Blind people complaining that hybrids are too quiet....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070214/ts_alt_afp/usautohybridpedestriansaccident_070214034245

You don't think it's legitimate that the Federation of the Blind is concerned about cars being too quiet? How exactly will blind people know if a hybrid is coming?

Perhaps they would like all cars to be mandatorily equipped with large and every loud stereos, which must be played at high volumes anytime the car is in motion.

You don't think it's legitimate that the Federation of the Blind is concerned about cars being too quiet? How exactly will blind people know if a hybrid is coming?
the tires still make road noise. if it's enough at slow speeds (when the gas engine isn't running) is enough, i don't know, i've ner driven one faster than 5mph. you'd think that in city traffic they'd be more than just one car or in an alley it would be going slow enough to avoid someone.

You don't think it's legitimate that the Federation of the Blind is concerned about cars being too quiet? How exactly will blind people know if a hybrid is coming?

When the cross the street, blind people should either have a seeing eye dog, someone to help them, or the little chirping noise maker that tells them when to go.

Perhaps they would like all cars to be mandatorily equipped with large and every loud stereos, which must be played at high volumes anytime the car is in motion.

You must pump ghetto music from your car, with the windows rolled down, at 500 decibles.

True, you'd think there were better ways to make sure blind people cross the street safely than just having them listen to the cars...

In many European cities there are audible alerts sounding at crosswalks when the light turns green & changing to an intermittent tone when the light is yellow. When the light is red, there is no tone. Having those made it easier to teach my son how to properly cross the street.

When the cross the street, blind people should either have a seeing eye dog, someone to help them, or the little chirping noise maker that tells them when to go.
We have the little chirping dudes at the intersection of 33rd and State here. But you're screwed if you're blind and need to get to Stuart Building (where all the CS classes are), which is north of 31st...31st and State doesn't have them.

If you're blind, you need an escort of some sort to assist you across a street. This is just common sense. Dog or person. You shouldn't go randomly walking into traffic when you don't know what's coming.

You don't think it's legitimate that the Federation of the Blind is concerned about cars being too quiet? How exactly will blind people know if a hybrid is coming?

I can see why they're concerned. But it's not my fault that they're blind. It's called a disability for a reason. I feel badly that they have to live with blindness, but ultimately they need to take responsibility for ensuring their own safety rather than making the rest of the world bend to their will.

I can see why they're concerned. But it's not my fault that they're blind. It's called a disability for a reason. I feel badly that they have to live with blindness, but ultimately they need to take responsibility for ensuring their own safety rather than making the rest of the world bend to their will.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

I can see why they're concerned. But it's not my fault that they're blind. It's called a disability for a reason. I feel badly that they have to live with blindness, but ultimately they need to take responsibility for ensuring their own safety rather than making the rest of the world bend to their will.

This won't only affect blind people, it'll be less safe for all pedestrians. I used to listen to my mp3 player while jogging and I stopped doing that because I couldn't hear cars coming and felt less safe because of it. I'm not saying this is a major issue or concern that I have, but when I clicked on the thread entitled "This Proves People Will Complain About Anything", I was just expecting something extremely ridiculous as opposed to something that I consider a somewhat legitimate concern.

I can see why they're concerned. But it's not my fault that they're blind. It's called a disability for a reason. I feel badly that they have to live with blindness, but ultimately they need to take responsibility for ensuring their own safety rather than making the rest of the world bend to their will.

I can understand how you feel, but this isn't about making others bend to their will.

The point is that these people are citizens just like you and I and it's the government's responsibility to provide them with a resonably safe environment just as they do for us, the seeing. If it's not considered unreasonable for us to demand traffic signals to make us safer when we cross the street, I fail to see that the blind making the same request is unreasonable, just because being blind is called a "disability". We don't demand that healthy individuals "take responsibility for ensuring their own safety", so why treat the blind that way?

Is there a new market opening up for an automotive "cow bell"?

Here's a few more suggestions:

We should make cars go slower, so that crippled people have more time to cross the street.

There should be a light on cars that should light up when a driver honks its horn, so that deaf people know when the car is honking.

Bicyclists should have to have a constant buzzer on their bikes, so blind people know when they're coming too.

The point is that these people are citizens just like you and I and it's the government's responsibility to provide them with a resonably safe environment just as they do for us, the seeing. If it's not considered unreasonable for us to demand traffic signals to make us safer when we cross the street, I fail to see that the blind making the same request is unreasonable, just because being blind is called a "disability". We don't demand that healthy individuals "take responsibility for ensuring their own safety", so why treat the blind that way?

We don't demand that healthy individuals take responsibility for themselves? Perhaps not to the extent we should, but I think that we do. Regardless, I think the question is 1) is it possible to accommodate everyone? 2) who should bear the costs? 3) which competing interest gets preference (the blind, or those opposed to noise pollution)?

Besides, in this case I'd suggest that we've already accommodated the blind in most cases with crossing signals that have buzzers.

Here's a few more suggestions:

We should make cars go slower, so that crippled people have more time to cross the street.

There should be a light on cars that should light up when a driver honks its horn, so that deaf people know when the car is honking.

Bicyclists should have to have a constant buzzer on their bikes, so blind people know when they're coming too.

Cute, but I don't think making hybrids more audible would be some terrible annoyance or inconvenience. They can be quieter then current cars and still be loud enough to know where they are.

Cute, but I don't think making hybrids more audible would be some terrible annoyance or inconvenience. They can be quieter then current cars and still be loud enough to know where they are.

You think a buzzer on a bike is a "terrible annoyance or inconvenience"? You're asking the same thing of hybrid car owners.

Cute, but I don't think making hybrids more audible would be some terrible annoyance or inconvenience. They can be quieter then current cars and still be loud enough to know where they are.

I think Leper has a great point. All of those have the same validity and are comparable complaints.

I think Leper has a great point. All of those have the same validity and are comparable complaints.
So you think that we should make cars go slower so cripples have more time to cross the street? :rolleyes: An argument comparable to the others would be to make red lights last longer.

So you think that we should make cars go slower so cripples have more time to cross the street? :rolleyes: An argument comparable to the others would be to make red lights last longer.

No no no. Just the opposite. I think that the original complaint has just as much validity as Leper's complaints i.e. practically none.

No no no. Just the opposite. I think that the original complaint has just as much validity as Leper's complaints i.e. practically none.
So you think that blind people should just get run over and it'll be their fault for not knowing there's a car there?

I think those little chirping noisemakers should be put everywhere.

So you think that blind people should just get run over and it'll be their fault for not knowing there's a car there?

I think those little chirping noisemakers should be put everywhere.

And I think all pavement should have cushions and everyone should have their own personal professional driver to take them places, but some safety precautions are more trouble than they're worth.

How about blind people just get a friggin' seeing eye dog or a friend to help them out rather than asking the country to spend a 100 billion dollars on chirpers that drive everyone nuts?

You think a buzzer on a bike is a "terrible annoyance or inconvenience"? You're asking the same thing of hybrid car owners.

Bikes are far less dangerous then cars. They travel slower, they're smaller, and they are more maneuverable. Also, in case of an accident there's a much smaller chance of serious injuries. Adding a buzzer (to which I assume you meant some constant noise as opposed to something like a car horn) would only annoy people and not really add any safety.

Cars are far more dangerous and I don't see what's so terrible about not having silent cars. I'm not advocating extremely loud cars, just cars people can hear and know it's coming without looking in its direction.

So you think that blind people should just get run over and it'll be their fault for not knowing there's a car there?

I think those little chirping noisemakers should be put everywhere.

About 1 percent of the population is truely blind (not this sight imparement crap that is fixed by contacts which they throw into all the statistics) and about a third of those are in nursing homes. Futher, many of those who are blind have either a seeing-eye dog or someone to help them.

The cost of those chirping noisemakers, in money and in noise pollution is a far bigger cost than the benefits granted by them (considering the small percentage of blind people).

Any blind person will tell you that if they are trying to cross a road and there is no chirping noisemaker, they will ask someone to help them cross or they will wait until someone else crosses and follow the noise of their footsteps. I am sorry that they are disabled, but they do need to learn to live with their disability instead of conforming the world around them. If half our population was blind it would be a different matter, but they aren't.

And I think all pavement should have cushions and everyone should have their own personal professional driver to take them places, but some safety precautions are more trouble than they're worth.

How about blind people just get a friggin' seeing eye dog or a friend to help them out rather than asking the country to spend a 100 billion dollars on chirpers that drive everyone nuts?
I saw a blind guy with a seeing eye dog the other day, and the dog kind of led him off to the side strangely as he was crossing the street, so he tripped over the curb and fell into the middle of the intersection. If the car he fell in front of had started moving already there's no way it could have avoided running him over. I don't think seeing eye dogs really work as well as everyone thinks all the time.

About 1 percent of the population is truely blind (not this sight imparement crap that is fixed by contacts which they throw into all the statistics) and about a third of those are in nursing homes. Futher, many of those who are blind have either a seeing-eye dog or someone to help them.

The cost of those chirping noisemakers, in money and in noise pollution is a far bigger cost than the benefits granted by them (considering the small percentage of blind people).

Any blind person will tell you that if they are trying to cross a road and there is no chirping noisemaker, they will ask someone to help them cross or they will wait until someone else crosses and follow the noise of their footsteps. I am sorry that they are disabled, but they do need to learn to live with their disability instead of conforming the world around them. If half our population was blind it would be a different matter, but they aren't.

I know it's not a huge deal, since there really aren't that many blind people. Honestly this isn't something I care THAT much about. I wouldn't cry or anything if every single blind person in the U.S. died. I guess you can just admit that you're insensitive, but I really try not to be.

I know it's not a huge deal, since there really aren't that many blind people. Honestly this isn't something I care THAT much about. I wouldn't cry or anything if every single blind person in the U.S. died. I guess you can just admit that you're insensitive, but I really try not to be.

wow! I wouldn't normally admit that outright, but I don't know any blind people either, so I probably wouldn't cry either. It would be sad though.

And I think all pavement should have cushions and everyone should have their own personal professional driver to take them places, but some safety precautions are more trouble than they're worth.

How about blind people just get a friggin' seeing eye dog or a friend to help them out rather than asking the country to spend a 100 billion dollars on chirpers that drive everyone nuts?
The little chirping dudes are perfectly reasonable. And they don't "drive everyone nuts"; I'm used to the one on 33rd and State.

So you think that blind people should just get run over and it'll be their fault for not knowing there's a car there?

I think those little chirping noisemakers should be put everywhere.
I think that blind people should get help when crossing the street, or when they are out in public. Like a dog or person...

I think that blind people should get help when crossing the street, or when they are out in public. Like a dog or person...
See my post about the dogs...

Also, blind peopled don't want to have to depend on other people so that they can do simple things like go out to the grocery store. If they don't have any family or friends, they'd either have to buy a guide dog, or pay a person to help them, or rely on the kindness of total strangers!

The little chirping dudes are perfectly reasonable. And they don't "drive everyone nuts"; I'm used to the one on 33rd and State.

Does noise pollution concern any of you? I mean, even if you could make every inanimate object in the world have some sort of noise-making device attached to it so that blind people could know where everything is, I STILL would lobby hard against that.

No noise is a GOOD thing! Good lord....If you've got a personal problem, you need to deal with it instead of trying to make everyone cater to your problem.

True, you'd think there were better ways to make sure blind people cross the street safely than just having them listen to the cars...

Agreed.

Does noise pollution concern any of you? I mean, even if you could make every inanimate object in the world have some sort of noise-making device attached to it so that blind people could know where everything is, I STILL would lobby hard against that.

No noise is a GOOD thing! Good lord....If you've got a personal problem, you need to deal with it instead of trying to make everyone cater to your problem.
They're not that loud. No louder than the cars roaring through the intersection.

We don't demand that healthy individuals take responsibility for themselves? Perhaps not to the extent we should, but I think that we do.

Sure we do, in many ways, but in the context of crossing the street safely we've installed electric devices to control the flow of traffic and we've made laws/rules that all citizens understand regarding their function. We don't require people to make a mad dash through traffic when crossing the street, indeed we fine individuals who jaywalk. One reason we might want to help the blind cross the street safely is because it would be safer for everyone if we did so.


Regardless, I think the question is 1) is it possible to accommodate everyone?

No, but then again, we're not talking about accomodating everyone, just blind people when they're attempting to cross the street without causing a traffic accident.


2) who should bear the costs?

Because I consider it a matter of public safety, the taxpayer should pay the cost.


3) which competing interest gets preference (the blind, or those opposed to noise pollution)?

The blind. Their concern seems more life-threatening to me. An added bonus is that you won't be pissing off the deaf. :D


Besides, in this case I'd suggest that we've already accommodated the blind in most cases with crossing signals that have buzzers.

Those are good things, and to be honest I think the whole argument about the quiet cars is moot. There can't have been a lot of blind people run down by these things just because they don't make much noise. There's also the fact that it really doesn't matter what kind of vehicle you're driving when you squash someone carrying a red-and-white cane. You're screwed.

The blind. Their concern seems more life-threatening to me. An added bonus is that you won't be pissing off the deaf. :D
If there was only 10 or 20 blind people in the US it would still be more life threatening to the blind people, but it would be ridiculous to spend that sort of money on them.

No, but then again, we're not talking about accomodating everyone, just blind people when they're attempting to cross the street without causing a traffic accident.

If I thought it would stop here, I might agree with you, but everyone wants their own accomodations. What about accomodating the hybrid owners who don't want to drive around with the automotive equivalent of a playing card in their spokes?

Because I consider it a matter of public safety, the taxpayer should pay the cost.

You're killing me. :)

The blind. Their concern seems more life-threatening to me.

I'm going to get crucified for this, but how many annoyed hybrid drivers are equal to a run-over blind person? Wait, don't answer that.

Those are good things, and to be honest I think the whole argument about the quiet cars is moot. There can't have been a lot of blind people run down by these things just because they don't make much noise. There's also the fact that it really doesn't matter what kind of vehicle you're driving when you squash someone carrying a read-and-white cane. You're screwed.

Ultimately you're correct. Between car horns and white canes, this shouldn't be an issue at all.

Here's a thought - what if a theoretical new hybrid noise rule was so annoying people stopped buying hybrids?

Here's a thought - what if a theoretical new hybrid noise rule was so annoying people stopped buying hybrids?
No biggie, really. Hybrids don't do all that much for the environment. They're main benefit is to act as an excuse to research stuff that will really help.

Here's another thought on this topic. Isn't it actually in blind peoples' interest to reduce white noise? I mean, they would be able to hear EVERYTHING better.

Here's another thought on this topic. Isn't it actually in blind peoples' interest to reduce white noise? I mean, they would be able to hear EVERYTHING better.

But not hybrid cars.

No biggie, really. Hybrids don't do all that much for the environment. They're main benefit is to act as an excuse to research stuff that will really help.

Seems like your last sentence defeats the thesis laid out in your first sentence.

But not hybrid cars.


Well, since 95+% of vehicles are not hybrids, wouldn't it help to hear those better. Surely there are some old blind people out there that don't hear regular combustion engines that well either.

And actually, I disagree even with the statement you've made. If everyone drove a hybrid car, you would be able to hear the hybrid cars better. Maybe the real criticism blind people should be making is that regular cars are too noisy.

Well, since 95+% of vehicles are not hybrids, wouldn't it help to hear those better. Surely there are some old blind people out there that don't hear regular combustion engines that well either.

I think you'd be hardpressed to find an old person with bad hearing who was also blind wandering around by himself.

And actually, I disagree even with the statement you've made. If everyone drove a hybrid car, you would be able to hear the hybrid cars better. Maybe the real criticism blind people should be making is that regular cars are too noisy.

Possibly, yes. The article isn't very clear on the conditions surrounding the test. It simply says it was conducted on a sidestreet, whether that was a sidestreet in NYC or somewhere in Iowa would make a pretty big difference. Still, we're extremely far away from the day when combustion engines aren't the majority on the road.

Seems like your last sentence defeats the thesis laid out in your first sentence.
Not quite.