It is not a question of sensitivity or lack thereof. Its a question of where the fine line is between inconveniencing one group of people for the protection and benefit of another.

If only one hybrid existed and the entire population was blind, there is no question that the hybrid would be made noisey. Conversely, if only one blind person existed in a world full of hybrids, it is extremely unlikely that everyone, or even a few of them would be "belled".

So where is the line?...and where is the evidence to support that the line is actually in that place? Should we really add cost and complexity to every quiet vehicle, additional noise to the cacophony that already characterizes our cities and accosts every citizen therein without knowing that such noise actually does provide a benefit to someone? ...and for how large a population of someones that benefit actually applies? ... or for that matter how much of an actual benefit it really is?

Challenging anything of this nature is sort of like attacking Apple Pie. It is so unpopular in our overly PC society that the actual disadvantages and benefits that accrue from the proposed change are never actually considered.

 

My comments and suggestions are aimed towards the sighted people with their heads up their butts. I have an Uncle with MS that is losing his site. I won't even joke about that. The blind make up a small percentage of our population. And an even smaller part of the vehicle/pedestrian accidents. The problem is not the quietness of the cars, it's lack of attention. People have to start taking responsibilty for their actions and quit laying the blame on others. People have griped for years about loud pipes on motorcycles and V8 cars and trucks. Now they gripe about the cars being too quiet

 

It think the long and the short of it is this... Its not up to the blind PEDESTRIAN to detect the vehicle and dance out of the way as we zoom by without actually USING the vision that we are lucky enough to have! Its up to the sighted driver to pay attention and STOP for them when they are in the crosswalk!

 

Hi Tim,

Part of the problem is of the 5-6 blind killed every year, only 11% were in the crosswalks. Also, they seem to share the same rate of blood alcohol levels as other pedestrian fatalities. Finally, none has been killed by a Prius, yet.

We looked at the pedestrian accident rate of Prius versus other cars and found they are virtually identical (small differences due to any sampled data.) What this means is our cars are not unique in pedestrian-vehicle accidents.

So here we have this conundrum:

• blind fatalities resemble other pedestrians in not using crosswalks and frequency of higher blood alcohol levels
• Prius accident rates are at the same rate as ordinary cars

The legal issues of who is at fault don't really matter to the dead. The issue is how do we reduce vehicle pedestrian accidents. What can be demonstrated to work? After all, we already know noise differences are not showing up in the vehicle-pedestrian accident rate.

Bob Wilson

 

Actually, I would argue that sensitivity plays a part in this conversation. Take another look at tanstaafl14's comment about advocates for the blind and tell me honestly that there isn't a sensitivity issue there. Come on- 'the blind have joined the whinefest'? How can you get anyone to take you seriously, continue to read your arguments, or even LOOK at the real data, like Bob would suggest, if you belittle the people you're talking to that way? I know this is a 'PC' view of things- wanting a little basic civility- but if you're really trying to be convincing, then maybe going around mocking the disabled isn't a good way to start.

I do agree, however, that a better thing to discuss is where you draw the line between individual preferences/benefits and public preferences/benefits. However, in this particular argument, it might be hard to determine which side is speaking for the public and which side is arguing for individuals. Who's the minority here, hybrid car owners or the blind? There may not be much difference in the size of the populations, I really couldn't say, but then let's take a look at the inconveniences involved.

It really comes down to whether you have to take something and make it obnoxious or loud or significantly inconvenient for a group of people (hybrid owners) in order to advance another goal, ie: traffic safety for blind people. Bob presents persuasive data that even the most severe inconveniences for hybrid drivers (big, ringing buzzers or whatever the heck they come up with) wouldn't significantly increase traffic safety for blind people, -----because quiet cars haven't put their safety at any significant risk! ... and in particular, at no more risk than other cars already pose to them. The cost benefit analysis, then, is pretty clear- even at great cost, the potential benefits are small or zero, so why impose any cost at all?

 

I underlined part of your quote. My point exactly ... no-one can say without further study.

We can't say if there is a benefit to the blind, or anyone else.
We can't quantify the benefit if it exists.
We can't say it is the optimun method to acheive a benefit.
We cant say what the trade-off in terms and cost and disadvantage will be vs. the benefit.
We can't even say if the problem exists if you refer to available data to date (Bob's and others).

Any (re)action at this early stage would be a kneejerk guess and that is all....An emotionally charged response to a socially hot topic.

BTW, I hope your reference to "mocking the disabled" does not refer to any post I have made. My jabs have been at the lack of method, and the idea of going off half charged. I understand that the organizations that represent the blind, and the other disadvantaged groups, all have valid reasons for existence and often valid arguments. However, these same groups can, and often do, take advantage of the emotionally based and politically motivated responses of the rulemakers to acheive their objectives.

Consider the hearing that Bob attended. Multiple groups and subject authorities were permitted to testify on behalf of the proposed legislation, a few manufacturers and industry groups that could be considered as interested parties were permitted to speak, and were largely neutral parties except with respect to costs. However, not one speaker was invited to testify from the perspective of hybrid owners, drivers or hybrid organizations.

This type of proceeding is setup to advance the legislation based on inertia gained from emotional and politically correct arguments that are not based on fact or science.

IMHO, that is not a fair playing field.