SB 1174: Cars must be noisy [Archive] - ApteraForum.com

KarenRei

08-20-2008, 12:43 PM

Agreed.

I wouldn't mind if the bill wasn't so explicit about, "While we only have anecdotes, we're going to assume that EVs are a serious threat to the blind, and here is how you're going to fix it -- putting noisemakers on them. We'll establish a committee to determine what kind of noise to make."

If the bill said something to the effect of the following, I don't think anyone here would have any problem with it:

"In the interest in promoting the safety of the blind around motorized vehicles, we're establishing a scientific review board to determine what poses the most significant threat to them, both in the present and in a future where there will be more electric vehicles on the road. We will leave it up to the board to determine what actions are most appropriate to balance the needs of safety for the blind with the cost effectiveness of remedies and our desire to reduce noise pollution (with the focus being on the safety of the blind), and then we will implement them."

If a scientific review board determines that they *are* a major threat to the blind and that the *only* effective way to reduce accidents is to have each EV have a huge loudspeaker on the front that blares Sir Mix-A-Lot whenever the vehicle is in motion, then sure, sign it into law. But if they decide that it's not a relevant threat or that there are better solutions (say, that reducing excessive noise from *other* vehicles drowning out quieter ones is a more appropriate solution, or perhaps installing transponders in quiet that alert devices that can be carried by the blind), then by all means, make *that* the legislative answer.

APTERA 2356

08-20-2008, 01:41 PM

Well I am going to get a speaker system to broadcast
" This noise polution courtesy of your state lawmakers"
as loud as is legal over and over

garygid

08-20-2008, 01:55 PM

Maybe they will make a bill to require a "stinky" order to be inserted
into all water supplies, so that the blind do not accidentally drink water
instead of taking their medicine or vodka?

We do not need more sound pollution.

Already there are laws against too-noisy exhaust systems
and blaring music systems, but it seems that they are rarely
enforced.

garygid

08-20-2008, 02:00 PM

The Senate Bill SB 1174 has passed the Senate and Assembly
(after being amended) ... track its status here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1174&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Main parts:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"SEC. 2. Section 25227 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:

25227. (a) The commission shall convene a Quiet Motorized Road
Vehicle and Safe Mobility Committee comprised of representatives from
vehicle manufacturers, the blind or visually impaired pedestrian
community, insurance industry, vehicle research entities, and law
enforcement organizations, including, but not limited to, the
Department of the California Highway Patrol. The committee shall
research, identify, and make recommendations to the commission on
strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles, regardless of
engine type or configuration, emit sound sufficient to be heard and
localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.
(b) The committee shall conduct the research required by
subdivision (a) in the following order of priority:
(1) Laboratory research to determine the intensity and spectral
characteristics of vehicular sounds that are required for blind or
visually impaired pedestrians to take both of the following actions:
(A) Accurately align with vehicles.
(B) Accurately judge the speed and distance of approaching
vehicles.
(2) A comparison of the intensity and spectral characteristics of
noise emissions of different types of relatively quiet motorized road
vehicles traveling at different speeds over different surfaces in
wet and dry conditions .
(3) A comparison of the requirements of blind or visually impaired
pedestrians with the visual impairments identified pursuant to
paragraph (1).
(4) A synthesis of vehicle detection technologies that have been
developed for speed detection or vehicular collision avoidance, and a
review of these technologies to determine their feasibility for
development as vehicular sensing systems for blind or visually
impaired pedestrians.
(5) Focus group research to determine the characteristics of a
vehicular sensing system that are necessary from the perspective of
blind or visually impaired pedestrians.
(6) Technological development of prototype vehicular sensing
systems for use by blind or visually impaired pedestrians.
(7) An evaluation of the usefulness of the technologies developed
pursuant to paragraph (6) by persons with visual impairments.
(c) Based on the research conducted pursuant to subdivision (b),
the commission's recommendations shall include, but not be limited
to, proposed legislation and regulations, needed research or
technology, and funding options for implementing the recommendations.

------------------
2. "(d) On or before January 1, 2010, the commission shall submit a
report to the Legislature on the recommendations of the Quiet
Motorized Road Vehicle and Safe Mobility Committee."

------------------
3. "(f) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2011, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2011, deletes or extends
that date."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, apparently some quick "research" and then recommendations.

speculawyer

08-20-2008, 02:13 PM

In other news, a new bill mandating electric cars release noxious odors so blind and deaf people can smell them has been introduced. ;)

iwannaptera

08-20-2008, 02:46 PM

Ran by a number of fairly new idleing cars this morning here in Palo Alto before work. Noticed that I can hear everyone of them from pretty far away. This includes samll cars with small new engines. Whoever said in another thread that modern cars are difficult to hear is wrong. Whoever says that most of the noise comes from the tires is a little off too. It depends on the speed of the vehicle. I still maintain that at 20mph (a speed which can still kill you quite dead), an EV is LOADS more quiet than a ICE.

Those of you who keep crying "noise pollution" just don't get it. No one is advocating a particularly loud noise. We are just advocating that the car be nearly as loud as a modern properly tuned small ICE engined car when ideling. I just don't understand what the big deal is.

Finally, it seems perfectly possible that the committe may decide that no noise emitting devices are required. I for one would be quite satisfied if a committe comprised of law enforcement, blind and visually impaired, insurance entities, and vehicle research organizations came to that conclusion. If they come to a different conclusion, I am going to have to probably agree with them there too. They plan on doing the research, and studying the matter far more than any of you.

What the heck is the matter with that?

KarenRei

08-20-2008, 02:48 PM

Well I am going to get a speaker system to broadcast "This noise polution courtesy of your state lawmakers" as loud as is legal over and over

Ooooh... if that's legal, I'm sure that'll be a very popular mod ;)

KarenRei

08-20-2008, 02:51 PM

What the heck is the matter with that?

This is what the heck is the matter with it:

The committee shall research, identify, and make recommendations to the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles, regardless of
engine type or configuration, emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.

They've already decided on what the results are supposed to be before the committee has even met: add noisemakers to cars. In the wording of the bill itself, they're basically ruling out alternatives such as transponders. And might I ask, where have the legislators been all this time with loud vehicles making so much noise that quiet *normal* cars are harder to hear? Why did they suddenly become so concerned about the welfare of the blind right now when they could have legislated tighter noise restrictions on loud vehicles that drown out the sounds of the quieter ones all this time?

I'm sorry if I'm a bit adimant about this issue, but people mandating increases in pollution, even noise pollution, seriously bugs me.

JimmyDreams

08-20-2008, 03:35 PM

Why can't these blind people just watch where they're going?

;)

JimmyD

iwannaptera

08-20-2008, 03:39 PM

This is what the heck is the matter with it:

They've already decided on what the results are supposed to be before the committee has even met: add noisemakers to cars. In the wording of the bill itself, they're basically ruling out alternatives such as transponders.

Uhhh. Not at all. Stop being so pedantic. Read the bill as written, not as your biased mind is interpreting things.

(5) Focus group research to determine the characteristics of a
vehicular sensing system that are necessary from the perspective of
blind or visually impaired pedestrians.
(6) Technological development of prototype vehicular sensing
systems for use by blind or visually impaired pedestrians.
(7) An evaluation of the usefulness of the technologies developed
pursuant to paragraph (6) by persons with visual impairments.

(c) Based on the research conducted pursuant to subdivision (b),
the commission's recommendations shall include, but not be limited
to, proposed legislation and regulations, needed research or
technology, and funding options for implementing the recommendations.

Where does it rule out transponders. Where does it REQUIRE noise makers. The bill as written requires the formation of a committee made up of a reasonable (in my opinion) group of people who should have some authority on the matter to study the issue and make recommendations.

KarenRei

08-20-2008, 04:24 PM

How is it "pedantic" or a "biased mind" to *quote from the bill itself*? If the bill has bad wording, *it has bad wording*. I will repeat:

The committee shall research, identify, and make recommendations to the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles, regardless of
engine type or configuration, emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.

What part of that are you not understanding? It *explicitly says* that the committee is tasked ("The committee shall...") with making cars ("all motorized road vehicles") noisy ("emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized"). It doesn't say "unless there's a transponder" -- it says *all* motorized road vehicles. Transponders and vehicle detection systems are listed after as an additional thing that they're researching.

If that paragraph were to go, I'd have no problem with it. With that para there, I have a big problem with it. It's mandating that my car be noisy no matter what the committee decides about alternative options or the degree of risk.

APTERA 2356

08-20-2008, 04:43 PM

Whats next,
Should all vehicles on the road be mandated to have flashing lights in case you drive by somebody who has hearing loss?

seems like another excuse to do another useless commitee instead of focusing on the job they are paid to do.

if a person is handicaped it is their responsabillity to try to conform to the environvent not vise versa.
I have the utmost respect fotr the impaired and always do what I can to be aware of the situations around me
but do we have audable signals for stairs or any other obsticle that may pose a danger to the blind. so why here?

esmith

08-20-2008, 04:48 PM

As a pedestrian and a cyclist, I wouldn't want to have perfectly silent ghost-like cars whizzing around on city streets at 50 mph. Even though I'm not blind.

There is a distinction between ensuring that all cars make enough noise to be heard by an unsuspecting pedestrian, and ensuring that all cars have permanent loud noisemakers.

garygid

08-20-2008, 05:48 PM

If I am driving with other cars in the city, then they can make the noise.

If I am driving where there should not be any pedestrians (in the street,
not on the sidewalk, and between intersections), then should I have to listen
to the constant drone of the noise maker, just for the 1 in 100,000 chance
that I encounter an unaided blind person at the next intersection?

Is it right to make millions suffer all day every day for the unlikely chance
that they encounter an unaided blind person, crossing at an intersection
where there is nobody else to help them, and where the city has not even
been required to put in safe-crossing "chimes"?

How about the blind person that does not "stop and listen both directions"?
And, the blind person illegally jaywalking?

Until there are over 50% "silent" vehicles, something like this should not
even be considered.

Let's see some statistics where a properly-acting, legally-crossing,
non-intoxicated, non-drugged blind person was injured after listening
carefully, heard nothing, and then decided to see if there is a street
really there, all the while presenting a proper cane to warn us of their
blindness.

It is probably much less often than those sighted people killed by cars,
or those people killed by lightning, tornadoes, floods, or hurricanes.

iwannaptera

08-20-2008, 06:04 PM

How is it "pedantic" or a "biased mind" to *quote from the bill itself*? If the bill has bad wording, *it has bad wording*. I will repeat:

What part of that are you not understanding? It *explicitly says* that the committee is tasked ("The committee shall...") with making cars ("all motorized road vehicles") noisy ("emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized"). It doesn't say "unless there's a transponder" -- it says *all* motorized road vehicles. Transponders and vehicle detection systems are listed after as an additional thing that they're researching.

If that paragraph were to go, I'd have no problem with it. With that para there, I have a big problem with it. It's mandating that my car be noisy no matter what the committee decides about alternative options or the degree of risk.

Pedantic and biased because you are ignoring the fact that the bill *explicitly says* that The committee shall research, identify, and make recommendations to the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles, regardless of
engine type or configuration, emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.

How can you possibly pretend not to understand that in no way is the committee forced to recommend that sound be required? THat is a ridiculous conclusion. Read your own quote. It is perfectly possible under the way the bill is written for the committee to recommend that transponders be required and that in light of transponders, noise is not neccessary. It is also perfectly possible for the committee to recommend that mandating noise levels would not increase safety. It is also perfectly possible for the committe to consider all this and decide that a certain mandatory noise level should be required in the interest of public safety. The committee is tasked with researching all this in the context of things like vehicle sensing systems (which could easily include transponders). Your refusal to admit this is pedantic.

iwannaptera

08-20-2008, 06:12 PM

If I am driving with other cars in the city, then they can make the noise.

If I am driving where there should not be any pedestrians (in the street,
not on the sidewalk, and between intersections), then should I have to listen
to the constant drone of the noise maker, just for the 1 in 100,000 chance
that I encounter an unaided blind person at the next intersection?

Is it right to make millions suffer all day every day for the unlikely chance
that they encounter an unaided blind person, crossing at an intersection
where there is nobody else to help them, and where the city has not even
been required to put in safe-crossing "chimes"?

Once again, you are using straw man arguments. How exactly are you reaching the conclusion that such legislation would make you listen to a "constant drone" ? A properly designed system would be the noise level of a small ICE engined car properly tuned and traveling slowly or just ideling. Further, the sound should be projected away from your vehicle. From inside a car with sufficient noise dampening (which had better be the aptera or highway travel will require ear plugs), you shouldn't hear a thing, even if it is not projected away. What is up with the straw man arguments?

KarenRei

08-20-2008, 06:19 PM

How is it physically possible that you can read that paragraph and come to the conclusion that sound is not required? Seriously, what part of "shall", "all", and "emit sound" are you having trouble with?

By the way -- this is just part of the bill. Here's the header that *describes the bill*:

SB 1174, as amended, Lowenthal. Vehicles: hybrid and electric
vehicles: visually impaired pedestrians.
Existing law requires a vehicle to be equipped with certain
specific equipment to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle.
This bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission to convene a Quiet Motorized Road Vehicle
and Safe Mobility Committee comprised of representatives from
specified entities to research, identify, and make recommendations to
the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road
vehicles, regardless of engine type or configuration, emit sound
sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or
visually impaired. The bill would require the committee to
conduct the research in a specified manner, including first
conducting laboratory research to determine the intensity and
spectral characteristics of vehicular sounds, comparing the intensity
and spectral characteristics of noise emissions of different types
of relatively quiet vehicles and the requirements of blind and
visually impaired pedestrians, conducting a synthesis and review of
vehicle detection technologies, conducting focus group research,
developing prototype vehicular sensing systems, and evaluating these
systems.
The commission, on or before January 1, 2010, would be required to
submit a report to the Legislature on the recommendations from the
committee. The commission would be required to implement these
requirements using moneys from non-General Fund revenue sources
, but would be prohibited from using moneys from the Public Interest
Research, Development, and Demonstration Fund .

There is simply no way you can read this in a manner other than, "All cars must make noise". There's no "unless" in there. There's no "except" in there. There's no "on the condition that" in there. It's plain and unambiguous. They're mandating a solution before study on solutions has even begun on a problem that hasn't yet even been scientifically determined to be a problem. It's a mockery of a proper legislative processes.

iwannaptera

08-20-2008, 06:48 PM

How is it physically possible that you can read that paragraph and come to the conclusion that sound is not required? Seriously, what part of "shall", "all", and "emit sound" are you having trouble with?

By the way -- this is just part of the bill. Here's the header that *describes the bill*:

There is simply no way you can read this in a manner other than, "All cars must make noise". There's no "unless" in there. There's no "except" in there. There's no "on the condition that" in there. It's plain and unambiguous. They're mandating a solution before study on solutions has even begun on a problem that hasn't yet even been scientifically determined to be a problem. It's a mockery of a proper legislative processes.

Wow! Just Wow. I am astounded. I do still have some respect for you, but you are really being stubbornly blind here (pun not intended). Let's look at what you are quoting. Lets really really read it without bias. Just with an eye toward the exact language, not what you think the language is. You know, it's like reading a scientific paper or an engineering paper. The words matter.

This bill would require the State Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission to convene a Quiet Motorized Road Vehicle
and Safe Mobility Committee comprised of representatives from
specified entities to research, identify, and make recommendations to
the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road
vehicles, regardless of engine type or configuration, emit sound
sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or
visually impaired.

In what way does convening a committee to "make recommendations to the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles...emit sound..." equate to your interpretation that the committee must make recommendations to the commission that all motorized vehicles emit sound? You are not reading your own quotations regarding the bill.

Here is a scenario in which the committee fulfills the letter and spirit of the law and does not make recommendations to the commission that suggest requiring all motorized vehicles emit sound:

The committee meets. The committte examines the evidence and conducts research. The committee examines the results of the research. The committte makes a recommendation to the commission on strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles, regardless of engine type or configuration, emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired.
The committee's recommendation on such strategies is that strategies to ensure that all motorized road vehicles ...emit sound... are stupid, expensive, counterproductive and don't increase public safety.

I for one, don't think that will be the case based on the research and evidence, but I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong by a committee of insurance experts, vehicle safety researchers, traffic cops, and blind pedestrian advocacy groups, if they have done the proper research.

garygid

08-20-2008, 07:33 PM

How about all concerned blind persons carry a working transponder,
and all "silent" or "too quiet" cars are given (by the government, or
they buy) a corresponding transponder (with a "car sound" generator).

Then, when the two transponders are within about 100 or 200 feet of each other,
that would trigger a "beep" at the "blind" end and the generation of a
"sufficiently loud", but only-when-needed "car sound" at the vehicle end.

Even better, the blind person might only press a button on "his" transponder
when he wants to localize cars (as when crossing a street, or when in
a parking lot) and then not be bothered with the extra noise while walking
down a sidewalk or relaxing in his own backyard.

Then, the blind person would know that a car is near, and the
"car sound" allows the blind person to better localize the vehicle.
In addition, the driver is warned that there is a blind person in the area.

Also, the intersection itself could have similar transponders, set to emit
"crossing locater" sounds to aid a blind person. Similarly, other
public obstacles, work-in-progress, open-pits, etc. could emit warning
sounds for the blind. Much better than "all" cars make more noise.

This is a much more useful and flexible solution to aid the blind, and
it does not require any all-the-time sound pollution. The annoyance
is averted by using some small, mass-produced devices.

I would rather pay a little for the device than have to put up with the
constant noise whenever I am driving.

What do you think?

iwannaptera

08-20-2008, 07:37 PM

How about all concerned blind persons carry a working transponder,
and all "silent" or "too quiet" cars are given (by the government, or
they buy) a corresponding transponder (with a "car sound" generator).

[SNIP]
This is a much more useful and flexible solution to aid the blind, and
it does not require any all-the-time sound pollution. The annoyance
is averted by using some small, mass-produced devices.

I would rather pay a little for the device than have to put up with the
constant noise whenever I am driving.

What do you think?

Sounds pretty cool to me. Of course, this would all have to weighed as far as cost and other factors. Maybe we should find out who is on the committee if that bill gets passed and send along such suggestions....:happy0025:

Apt3448

08-20-2008, 07:44 PM

I like gary's suggestion and will up it a notch: let *all* vehicles emit an appropriate short range radio (?) signal which can be picked up by a receiver and translated into sound for those who need it. This could be a blind person, but also a traffic light, or even my car warning my for a car behind me not keeping sufficient distance (true meaning of the word bumper sticker). I'm sure it must be possible to have the receiver use doppler info to filter out only approaching and stationary vehicles. No needless noise pollution for anyone and great help for those who need it.

impi

08-20-2008, 07:54 PM

How about all concerned blind persons carry a working transponder,
and all "silent" or "too quiet" cars are given (by the government, or
they buy) a corresponding transponder (with a "car sound" generator).

Then, when the two transponders are within about 100 or 200 feet of each other,
that would trigger a "beep" at the "blind" end and the generation of a
"sufficiently loud", but only-when-needed "car sound" at the vehicle end.

I was thinking along the same terms. When you do water sports, you take a life preserver if you can't swim. The matching transponders represent investment by driver to guarantee safety, and as additional tools to blind to go with their cane/seeing-eye-dog.

It might be decided that due to tire noise/motor whine/whatever that the aptera emits sufficient noise, so we might (but doubtfully be in the clear there) . They will have to rule a base decibel level for vehicles to meet (and make it applicable to BOTH motorcycle and cars. It would be hilarious if some ice vehicles came up short in the noise dept and had to increase their volume.

And if there is concern, I'm sure writing to the committee might provide them valuable guidance.

garygid

08-20-2008, 07:57 PM

Hold On,

"... would require XXX to convene YYY comprised of ZZZ
to research, identify, and make recommendations ... on strategies
to ensure that all motorized road vehicles ... emit sound ..."

can be read two ways, since the nature of the "recommendations" is not specified:
1. a mandate to create "strategies" (to "emit sound"),
or
2. a request to evaluate such "emit sound" strategies, or possibly
just recommend which one to use (or not to use).

The first meaning comes more from the "research, identify".
The second meaning comes from "identify, and make recommendations".
It is not particularly clear which is meant more strongly.

You are both correct, and yet both missing the possible meaning.

However, the products to be produced are:
"research, identify, and recommendations", all about
the general area of a vehicle needing to "emit sound".

wolfdoggy

08-20-2008, 09:38 PM

Wow! Just Wow. I am astounded. I do still have some respect for you, but you are really being stubbornly blind here (pun not intended). Let's look at what you are quoting. Lets really really read it without bias. Just with an eye toward the exact language, not what you think the language is. You know, it's like reading a scientific paper or an engineering paper. The words matter..

iwannaptera are you smoking something? How in the world can you respond to Karen and even highlight the text in this bill that clearly proves you clearly are not correct? I am mind boggled! It says bill would REQUIRE"...HELLO..."REQUIRE"... commision to research, identify, and make recommendations...on strategies to "ENSURE"...HELLO..."ENSURE"...all vehicles "EMIT SOUND"...HELLO..."EMIT SOUND" sufficient to be "HEARD"...as in actually hearing a sound.

In other words the commission is going to figure out the best ways to have vehicles emit sounds, not whether they should emit sounds. I'm not trying to pick on you but this is almost unbelievable that you seem to not read it that way.

Maybe the commision would also give some other recommendations, but the actual scope of the commissions efforts, according to the text, are to figure out the best ways to "actually emit sound" from all vehicles.

Sorry, but I just had to respond to this and I will drop it now...

JimmyDreams

08-20-2008, 10:07 PM

garygid

08-20-2008, 10:27 PM

No, it is the not the recommendations that "ensure", it
is the strategies that ensure, and the recommendations
are to be about ("on") such strategies.

Apt3448

08-20-2008, 10:36 PM

Here is the LA times article on the subject:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2008/08/hybrids-vs-pede.html

Of interest:
"Although there apparently are no reported cases of a pedestrian being killed after walking in front of a silent-running hybrid, near misses and minor scrapes are becoming more frequent. "
This of course cannot be said for noisy ICE's: plenty of accidents despite the noise. (as aside: the Aptera's camera system should make accidentally running over a child when backing out of a driveway much less likely - it complements quiet with safety by increasing awareness of what goes on behind you).

"Cornwell [chief consultant to the Senate House and Transportation Committee] said no matter what happens, it’s unlikely that the state would require noisemakers to be retrofitted to vehicles already on the road." which should apply to at least the first batch of Aptera's.

The whole noise issue is silly: feel-good regulation. The idea of increasing noise pollution every mile you drive with very limited benefit in rare occasions is horribly a-specific. Obviously, hybrid and EV drivers will have to learn to somewhat change their driving behavior and be more aware of their relative quite approach. And blind people will likewise learn to recognize those electric engine sounds.

I can imagine, though, additional noises while backing out, like trucks have already. That would be specific and potentially helpful.

Carbon Saver II

08-20-2008, 10:42 PM

Reminds me of adding MTBE to the fuel so it would burn better in the summer..... never leaves the soil and is cancerous, but makes the fuel burn better.....

Government is not always right :sick0020:

wolfdoggy

08-20-2008, 11:20 PM

No, it is the not the recommendations that "ensure", it
is the strategies that ensure, and the recommendations
are to be about ("on") such strategies.

Gary...are smoking the same stuff that iwannaptera is smoking?!

Hee Hee Hee

Just joking with you....

rotus8

08-20-2008, 11:55 PM

In my personal situation, I would like cars to make a little noise. My driveway enters a state highway in the middle of a gentle curve. I cannot see very far either direction. My practice when I turn left is to stop, turn off the radio, and put down both windows. If I can't hear anything, I feel reasonably confident that I can briskly accelerate across. One of these days, a Tesla is going to come around that corner at 60 and T-bone me.

wolfdoggy

08-21-2008, 12:19 AM

Mr Aptera

08-21-2008, 02:43 AM

Our tax dollars hard at work. And Swarzeneggar is dumb enough to pass it. You know, a Lexus is really quiet rolling down the road, and coming around a corner, a blind person wouldn't have enough time to react anyways.

I'm calling BS!

rotus8

08-21-2008, 08:10 AM

Is it the sound of the tires that you can hear coming around the curve? Doesn't seem to me you could hear the noise of the cars engine that far, as modern car engines are pretty quiet. Especially compact car engines.
You are correct, tire sound is probably what I hear from many cars. The sport bikes that love that road are easy to hear (damn them). In my example the Tesla probably has sufficient tire noise at a speed that would be a problem (I used it to make a point, and Teslas drive around my area a lot as their prooving ground). However, I think the low rolling resistance tires that will be the norm on an EV will be much quieter. Time will tell.

croused

08-21-2008, 09:48 AM

Gang, I might have had the same attitude a few years ago about the noise issue but now I have a blind friend who really does get around Ann Arbor (where we don't have cross walks that chime) by listening to traffic. I had joked with him not too long ago that it was going to be a touch world when all cars were electric and it is a problem for him.

Anyway, I think all Aptera's should be equipped with retro-ice cream truck music playing.

David

KarenRei

08-21-2008, 10:26 AM

iwannaptera are you smoking something? How in the world can you respond to Karen and even highlight the text in this bill that clearly proves you clearly are not correct? I am mind boggled! It says bill would REQUIRE"...HELLO..."REQUIRE"... commision to research, identify, and make recommendations...on strategies to "ENSURE"...HELLO..."ENSURE"...all vehicles "EMIT SOUND"...HELLO..."EMIT SOUND" sufficient to be "HEARD"...as in actually hearing a sound.

Now, now... let's be nice here. ;) I completely agree with you; if my boss required me to come up with strategies to ensure that we can identify and sort DICOM files, and I came back and said that my strategy is not to identify and sort DICOM files, and I stuck by my guns on that... well, I wouldn't have a job for long ;) Plus, the entire bill talks about why they feel it's essential to make them make noise; it's all about making cars noisy. But still, let's try to keep things civil. Iwannaptera has been on this forum a long time and I respect her views, even if I can't understand where she's coming from in this particular case.

(By the way... I'm sure the "Loud Pipes Save Lives" crowd is cheering this like there's no tomorrow.)

iwannaptera

08-21-2008, 11:33 AM

I agree with Karen and Wolf...

I'm a gov't employee....I see this kind of stuff all the time. The way the law is written, the commission is plainly REQUIRED to ENSURE ALL VEHICLES MAKE SOUND.

Yes, one would think that the research and recommend part allow them to say 'no sound required', but it would go against what the commission was set up to to.

They're being told to decide WHICH sound and HOW LOUD.

;)

JimmyD

Wow! I just don't know where to start. I hope you don't work on any important government contracts. If you and I ever have to work together I may have to sue the BEEEJEEZUS out of you if you start reading law that way. You are not reading it correctly. Try again!

iwannaptera

08-21-2008, 11:53 AM

The committee shall research, identify, and make recommendations to the commission on...

Last chance. If you don't get it now, you never will. You guys can fixate on the word ensure and shall all you want. It doesn't matter. The bill says what it says. Not what you think it says. The committee shall make recommendations to the commission ON, think about what that means. Just that part. Don't think about anything else, till you have that part down. The committee is making recommendations on the strategies. It is the strategies that ensure, but the committee doesn't have to recommend the strategies positively. It can negatively recommend the strategies. This is simple stuff. You should try to wade through the 4000 page documents I have to read that all end up hinging on ONE word.

RainCaster

08-21-2008, 11:59 AM

I feel this is just another governmental feel-good action that will go nowhere. Remember CARB?

My predictions:
1. Much time and money will be spent on hearings, meetings and consulting fees.
2. After much fanfare, nothing will be done once they finally realize that it is fiscally impossible to retrofit all the cars that are on the road today.
3. More money will be spent on PR firms to publicize the resulting non-actions.

Your Skeptic in Residence,
RC

wolfdoggy

08-21-2008, 12:17 PM

Last chance. If you don't get it now, you never will. You guys can fixate on the word ensure and shall all you want. It doesn't matter. The bill says what it says. Not what you think it says. The committee shall make recommendations to the commission ON, think about what that means. Just that part. Don't think about anything else, till you have that part down. The committee is making recommendations on the strategies. It is the strategies that ensure, but the committee doesn't have to recommend the strategies positively. It can negatively recommend the strategies. This is simple stuff. You should try to wade through the 4000 page documents I have to read that all end up hinging on ONE word.

Here is a site that I went to that explained to me your thinking iwannaptera:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

It is the Flat Earth Society. Oh...and I learned there is no such thing as gravity! I was shocked. You are right and I am not going to fight it any more.

JMO

KarenRei

08-21-2008, 12:59 PM

Come on, let's stay civil. And RainCaster, that's a good point.

iwannaptera

08-21-2008, 01:10 PM

Here is a site that I went to that explained to me your thinking iwannaptera:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

It is the Flat Earth Society. Oh...and I learned there is no such thing as gravity! I was shocked. You are right and I am not going to fight it any more.

JMO

Well, I did say that was your last chance, but I figured I'd be nice and just give you one more chance to figure it out. Really. All insults aside. Just read the one part of the sentence that matters:

The committee shall MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS to the commission ON strategies...

Here is how you are reading it

The committee shall recommend to the commission strategies....

Do you see any difference? If you don't, well then I don't know what to say. If you see a difference but don't think it matters, well I have to say it does. It matters a lot. The supreme court just ruled on the second amendment based in part on the positioning of the commas. In law, every word, every punctuation mark, everything matters.

Your insults are absurd wolfdoggy. We are not talking about scientific theories. Try at least to stay on topic. Your inability to do so weakens your argument.

We are are talking about the english language and its usage. If you want to at least keep your insults in the proper frame of reference at least post a link to a grammar site or a dictionary or something.

EDIT: I'm done with this btw. I'm not responding anymore. My point has been made. I don't mean to say that you shouldn't contact the committee with your views. I understand that it is a valid thought that the mere existence of this committee does make it more likely that vehicles may be required in the future to emit noise. My point is that the committee is NOT required to recommend that vehicles make more noise, it just has to research things and make recommendations positive or negative on strategies for ensuring vehicles make noise. Those of you adamantly opposed to such things might be strategically advantaged by making sure such a committee never even gets together.

KarenRei

08-21-2008, 02:04 PM

iwannaptera

08-21-2008, 02:34 PM

How do you respond when someone thinks that government employees under a legislative mandate can ignore what the bill says time and time again in a dozen different ways, and instead play word games with legislators, trying to twist their words into a different meaning, and still get away with it with their jobs intact?

Perhaps I should start looking through IRS regulations trying to figure out a possible interpretation of the wording in which I don't have to pay taxes, and then stop paying taxes. I'm sure the IRS will be just fine with that. Right?

The legislative and judicial systems are not fond of people who try and work around clear legislative intent.

So true so true. That is why I am interpreting this correctly and you are not. I am not playing word games I am actually reading what the bill says. There is no requirement for the committee to make a recommendation that strategies be implemented to ensure cars emit sound. There is only a requirement that the committee make a recommendation ON strategies to ensure cars emit sound. You think it is a trivial difference. You think it doesn't matter. You are wrong. Your insistence on this matter doesn't change what the bill says. How about I take your python SOC simulator and move a semicolon around to put it right in the middle of a critical piece of code? Do you think it will make a difference? How about if I change one little word in the simulator code and substitute another? Is it trivial? This is not a word game. This is a bill. A bill that may become a law. The author of the bill could have easily written it to say that the committee shall recommend strategies to ensure vehicles emit sound. The author of the bill did not write that. The author wrote something completely different. The fact that it is only a few words different doesn't having any bearing on the matter. Consider the following sentences:
I hate vegetables
I love vegetables
They are only one word different. Yet they mean completely different things. Is that a word game?
The bill was written with its precise wording for a reason. You may not think it was. But it was. It very definitely was. These are not word games. This is a very precisely worded document in which every word matters. The bill says the committee shall make recommendations on strategies to ensure vehicles emit sound. You are reading it as the committee shall recommend strategies to ensure vehicles emit sound. If you dont see the difference, or think it is a word game, you just don't understand. You have no idea how this game is played.

I said I was done last time, and I guess I just couldn't leave it alone. Word games? Whatever.

KarenRei

08-21-2008, 02:38 PM

Everyone but you has arrived at the exact same conclusion about what the bill says. Take from that what you will.

iwannaptera

08-21-2008, 03:02 PM

Everyone but you has arrived at the exact same conclusion about what the bill says. Take from that what you will.

Taken. Now what is the N value for this datapoint?

JimmyDreams

08-21-2008, 03:13 PM

There is no requirement for the committee to make a recommendation that strategies be implemented to ensure cars emit sound. There is only a requirement that the committee make a recommendation ON strategies to ensure cars emit sound.

Here's where you make a left turn and everyone else makes a right (or goes straight ahead, you pick).

Ignore the words TO make a strategy vs. make a recommendation ON strategies....that part can be interpreted in different ways. The part that says TO EMIT SOUND is the key. If their strategy regarding silent cars is to do nothing...to let them be silent (your position), HOW IS THAT A RECOMMENDATION TO ENSURE CARS EMIT SOUND? The wording of the bill specifies in so many words that cars must emit sound to be safe, and this committee will come up with some strategies for that. A strategy to let them be silent violates the 'ensure (they) emit sound' part of the law.

(pulling out hair) Your interpretation seems to stop BEFORE you get to the part that says ENSURE CARS EMIT SOUND.

/rantoff

But I agree with most everyone that this is a time waster, a money waster, and (for this forum, anyway), a bandwidth waster!!

I think I need a drink. I'm buyin'....who's coming???
:rolleye0003:

JimmyD

iwannaptera

08-21-2008, 03:56 PM

Here's where you make a left turn and everyone else makes a right (or goes straight ahead, you pick).

Ignore the words TO make a strategy vs. make a recommendation ON strategies....that part can be interpreted in different ways.

JimmyD

Can you ignore the speed limit sign right in front of you, because 10 miles ahead it says 75mph? Can you ignore the first part of a computer code because the last part does what you want?

Hey I am glad JimmyD that someone finally has taken the time to explain to me how in the heck you guys were interpreting the bill the way you were. It is a relief to me that this is not some sort of mass psychosis! I am still not convinced mind you. I am sure you cannot just ignore that part because it may have multiple meanings. Sometimes in law things are written to encompass multiple meanings. In which case, the usual interpretation is that it was meant to be written to encompass multiple meanings.

However, I don't think it does at all mind you. There is only one meaning of "the committee shall make recommendations on strategies...". It is not a word game. It is not a preamble to be ignored. It is a standard phrase chosen for its exact meaning. Think of it as a tool box. The people who write these bills have many ways (tools) to begin. They have all been tested many times in the courts. They can choose to make the committee recommend a certain thing (although why have the committee then), they can choose to make the committee make a recommendation ON a certain thing, they can choose to make a committee to recommend a strategy for making a committe to recommend a certain thing, they can choose to make a committee to make a recommendation on strategies to make a committee to recommend a certain thing, they can skip the comittee all together and ask the commission to make a recommendation or they can skip the recommendation and have the committee draft a mandate or resolution or even a bill. All these things have a different meaning. They really do. I'm not just pulling your chain here.

Mr Aptera

08-21-2008, 04:19 PM

(By the way... I'm sure the "Loud Pipes Save Lives" crowd is cheering this like there's no tomorrow.)

I have a crotch rocket that can never be loud enough, but that's because of safety. My profile on a black sports bike is MUCH smaller and less noticeable than a 3 wheeled private jet flying down the freeway.

The point is that our ability to have the vehicle we want to have is being infringed upon by ignorant politicos.

JimmyDreams

08-21-2008, 04:53 PM

Hey Iwanna...

Here's more insight into my brain:

I say they'll be making recommendations to make noise (i.e. I think the Gov't will screw this up.)

You say they aren't forced to do any such thing (common sense will prevail.)

THERE'S where our arguments will never meet. We all KNOW the Gov't can (and does) screw things up by not using common sense.

You've been a wonderful audience!! Thank yew, and good night!

;)

JimmyD

BryanSR

08-22-2008, 08:27 AM

This is MY personal opinion about LOUD BIKES & even LOUD CARS....
I roll up the windows & turn UP THE STEREO.... SO I am NOT FORCED TO LISTEN TO THEM!
I would rather listen to the sound of music...
IMHO >>>> LOL :jumping0007:

Don

08-22-2008, 09:15 AM

Maybe this bill will be defeated, hopefully. Inane recommedations sometimes have a way of being consigned to the trash bin if enough clear headed people are involved. As example, citing one which failed - a proposal to require seat belts for drivers and passengers on motorcycles. In Arizona, a helmet law was passed and subsequently rescinded the following year.
Frankly, I don't envision this proposal going anywhere. There is a shortage of incidents to even determine feasibility. How many accidents involving blind people and ev's have there been?

Matthijs

08-22-2008, 10:06 AM

Cali. Senate approves bill to make hybrids noisier (http://www.apteraforum.com/showthread.php?p=15568#post15568)

jstdadd

08-22-2008, 11:03 AM

Well I am going to get a speaker system to broadcast
" This noise polution courtesy of your state lawmakers"
as loud as is legal over and over

Maybe we can make a portable one, and pass it around as we drive by the State House in Sacramento at lunchtime! That would make a great road rally for Aptera owners, don't you think?

JakesOnline

08-22-2008, 12:07 PM

Seems to me the cops refuse to inforce current noise ordinance. Why would they inforce this?

I live near a busy street, motorcycles cruise by all the time with straight pipe exaust (no muffler). They sound like a machine gun, jack hammer etc... It's not just motorcycles, it's also compact cars, pickup trucks, you name it. There's a new trend to remove the turbo silencer in deisel trucks, so they make whistling sound. Fun for them, but not for the residents they drive by. The tire noise alone on some of these monster trucks is loud enough to wake you up at night.

If they're going to enforce laws that require noise, they better start enforcing laws that limit noise as well.

Rat

08-22-2008, 04:07 PM

Ceazar77

08-22-2008, 04:22 PM

Hopefully they can integrate this into the same system as the "horn" and allow both noises to be customizable. Allowing them to be turned on and off would also cover aptera while allowing owners to turn the noise off (only in states where it is legal of course ;) ).

whereami

08-25-2008, 03:13 AM

Everyone but you has arrived at the exact same conclusion about what the bill says. Take from that what you will.

For the record, I interpret the bill as iwannaptera does. It's pretty clear.

Also, I have the impression that iwannaptera is in the legal profession, and must read legal prose often. Am I right iwannaptera? Are you a lawyer, KarenRei? Me? no, IANAL. I'm just pedantic enough to be able to read legal prose.

perhaps this breakdown of how to read the bill will help you (parens, braces, quotes, and linebreaks mine):

This bill
would require the (["ERCDC"] State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission)
to convene a (["comittee"]
Quiet Motorized Road Vehicle and Safe Mobility Committee
comprised of representatives from specified entities)
to ([multiple verbs] research, identify,
and make recommendations to the commission on)
"strategies" ([describing "strategies"]
to ensure that all motorized road vehicles,
regardless of engine type or configuration,
emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized
by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired).

Let's substitute some long-winded phases with the "pronouns" I quoted to ease parsing:

This bill would require the "ERCDC" to convene a "committee"
to (research, identify, and make recommendations to the commission on)
"strategies"

You see, the only thing the bill requires is that a committee be convened. It then goes on to lay out many requirements for said committee, but the crux of the bill is that "a committee shall be convened". It does not stipulate the conclusions of the committee.

The "committee" (QMRVSMC) shall:
(1) research "strategies"
(2) identify "strategies"
(3) make recommendations to the commission on "strategies"

The "strategies" are "to ensure that all motorized road vehicles [...] emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired"

The realm of the "strategies" is defined in order to define the purpose of the committee, not to stipulate the conclusions of the committeee.

Wow.. is that crystal clear now? :happy0025:

RainCaster

08-25-2008, 10:15 AM

I wonder- will my car have to emit sounds when parked? I sure don't want some blind person suing me because he ran into my parked car. Of course my wife's Lexus is too quiet and will also need one of these governmant mandated noisemakers. Then our kids will need to have them installed on their bicycles as well. Just to be safe I better have one installed on each tree in the grassy strip between the street and sidewalk.

Oh yes, I feel so much better now.

JimmyDreams

08-25-2008, 10:21 AM

Wow.. is that crystal clear now? :happy0025:

Question: Can the committee recommend a strategy that all silent cars remain silent? Yes or no?

JimmyD

mmalc

08-25-2008, 11:14 AM

You see, the only thing the bill requires is that a committee be convened. It then goes on to lay out many requirements for said committee, but the crux of the bill is that "a committee shall be convened". It does not stipulate the conclusions of the committee.
The "committee" (QMRVSMC) shall:
(1) research "strategies"
(2) identify "strategies"
(3) make recommendations to the commission on "strategies"
The "strategies" are "to ensure that all motorized road vehicles [...] emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired"
The realm of the "strategies" is defined in order to define the purpose of the committee, not to stipulate the conclusions of the committeee.
Wow.. is that crystal clear now?

Yes.

By your interpretation, the goal of the committee is simply to determine in what way noise pollution will be increased.

And that's precisely what some of us don't want.

I'm all in favour of investigating suggestions such using transponders, but the environment is already noisy enough, and wantonly adding more to the cacophony is asinine.

iwannaptera

08-25-2008, 05:35 PM

For the record, I interpret the bill as iwannaptera does. It's pretty clear.

Also, I have the impression that iwannaptera is in the legal profession, and must read legal prose often. Am I right iwannaptera? Are you a lawyer, KarenRei? Me? no, IANAL. I'm just pedantic enough to be able to read legal prose.

perhaps this breakdown of how to read the bill will help you (parens, braces, quotes, and linebreaks mine):

I work at a law firm yes. I am not a lawyer though. I prosecute patents and work on technology transfer/ licensing agreements.

iwannaptera

08-25-2008, 05:37 PM

Yes.

By your interpretation, the goal of the committee is simply to determine in what way noise pollution will be increased.

Can't you see that those two "sentences" do not agree with one another? Hint: the first one is right. The second is wrong. It must be wrong because the first one is right. If you agree that the following analysis was correct, then your response makes no sense:

The realm of the "strategies" is defined in order to define the purpose of the committee, not to stipulate the conclusions of the committeee.

whereami

08-26-2008, 01:31 AM

Question: Can the committee recommend a strategy that all silent cars remain silent? Yes or no?
Yes. Or, it can achieve the same effect. It can come up with some strategies ("identify" and "research"), and it's recommendation on those strategies can be "these strategies are ineffective, and should not be adopted."

By your interpretation, the goal of the committee is simply to determine in what way noise pollution will be increased.

And that's precisely what some of us don't want.
Hmm, I think I understand what you are saying. The scope of the strategies the committee is charged to research is too narrow, and may not include a transponder-based solution, or other non-polluting solutions. That is probably a valid position. In its research, the committee could dis-recommend noise-polluting methods, and suggest alternatives. Then again, the likelyhood of it suggesting alternatives may be decreased by it not being charged with that task.

iwannaptera

08-26-2008, 01:50 AM

Yes. Or, it can achieve the same effect. It can come up with some strategies ("identify" and "research"), and it's recommendation on those strategies can be "these strategies are ineffective, and should not be adopted."

Hmm, I think I understand what you are saying. The scope of the strategies the committee is charged to research is too narrow, and may not include a transponder-based solution, or other non-polluting solutions. That is probably a valid position. In its research, the committee could dis-recommend noise-polluting methods, and suggest alternatives. Then again, the likelyhood of it suggesting alternatives may be decreased by it not being charged with that task.

Wow! Even I can agree with that!

mmalc

08-26-2008, 03:05 AM

Can't you see that those two "sentences" do not agree with one another?

No, at least not by normal logic.

Please explain how, if 'the "strategies" are "to ensure that all motorized road vehicles [...] emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired"'
and
The role of the committee is to choose amongst those strategies
then
the conclusion of the committee is going to be to have selected something that "emit[s] sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired".

Which adds to the general noise pollution, and is what some of us do not want.

Wow! Even I can agree with that!

Bizarre, since whereami is effectively reiterating my point.
Can't you see that those two "replies" do not agree with one another?

iwannaptera

08-26-2008, 10:23 AM

No, at least not by normal logic.

Please explain how, if 'the "strategies" are "to ensure that all motorized road vehicles [...] emit sound sufficient to be heard and localized by pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired"'
and
The role of the committee is to choose amongst those strategies

Because the role of the committee is not to choose amongst those strategies. It is to make recommendations on those strategies. That is not what whereami said. THat is not what the bill says. That is not what I have ever said. If you don't get it by now, you don't want to get it.

I have said a few times before that I wasn't going to get sucked into this anymore and I wouldn't contribute to this thread anymore. Obviously that didn't happen. I kept reading the comments and thinking, "aha! now I understand where the misunderstanding comes from. All I have to do is make it clear and everyone will get it." Sadly I have learned that this is indeed not the case. Some people just don't seem to want to get it. Somewhere in here must be a very interesting psychology experiment.

Once again I must reiterate my comment that indeed those of you who are dead set against noise requirements probably would be better off if this committee never existed. However, I for one am glad that this committee will actually do the work of studying the matter, doing research, and thinking deeply about exactly how many people would benefit and what it would cost. I am a MUCH bigger fan of government sponsored impartial research than of the anecdotal crap that all of us (including myself) have been slinging around here about the issue.

mmalc

08-26-2008, 11:04 AM

Because the role of the committee is not to choose amongst those strategies.

Why, then, did you agree with this:

"The scope of the strategies the committee is charged to research is too narrow, and may not include a transponder-based solution, or other non-polluting solutions. That is probably a valid position. In its research, the committee could dis-recommend noise-polluting methods, and suggest alternatives. Then again, the likelyhood of it suggesting alternatives may be decreased by it not being charged with that task."

?

Some people just don't seem to want to get it.

That's just obnoxious. I'd love to "get it". You have thus far failed to show the logic in your position.

iwannaptera

08-26-2008, 01:14 PM

In its research, the committee could dis-recommend noise-polluting methods, and suggest alternatives.

That is what I agree with.

Now, as far as being obnoxious. I apologize for being obnoxious. As far as "not showing my logic" is concerned, I suggest you go over all my posts in this thread and look at the logic that I have painstakingly pointed out. I have nothing more to add.

APTERA 2356

08-26-2008, 01:38 PM

If you believe that this comittee will recomend that all quiet vehicles will need to be fitted with noise makers and party hats,
call or write your lawmakers and vent.

if you believe they will not recomend noise makers you can relax.

the point is if you are concerned do something other than complain because complaining to us does nothing.

if we beat this dead horse any longer the ASPCA will come and arrest us.

garygid

08-26-2008, 02:39 PM

mmalc,
Your statement "The role of the committee is to choose amongst
those strategies" is not correct, and "choose" is not in the bill.

"Evaluate" (not in the bill either) would be closer to the "research, identify,
and make recommendations" that are in the bill.

KarenRei

08-26-2008, 03:19 PM

Perhaps when I visit here on my cross-country Aptera trip, I should leave some kind of noisemaker, in honor of this thread:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_UxjUBn8zv18/RyPfDz0CVvI/AAAAAAAAABI/xEYo2gCT4WU/s400/DeadHorseStatePark2.jpg

Biodegradable, of course. ;)

Rat

08-26-2008, 05:33 PM

I'll repeat briefly what I said in the thread on the horn issue, since no one seems to use the search function around here, or visit the links that are posted. It is both necessary and sufficient to have a horn or similar audible signal (maybe something friendlier sounding) that the driver can activate to warn pedestrians, blind, ipodded, or otherwise, of the proximity of the Aptera. That protects the pedestrians and protects the owner from a groundless, but possibly successful, lawsuit. It is in our own self-interest to have that. It is akin to having brake lights, turn signals, or even taillights ("light pollution"). It helps avoid collisions.

Requiring a device that makes constant noise is a ridiculous excess and needless drain on the electric power to deal with the one trillionth of the driving time when a blind person might be endangered by the car.

As for this bill, I am a lawyer, formerly a transportation lawyer for a government agency, in fact, and it is clear to me the committee is only to make recommendations, and there is nothing to prevent it from recommending the inclusion of a user-operated horn or chime or recorded voice warning and nothing more, or nothing at all. There is nothing to suggest the legislature is obligated in any way to pass any law consistent with whatever recommendation the committee makes. In fact, the committee is to report to a Clean Resources Commission who in turn is supposed to make a report to the legislature. That's all. The Commission that receives the recommendations of the committee has no authority to change the vehicle code or put the recommendations into effect. Further, the commission is basically biased toward clean resources, so is unlikely to recommend anything that would be a hindrance to electric vehicle introduction. And of course none of this makes the legislature or the governor do anything. So far as I can tell this is the typical pabulum thrown out to mollify the disabled community which is a powerful lobby in the transportation industry. My advice would be to relax.

Lastly, I can't resist wondering aloud where all these people live who are complaining about noise pollution and what it has to do with this bill. I live in a suburban area that is pretty densely populated (Silicon Valley) and when I open my windows at home the only noises that bother me are the incessant crickets, crows, the so-called (misnamed) songbirds, my neighbors' dogs, and once a week, the garbage truck that comes down the street. Motorcycles can be obnoxious but I've never heard one come down my street. Ordinary cars do not make enough noise for me to hear unless the window is open and I'm very near a window at the front of the house; even then I have to really be paying attention listening for it (as I do occasionally when expecting a guest). When out driving around I generally don't hear other vehicles besides emergency vehicles because I'm always listening to music or an audiobook (at a reasonable volume that others can't hear). Sometimes a Harley or some jerk with one of those boomboxes on wheels spewing rap drives by, and I agree that's obnoxious. In the middle of the night when everything else is very very quiet and my window is wide open, I can barely hear the freeway noise five or six blocks away, but it is very faint and sounds much like the surf; it's really quite pleasant. Other than the very loud and very rare motorcycles and garbage trucks I don't know how vehicles contribute to "noise pollution." Maybe these complainers live in the middle of an intersection. If you are bothered by noise, you need to move to someplace quieter, but the natural sources like birds are much more bothersome than any manmade ones wherever I've lived so I'm not sure where you could go. Maybe you should just close your windows or turn on some good music.

So even though I oppose the idea of mandatory continuous noise, mainly because of its wasteful nature and increase in cost to the Aptera, I realize the level and type of sound that is being argued for here by the blind proponents would not be anything that could be heard by anyone more than a few yards away who is completely attuned to vehicle sounds for their own safety. I don't see how it could contribute to "noise pollution", whatever that is.

Bottle Cap

08-26-2008, 09:27 PM

Apteras need a man to walk in front of car in busy areas swinging a light so teams of horses are not startled by flightless car. Also, flightless car should look and sound like horse.

garygid

08-26-2008, 09:42 PM

And, smell like a horse?
Both the blind and the deaf can smell.

G-Jet

08-26-2008, 09:45 PM

kinda like bio-deisel (sp?) mercedes? they always smell.

G

garygid

08-26-2008, 10:43 PM

Yes, that end of the horse!

Bottle Cap

08-27-2008, 12:37 AM

Actually, last year I was riding my bicycle a lot and I started thinking that the bicycle needed to make a noise. Cars didn't know I was there. You can't always make contact with a driver. You might be coming to an intersection and the car that just passed you thinks it has pulled far enough ahead that it can take a right turn, but in reality there is no room. The noise from the bike would let it know that you're there and also give some idea how close you are.

Another case is when coming up behind a pedestrian. Sometimes they are totally unaware a bike is coming and people sometimes veer unexpectedly. The noise would save the day again.

The downside is that I would have to listen to this noise all the time or activate it if it was off sometimes. I'd have to power it too.

BryanSR

08-27-2008, 07:04 AM

Bottle Cap

08-27-2008, 02:04 PM

I like to ride at night. I thought "Sounds of Jupiter" would be acceptable if it were on all the time and cranked up a little.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=e3fqE01YYWs
Eerie, foreboding, lonely and most of all, alien. All I'd need then is to mod my helmet into some kind of preying mantis head and I'd be all set.

Aptera2100

08-27-2008, 08:44 PM

Perhaps they should pass a bill to keep the blind off the sidewalks. If they quit whining I'll give them a ride in my Aptera.

Pablo

09-04-2008, 02:53 AM

So what happens if the blind guy is also deaf ? Do we need to put touch foam sensors on the front nose cone so that if he walks into it, he doesn't bang his shins ?

And what if he is blind and deaf and has a trained dog to lead him, won't the high frequency sounds hurt the dog's ears, potentially causing the dog to fail to do its rightful duties to get the blind/deaf guy out of the road ???

And what about animal rights ?

AND, How are we going to protect all the other idiots in the congress...who are deaf, dumb and blind.... that dumb one is a stumper.

wcabdefense

09-04-2008, 11:06 AM

Come on. Just tie a crushed beer can to the trunk with kite string, and toss it out when you leave the shopping center. Easy to find, easy to replace, easy to comply, and easy to remove when sanity returns.

gg222

09-08-2008, 11:21 AM

Found a good article at engadget's site on what Toyota is doing about noise in their Crown hybrid.

"Noise-cancelling Toyota Crown zeroes out sounds at head height"
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/08/noise-cancelling-toyota-crown-zeroes-out-sounds-at-head-height/

As astutely pointed out by our friends at The Red Ferret Journal, it's a bit odd to see hybrid car makers cutting down on noise while electric car makers are looking to add it back in (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/14/fisker-karma-hybrid-sports-car-to-generate-motor-noise-through-e/), but Toyota's silence isn't of the kill-a-biker sort. Toyota has worked internal noise-canceling into its new Crown hybrid, with microphones to pick up engine and road noise, and then speakers to blast out antiphase versions of those noises at head height. Toyota claims it can cut noise by around 5 to 8dB.

curbowman

09-09-2008, 06:54 PM

Next up: all cyclists should use a noise-making device to alert people... wait, it already exists, it's called "bell"

curbowman

09-09-2008, 07:06 PM

By the way, I find it funny no one seems to remind there's a way to solve the noise issue: directional speakers.

Directional speakers produce a sound that's highly directional, similar in behavior to a spotlight. Only a narrow amount of space is sensitive to the sound, and it can be heard only when in front of the source.

This is a company who produces such directional speakers:
http://www.holosonics.com/?g&gclid=CPfzg730z5UCFQsZQgodkUrihw

From their site:
"The Audio Spotlight is a revolutionary new audio technology that creates sound in a narrow beam, just like light. Aim the flat, thin speaker disc to your desired listening area, and provide all of the sound — with none of the noise."

One or two of these speakers could be mounted in the nose of the car; this way the noise will be heard only in its front. Once the vehicle passes, there will be no sounds (apart for the tires and wind noise). This way both parties can be happy: blind people (and their dogs) will be able to hear a car coming, and occupants won't be bothered by the sound that's being emmited. And the sound will only be heard where it matters: on the front of the car.

Now, how can I patent the idea?

garygid

09-09-2008, 07:45 PM

Directional Speaker, too expensive to list the price.
Also, looks like it would need to be mounted outside the vehicle.

curbowman

09-10-2008, 12:26 PM

It might not be needed to be mounted outside the vehicle. Maybe two smaller speakers could be mounted beside the headlights. But I do agree there's no point in making an EV noisier just to alert blind people. No system could replace an attentive driver and a horn.

I asked a female friend of mine who's blind (who, by the way, is a lawyer with a Literature degree -both CumLaude-) and she told me she hears cars coming not because of their engines but for the road noise tires make. And she can always ask someone for help, which she has found is the best way to cross the street. I don't know how things are in California, but here in the crime-infested city of Caracas (35 kills every weekend), even burglars protect the blind people.

ciege

09-10-2008, 01:11 PM

This is all much too absurd. Most cars today have very little noise level that is discernable say when it first starts to back out of a parking slot, or when 'coasting along' in a parking lot. Are we now going to have cars being sold on their 'sound level' capability? I can't even begin to fathom what kind of politician came up with this legislation.............

sllusky

09-11-2008, 04:15 PM

Instead of adding noise to a vehicle, they could add penaties for causing a collision, especially for leaving the scene of a collision.

When riding my bike, I listen for cars. My concern is not hearing the vehicle behind, it is that they are (momentarily) out of control.

Another concern is that making noise takes energy, and we waste too much energy already.

RainCaster

09-18-2008, 01:15 PM

Let's reinject some reallity to this idea.

First, every blind person I know has a service dog. These dogs have far better hearing than us humans, and my blind friends trust their dogs with their lives. Any more explanation needed?

Second, if the State of California feels that is must do SOMETHING, then cut noise grooves in the roads approaching every intersection. This works for all vehicles.

Let's get some common sense back in Sacramento, Arnold!

iwannaptera

09-18-2008, 01:36 PM

Let's reinject some reallity to this idea.

First, every blind person I know has a service dog. These dogs have far better hearing than us humans, and my blind friends trust their dogs with their lives. Any more explanation needed?

Dude! That is so freaking bogus it is unbelieveable. EVERY blind person you know has a service dog? Lucky you. What percentage of blind people have service dogs? Well here is some information for you: Roughly 10,000 people use guide dogs in the US and Canada.
http://www.guidedogs.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_overview_faq

How many legally blind in the US? In 1994, approximately 1.3 million Americans were legally blind.
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&DocumentID=4398#legal

I don't know what kind of rock candy mountain you live on, but most blind people cannot afford service dogs. 80% of the legally blind are unemployed.

Second, if the State of California feels that is must do SOMETHING, then cut noise grooves in the roads approaching every intersection. This works for all vehicles.

Hey, neat idea. FAR more expensive, but neat idea. I am sure that the committee would love to hear that recommendation. I hope the committee considers any and all ideas. I would expect them to do so considering it will be comprised of individuals from a wide range of technical and public safety backgrounds.

KarenRei

09-18-2008, 02:13 PM

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, "legally blind" is not the same as what people picture when they hear "blind". It means that you have vision worse than 20/200 that can't be corrected. Until I had lasik, I had vision well worse than 20/200 when I didn't have my contacts in, and let me tell you, there's no way I could have missed seeing an oncoming car. Now, mind you, I couldn't have told you what type it was, who was driving it, or really any other details apart from its color and the fact that it was headed toward me (it would have appeared as a blur of color growing in my vision), but "legally blind" != "unable to see approaching cars*.

The relevant number is the number who need either a long canes or a dog to get around. That's 109,000 + 7,000 = 116,000 people -- i.e., one in every 2,600 people.

And yeah, I like the road grooves idea. The only blind people it wouldn't help would be those who were jay walking, and well, that'd be their own fault. I'd probably still prefer the idea of, say, providing them with pocket radars so they can detect all oncoming objects no matter where they were (it'd be cheaper than 250 million noisemakers, that's for sure), but it sounds like an effective solution.

sllusky

09-18-2008, 03:06 PM

Cuting grooves in roads or requiring noisemakers on quiet cars enhance noise when it is rarely needed, hence mainly is adding noise pollution and wasting energy. There is a better way.

Cars have some form of "cruise contol". Advanced versions detect external objects. However, none use common technology: wireless communication to other roadway users and objects. There is research in this direction, but there should be much more. One aspect would group cars into platoons that communicate with each other and with traffic signals they are approaching. Cars would slow early if they know a light would soon change to red, facilitating a zipper effect of cars passing through lights but with few having the need to use their brakes.

On freeways it has the potential to reduce the need for adding concrete - cars could safely bunch up, reduce lane changing that disrupts traffic while smoothly allowing cars to change lanes when really needed.

A simple, tiny device could be made for blind people to detect the signal from an approaching vehicle. It could be added to a bluetooth headset.

wardder

09-18-2008, 07:45 PM

Various American cities tried to pass similar laws during the first electric car boom during the turn of the twentieth century; and even before that in England with the infamous red flag act of 1865. Part of the reasoning for these laws was to not startle the horses. After a few years the horses got used to automobiles I think that humans would capable of the same adaptation.

Honestly, if modern cars are going at speed, you will be able to hear tire noise at the very least. If they are worried about cross walk safety, quite frankly drivers are responsible for anything that they hit. This is just another law that tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

evmavin

09-18-2008, 08:15 PM

Having vehicles make noise diminishes one of the key benefits of an EV, reducing noise pollution and improving the quality of life. Why not have the blind carry a vibrating or noise making cane that is activated by a transmitter in cars when they are approaching, sounds for direction, speed perhaps. Place the noise where it needs to be rather than everywhere it should not.

TheAeronut

09-18-2008, 09:39 PM

That makes too much sense - That's why not. That, and 200,000,000 or so people complaining about having to install a $100 box in their car just so some blind person can be alerted to their approach. Come on now, who out there gives a squat about anybody else outside of their own little world?

Well, some of us actually do care, but the vast majority seem think ONLY of themselves - if they think at all.

Yes, the statement is a bit blunt and not very polite. I seriously considered not posting it, but I do think that the overall idea is valid.

Yes, perhaps we need to start a movement to develop and legislate the use of some such RF based personal warning device as a countermeasure to making our nice quiet cars noisy, just because most others are noisy and some people are unlucky enough to not notice our presence - be it happenstance or just that they are non compos mentis (sp?).

J.P.

evmavin

09-18-2008, 10:03 PM

Lobbyists, the blind leading the blind.

Ardie3301

09-19-2008, 12:23 AM

I would think that the anti-motorcycle laws (and there must be a dozen) that try to make noisy vehicles quieter can be cited to show that this bill is unnecessary.

Of course, that never stopped a good lobbyist yet.

Since Governor Arnold *is* a motorcycle rider, perhaps he will see the light, and refuse to sign silly anti-motorcycle bills into law.

-- Ardie.

JimmyDreams

09-19-2008, 10:16 AM

Since all blind people have seeing-eye dogs, why don't we just let the dogs drive and then EVERYONE would be happy?

Just an idea....

JimmyD

rotus8

09-20-2008, 09:44 AM

Since all blind people have seeing-eye dogs, why don't we just let the dogs drive and then EVERYONE would be happy?

Just an idea....

JimmyD
'Cause it's hard to drive with your head hanging out the window. :)

RainCaster

09-24-2008, 09:44 AM

Here's an idea (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10049007-48.html) for solving this issue- make the roads "musical"

APTERA 2356

09-24-2008, 11:00 AM

I Like the concept of adding grooves to the road near intersections and crosswalks so the blind man hear a car coming rather than having a car make noise all the time.

garygid

10-15-2008, 03:41 AM

On 30 Sept 2008, the Governor vetoed bill SB 1174.
THANKS, Arnold
(loud enough for the "blind" to hear)

KarenRei

10-15-2008, 10:30 AM

Since this is over (for now), I'll unsticky the thread.

jmast22

02-15-2009, 01:28 PM

What do you guys think? Should the Aptera Co. add a signature sound to its vehicles? Before you get outraged think about it.
There is a bill in congress asking for it (HR 5734).
The American Council of the Blind wants it (Safety).
New market segments might open and push EVs:
Older generation that don't know the vehicle is on
Younger generation that will customize it
Possible 'X' factor for the X-Prize

speculawyer

02-15-2009, 01:35 PM

I think it should have a dual horn . A normal horn and a "hey . . . I'm here, look out." horn

jmast22

02-15-2009, 01:51 PM

Ha... I think the look says move over!

jkyu99

02-15-2009, 01:54 PM

In my opinion, most new cars are extremely quiet from the front. Their primary noise seems to come from tire / pavement interface noise.

Having said that, I could appreciate taking the sound effects from Star Trek and projecting from the right front tire led the sound of going to warp during initial 2s of acceleration, a continuous background engineering warp core sound when the vehicle is stopped and in drive, and a regenerative braking sound for the final 2s before coming to a stop that sounds like coming out of warp.
:rolleye0003: but then I have a weird sense of humor. (You can google search these sound files.)

Spank Daddy

02-15-2009, 01:59 PM

We will have to see what it sounds like in the new Star Trek movie!

jmast22

02-15-2009, 02:00 PM

Maybe the post should have been, What sound would you customize it to?

drivin98

02-15-2009, 02:52 PM

I think I could go for a little Luda (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ludacris/movebitch.html),yo.

SEGsby

02-15-2009, 04:09 PM

I think driving any EV requires the driver to be more alert to their environment, and their position relative to possible interaction with any pedestrians.

That said, lights and audio crosswalk systems already exist to manage and protect pedestrians in the urban environment. Laws about not hitting people or property, have also been on the books since probably before cars existed...

But if you must safety-tape the Universe, I think the Trek Warp Drive sound FX would be a reasonable compromise! Looping a fake ICE sound FX seems like it would only reinforce the message that traditional combustion engines are the only 'accepted' sounds for vehicles. And that's probably a bad thing, in the long run, for promoting the idea of transportation alternatives.

What would be wise, is if the "warning" sounds could be automatically silenced when the vehicle travels at highway speeds, on known high speed routes. No one likes noise pollution and artificial noise from EV's would probably just end up irritating more people than not, IMHO. And the additional cost to the consumer for the extra hardware, would be something I don't think many people would want to pay extra for. *shrugs*

mmalc

02-15-2009, 04:39 PM

What do you guys think? Should the Aptera Co. add a signature sound to its vehicles? Before you get outraged think about it.
Thought about it.
Still outraged.
Discussed it before (http://apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=1498).

snidely

02-16-2009, 04:23 PM

How about providing headsets to the blind that are tuned to a frequency assigned by FCC and require "silent" cars to emit a low powered signal.

Actually, this is all non-sense.

...mike

iwannaptera

02-16-2009, 04:27 PM

How about providing headsets to the blind that are tuned to a frequency assigned by FCC and require "silent" cars to emit a low powered signal.

Actually, this is all non-sense.

...mike

Because the blind would then have difficulty hearing all the other things they need to listen for.

OC-LA driver

02-19-2009, 08:16 PM

Which is why I'd like all legislators to wear a full-coverage motorcycle helmet for one full working day, and see if it increases their safety...or contributes to fatigue and and an inability to discern the direction of sound sources.

Dont get me wrong, I almost always wore a helmet when I rode a bike, but sometimes...

Back to this thread...Adding noise annoys 99.9% of the population to double up on protection the law already clearly gives blind pedestrians. Drivers are required to avoid all pedestrians and DEFINITELY to those carrying white canes...which are always out in front by the way. The few blind pedestrians I've seen were way more cautious than most teenage pedestrians and traffic was VERY respectful (only two times that I recall in my 33 years of driving...once every 6,022 days).

Rant: Even driving a noisy conventional car doesn't clue many pedestrians in to the danger they're inviting when they walk out. Driving a relatively low-slung, quiet car, pedestrian awareness is key. Just rent a Prius for a weekend and drive around some shopping plazas if you want to see how rarely even the sighted look both ways. Sound is a huge clue but with or without it the burden is definitely on you (and the law is clear too).