can be avoided by simple, cautionary steps (like exercising caution at streets and parking lots). That's why I think the locking doors example is more analogous. If you wanted to make it a matter of personal injury, you can change "getting robbed" to "home invasion" or a "robbery in progress".
And I suppose I'm just less willing for new laws to be written for minor benefits. And as I said, in the grand scheme of safety laws, I think this wouldn't be all so bad.
I mean, it's like brake lights and wearing reflective clothing at night. It helps other people be more aware of where you are, so that you can be more careful.
But... in the case of the pedestrian, if they're being hit, then this helps them be more aware and take care of themselves. In the case of the driver, it helps people be aware of them, and take care of themselves.
I mean, it's like brake lights and wearing reflective clothing at night. It helps other people be more aware of where you are, so that you can be more careful.
Exactly.
I disagree with the locked door analogy because it isn't the same thing - being robbed and/or invaded isn't an accident cause by both parties being unaware (for whatever reasons). Fires and dying through carbon monoxide poisoning are (most fires, IIRC, are caused by accident/negligence, and yet smoke detectors are still required by law).
Hypothetical:
The studies are done and indicate that quieter cars are more likely to be involved in accidents than their louder brtheren.
Question:
Why do you feel you should be allowed to have a quieter car?
How much more likely? Does the study account for differences in area (ie. urban vs suburban vs rural)? How loud is the sound required to be? Will the sound affect my epilepsy?
Q: Why do you feel you should be allowed to have a quieter car?
A: I can nitpick about the finer details of the study to avoid having to defend my position.
None of thoes things answers the question.
If I'm not allowed to try to understand the hypothetical situation you proposed, there's no reason to entertain giving you an answer to the question you posed. Especially since the set-up of your post made it seem that the question you asked was to be answered in light of the hypothetical you proposed.
If a study is done right, then it will account for locale.
If a noise-maker is required by law, it will be set to an audible level similar to conventional automotives.
If a noise-maker is required by law, it will mimic the sound of a "normal" car, so it would only interact with your epilepsy if other cars do.
So really, only one question was legitimate, which is "how much".
Well, to be fair, only one of your questions was legitimate.
If a study is done right, then it will account for locale.
If a noise-maker is required by law, it will be set to an audible level similar to conventional automotives.
If a noise-maker is required by law, it will mimic the sound of a "normal" car, so it would only interact with your epilepsy if other cars do.
So really, only one question was legitimate, which is "how much".
Operating under these assumptions:
1) the noisemaker will make the same noise as cars
2) it will be the same volume as normal car sounds
3) the noisemaker cuts off when the vehicle is traveling fast enough to be heard without it (that way I can better listen for problematic engine noises).
4) the cost of the noisemaker is negligble (adds less than $10 a month to my car payment).
. . . I have no problem with the noisemakes as long as they statistically save even one life.
Note: I mentioned the epilepsy because someone earlier in the thread mentioned something about ahorn-like or forklift-like sound; and some of those sounds do affect me.