Hybrid Car Noise Bill to Protect Pedestrians

[mgeary]

We (Californians) have the cell phone law passed and signed, going into effect on July 1, 2008. I just wonder whether and how much it will be enforced. I've heard much on Punaweb indicating it's difficult to get enforcement of existing laws.

And, back to my original point, is there in fact a statistical increase in injuries or fatalities in the blind population due to hybrid/EV vehicles, or is this just a perceived, possible threat that has yet to materialize? How many blind pedestrians have actually been struck by a hybrid or EV auto?

Just my opinion, but I think we should reward those who choose hybrid/EV, instead of penalizing them financially with an additional safety feature that may or may not be needed. Incentivize, don't penalize, new (greener, better) technologies, and the market will follow.

Aloha! ;-)

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mgeary
......And, back to my original point, is there in fact a statistical increase in injuries or fatalities in the blind population due to hybrid/EV vehicles, or is this just a perceived, possible threat that has yet to materialize? How many blind pedestrians have actually been struck by a hybrid or EV auto?........

---

So far, statistics do not show that a larger number of pedestrians tend to be hit by hybrid cars than by non-hybrid cars.

According to this link.

I can't find anything local on the numbers. I do know that pedestrian accidents have been increasing, however, the make(s) of vehicle involved is still in question to me.

-------------
On this day in History:
The Supreme Court ruled the power of the federal government is greater than that of any individual state

[Guest]

Looks like Arizona, Virginia and Marylands legislature are trying to pass a similar law.

The Arizona Daily Star is running this editorial against the bill.

Of note:

To date, there have been no reports of any blind people being hit, much less killed, by a hybrid vehicle.



-------
Today in History:
Pacific Commercial Advertiser announced that the Volcano House was open for business, 1866

[mgeary]

That's what I was afraid of...fear-based legislation that adds cost (and noise and weight) to prevent an imaginary problem.

Just to be clear, the first time a blind pedestrian is struck and, heaven forbid, killed by a hybrid car doesn't mean anything, really, other than to the people involved and their families:

Assume that 0.1% of all cars on the road are hybrids (I have no idea what the actual number is), then 0.1% of all pedestrian accidents (or any other kind of accident) should, statistically speaking, involve hybrid vehicles. And if blind people make up 1% of the average, random pedestrian traffic (again, I have no idea what the actual number is), then 0.001% of all pedestrian accidents should, statistically speaking, involve hybrid vehicles vs. blind pedestrians.

With a given number of hybrid vehicles, and a given proportion of blind pedestrians, there is a calculable probability that we should expect hybrid vehicles to strike blind pedestrians. If the actual numbers are greater, then maybe we have a problem, which may or may not have anything to do with noise levels. If there's no statistical difference between random and actual, then there's no problem with hybrid vehicles vis-a-vis blind pedestrians.

That's all I'm saying, is to apply a little factual analysis to the situation before we start mandating a costly, noisy add-on to hybrid vehicles.

Aloha! ;-)

[missydog1]

Having driven a hybrid for 5 years, this seems wrong to me. The hybrid engine is quiet, but the hybrid in motion makes noise just from the tires rolling down the street same as any other car.

I will vouch I have more than once made the mistake of trying to restart my hybrid when it was stopped at an intersection because the motor was that quiet. And this was not on the Econ setting, which turns the motor off at intersections.

But once the vehicle is stopped at the intersection it's not really a hazard, is it? I doubt the hybrid owner is going to power up and barrel over a blind pedestrian.

I think blind people are at risk from reckless drivers, and hybrid owners don't fit that category. No one who likes to drive fast and accelerate would be happy driving a hybrid as they are relatively gutless.

[gtill]

Then should trucks be relieved of the reverse beepers and bells? Would save a lot of money and hassle!

Gordon J Tilley

[Guest]

I appreciate the email someone sent me through PW regarding there knowledge of this issue.

I just wanted to clarify that I'm not researching the issue.

I used to work at the legislature and I still like to follow bills.

This one sounded a bit weird so I thought I would mention it on PW since were all a bunch of Earth Lovers here.[8D]

-------
Today in History:
Pacific Commercial Advertiser announced that the Volcano House was open for business, 1866

[mgeary]

There's a measurable, verifiable link between putting a vehicle in reverse gear and getting in an accident. In the county fire department that I work for, we did a little research and found over half of all accidents occurred in reverse gear. It's easy to show that driving in reverse does NOT account for half of all miles driven by our fire trucks, so there is an extra-ordinary hazard associated with driving in reverse gear. Namely, lack of adequate visibility, and it's born out by the accident statistics.

Back to the original idea, there is no measurable, verifiable link between driving a hybrid car and striking a blind pedestrian. Somebody, somewhere has an idea that there might be such a link, but it hasn't been shown, statistically.

Aloha! ;-)

[amf217]

Another stupid law that can't be enforced[xx(]

[Bob Orts]

That's a good point about the measurable risk. But I'm curious; who keeps this measurable verified link? For that matter is the propulsion system of a vehicle even identified? It's possible there are reported incidents; just that "hybrid" classification isn't a criteria of accident reports. I know that here on the mainland they can't tell if a pedestrian/auto accident involved a vehicle powered by gas, diesel, e-85, hybrid, coal fired, or powered by a nuclear reactor. Now Damon raised an interesting item. HI is not alone. This seems to be wider spread than reported. Curious how it's popping up all over the country and all seemingly aimed not at passing any state mandated requirement, just some nudging the federal government to set a standard. This may be some conspiracy, but by whom?