Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
from the vroom-vroom dept
Last year, we pointed out that some car companies were experimenting with adding fake engine noises to their cars, after complaints were heard that hybrid and electric vehicles were "too quiet" and sneaking up on people. Apparently, those original experiments are turning into a groundswell. After some politicians decided to put forth legislation requiring such sounds, apparently lots of car companies are adding sounds to their cars, such as Nissan's recently announced plan to include futuristic Blade Runner-style sounds. Reading through that NY Times article, it seems like the car companies are less concerned about the safety issues, but are excited about the idea of opening up a new market for selling "car tones" -- like ringtones, but for your car noise. Can't we just set it to vibrate? In the meantime, there appears to be no evidence that these hybrid and electric "menaces" are causing any more accidents in their "silent, but deadly" current state.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
George Lucas would make a killing licensing "Star Wars Car FX"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As I've said before, instead of blinking turn signals I'm going to have a loop of Samuel L. Jackson screaming, "Turnin' left, motha fucka!"
And every time I put the gear into park, I'll here Sam from Sam 'N Max say, "This don't look like the Lincoln Tunnel, Sam"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Er, Max says that...obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good luck with that one. Most likely you'll have to buy your cartones from the manufacturer or some source authorized by them and only "approved" sounds will be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedestrian safety enhancement act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
Let's just say that you're vision-impaired (Blind, for the Non-PC people). How the HELL are you supposed to LOOK both ways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
As we all know there are lots of idiots driving out there so it isn't unreasonable for a little noise to be added to a car. Some people in the country add Deer whistles to scare of deer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
Next Up:
"Trend towards smaller cars causes more accidents for deaf pedestrians. Cars now required to flash neon lights from all available surfaces."
Loud horns and neon lights. Our cars are going to look like something out of Close Encounters . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
Instead of the horses head thing, this reminds me of having a man with a red flag walk in front of the car to warn pedestrians. Pointlessly removing one of the advantages of a new technology. Next people will be legislating to stop people taking advantage of the free distribution available on the internet! Oh, wait ...
There are plenty of solutions for allowing blind people to cross the road - starting with traffic lights with beeps (after all, isn't jaywalking already a crime in some states?) and moving on to guide dogs, plus whatever the future can come up with - personal radar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
What about deaf people? Let's say that you're both vision AND hearing challenged. How the HELL are you supposed to SEE OR HEAR traffic? You insensitive clod! That's why all vehicles should be limited to 5MPH and have big fluffy bumpers! It's the only morally right thing to do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
Same goes for Mr Blind vs Apple argument about how the iPhone's touchscreen is a bad thing and how the mobile industry should revert back to hard keyboards that do that clic-clac-clic sound that annoys the other 99.999% healthy people.
So instead of putting a 5000W speaker in each car that will please those old bastards who can live without having a car that does 'Vrrooooom!', please put your money into more intelligent things like augmenting reality for the blind (ultrasounds can be used to simulate touch, for instance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedestrian safety enhancement act
coming at me at about 25 m/h (My estimate). I was hit on my right thigh, thrown onto the pavement, suffered a compound fracture of my left elbow,numerous bruises and lacerations and it ripprd a piece of bone out of my elbow for which I just had bone graft surgery. Five days in the hospital, 3 weeks in skilled nursing and have to wear a heavy metal brace 24 h/d. I never would have been hit if I had heard the golf cart coming.
Administration and residents (About half drive golf carts) don't want any change: No crosswalks, no speed bumps, no manually operated stop signs, and no sound from their carts.
If you get hit like I was, you will change your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
Well, you could, but then all of the Chevy's would shake themselves apart the first time it vibrated...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
It sounds like your pocket's singing/
Nobody wants to hear your beeper beeping/
or your phone ringing/
Vibrate!/
That's how I keep my shit/
So I can be discreet/
And play it all legit
--Southside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...said brian to those stupid blind people for whom the legislature was written.
Jimmy Nosight turned in his general direction, looking vaguely lost, and sputtered, "B-but, please sir, how will I be able to know where the cars are when I can't see them coming?"
Brian leaned back and barked out an evil laugh before rearing back and bringing his fist down upon Jimmy Nosight's crown. Jimmy crumpled into a heap at Brian's feet, leaving him free to stomp his head until grey matter oozed from the poor blind man's lifeless carcass.
"Problem solved, blindy," Brian spat. He returned to his car and peeled away, the theme song to Hawaii Five-Oh blaring from his speakers.
The End.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ok, I feel better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anti-tax people really need to open up their mind about what constitutes a tax or subsidy. Any time government sets up anything that favors one industry over another (corn over broccoli, cars over trains), or rests power in a privately held Trust or Monopoly (insurance, autos, telcos, cable, etc.), you are being taxed by those corporations via a combination of direct subsidies and monopoly rents. Those taxes probably amount to more than the ones the IRS deals in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Horse Heads
The idea was horses were getting spooked by seeing a "horseless carriage" motoring along; to putting the head on there was supposed to help sooth the poor animal's nerves...
I don't know why; but this reminds me ever so strongly of that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horse Heads
Ha ha, hold on, let me get this straiht:
There were people...in THIS country...that believed that it would help to sooth a horse...if the horses saw a metalic automobile with the lifeless decapitated horse head soddered (sp?) to the front of it?
Huh, either humans or horses are truly fucking stupid...
(Psst! It ain't the horses!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Horse Heads
Pretty sure it was a scam to get cash from clueless drivers (the more things change...)
But at least there wasn't some stupid law about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Horse Heads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horse Heads
LOL! If you remember it that means you are around 100 years old??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw 'em!
"The future is mine!!! Screw all pedestrians! Screw the blind! It's their fault for being bling! Screw the children for not hearing a car that makes no sound! I should have the right in this country to drive a silent car! I'm entitled!!! I'm entitled!!! ME!!! ME!!! ME!!! PISS ON EVERYONE ELSE!!! In fact, all businesses that have blind people should have the right to hang sh*t from the ceilings!!! YEAH!!! ENTITLEMENT!!! ENTITLEMENT!!!"
Yeah, that's just the way it's going in this country. Just one more topic to make things worse... And in case you didn't get it, the above quote is sarcasm laid on pretty thick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw 'em!
Well, since one can only comprehend up to their own level of intelligence, and you felt it necessary to point out the blatantly obvious sarcasm now biting my face, the silent cars must be made for you.
With the expected level of intelligence falling in this country, it's no wonder everything is pandering to idiots. In the long run, this deteriorates the actual level of intelligence and damages our future. Won't someone truly think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screw 'em!
That sarcastic remark only mirrors the idiots who vote against any sort of noise in a car, be it a futuristic sound or a fake engine noise. People complain about the requirement for seatbelts. People complain about the requirements for helmets on motorcycles. People complain about how high or how low their car can be off the ground. Hell, I've even heard someone yell out of their window at the sheer audacity of having a 15 mph school zone outside of a freaking school.
Noise of some kind *should* be put on cars and any attempt at removing it should be met with the harshest penalties possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
It sucks that you're blind and cant help it. It sucks that you're powerless to help yourself. How do you live day to day with things like the silent internal combustion engines we already have or the current electric cars or bikes or runners? My god, it must be so horrible living with a disability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
In fact, I'm usually amazed at how resilient people can be, particularly those that have to overcome something uncommon. Dogs are the same way. Ever seen a three legged dog run out a frisbee? I have...and it's awesome.
So you take the necessary steps to make sure people are reasonably safe, but beyond that? So you're blind...big fucking deal. I've got a fat head and big ears, thanks to my Irish father. That guy down the hall has ED. My boss is freakishly tall. People are different and have to put up with different shit. It isn't all equal to each other and people's situations vary...too bad, live your life anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
I've never seen a three legged dog go after a Frisbee, but I have seen a two legged dog go after a ball.
Human echolocation was the most amazing thing I've ever seen. The blind kid who mountain bikes blew my mind. And he was completely blind, not limited. I'm still trying to figure out how that other blind kid plays Mortal Kombat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
Or how that deaf, dumb, and blind kid sure played a mean pinball....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
But seriously Chronno, that's a bit harsh. Unless you have, or have taken care of someone with, a disability you probably don't have a clue how difficult it can be.
Oh, and that first paragraph was sarcasm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
Why yes, yes I am and yes I have. I do know how difficult it can be (probably why I feel so strongly about it), but I don't ask the world to change for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
And why should there be a law requiring seat belts or helmets? As long as a person is over 18 and of sound mind, then by all means it should be their choice to protect themselves or not. The government doesn't need to tell me I have to wear a helmet when I go for a bike ride. It's rediculous not to mention an invasion of civil liberties. Its the sort of problem that solves itself in the long run anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
Um, no. Most people do just fine with the look both ways before you cross method. Some people have trouble seeing and rely on sound. Some people are idiots and don't look where they are going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
I don't think anyone is suggesting that cars all have police grade sirens on them, only that they make enough noise to be noticed. A clicking sound would likely be more than enough, a mechanical thrum, so something similar.
Once again, Mike boots a story into the weeds by failing basic Google search skills:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-hybrid-crashes-093009,0,4178319.story
Strike another chord for citizen journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Screw 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over-estimating Silence
Now, for the blind and deaf, you're SOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Over-estimating Silence
Perhaps cars should emit a series of explosions, producing light, sound, heat and smells ... just to be safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
Well, yeah, either that or we could all just be reasonable and realize that the ability to perceive the exact location of a rapidly moving object through sound alone is far more difficult than through eyesight alone. All disabilities are not equal.
Or we could just have exploding cars that emit heat and smell like Indian curry and despair, but I think my way is better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
(My only question there--how does one advertise to the blind? Oh wait, radio!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
Uh, not to mention all of the brail versions of printed media that are out there: newspapers, mags, etc.
And word of mouth, from ol' blindy's friends and family.
Plus Jimmy Nosight might b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
And vibrations so people can feel the car coming if they can't feel the heat or smell the smoke.
Only one sense left. Anyone got anything good for taste?
What about pedal bikes? They're quiet and I (as out of shape as I am) got my mountain bike to 40mph. Racing bikes can get much higher. At those speeds, you're still dead. Why aren't they expected to make a sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
(Btw, vibrations are sound and heat is touch. If they exploded ketchup bottles, we could cover taste ... and enhance touch.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
How about it emit a mist with some tasty spices so you can taste the spicy mist whenever a car is around you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Over-estimating Silence
i think the problem right now is that given more then one vehicle on the road if one of them is electric you cant hear it because the rest of them drown out its noise but once we get to only electrc vehicles we will hear them all.
however if we legislate noise devices for these cars then the noise will need to be as loud as the curent noise level. this will lead us to the day when we all have electric cars but still the same level of noise polution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Over-estimating Silence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Over-estimating Silence
Well, something needs to be done about that then. We obviously need a federal law requiring current cars to be retrofitted new noise makers. For safety, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumably, legislators know this. Sounds (eh? eh?) to me like it's really about arbitrarily legislating a market for a service into existence. How many people would get car tones if they didn't have to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forget Bladerunner, I would get the Jetson's flying car noise. I'm not even kidding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Is that a...stepped on duck barrelling down the road?!"
Choose wisely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I walk to work. Across fast secondary, and slow quiet subdivision roads and through even slower workplace parking lots.
Engines on a modern family sedan contribute little to hearing a car coming toward you. That is mainly wind tire noise. You hear the engine sound as it is driving AWAY from you.
In most parking lot setting you will hardly hear anything as engines are idling and ambient noise will cover that. I have had numerous people walk in front of my car in parking lot settings. The onus is on the driver to pay attention and not run into people.
In short completely useless idea, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, by making more unwanted nuisance noise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God forbid should we ever be expected to adapt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These days iPod drones are everywhere, biking, jogging, and walking, clueless and oblivious, music in their eyes, blaming everyone else for the fact that they pay 0 attention to their surroundings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Gee, Mike, I would have thought you'd be applauding this: you get both safety and an innovative new business plan from car makers.
But "no evidence" that hybrid-electric cars cause any more accidents? Two seconds on that Google thing might have helped.
Hybrids are twice as likely to crash into pedestrians and cyclists
Here's the U.S. Department of Transportation study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
"Federal researchers who examined 8,387 hybrid and 559,703 internal combustion engine vehicle crashes in 12 states, including Florida, discovered the incidents commonly occurred at low speeds, when the sound difference between a hybrid and traditional car engine is the greatest. But accident rates with pedestrians and bicyclists were almost the same for both engine styles when the autos were going straight.
None of the accidents studied were fatal."
This is clearly an area that legislators should get involved in immediately. Much time, effort, and taxpayer money must be spent now if we are to start saving these zero lives as soon as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Hey, that hurt my feelings. Too bad? No way! I want federal action!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Okay, next time, I'll make a "vroom-vroom" sound.
Oh, and I, for one, never called for federal action. I just said that the technical solution isn't a bad one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Too bad you didn't actually read those articles after you found them. A couple of good quotes:
"But accident rates with pedestrians and bicyclists were almost the same for both engine styles when the autos were going straight." (Sun-Sentinal article)
"None of the accidents studied were fatal." (Sun-Sentinal article)
"There was no statistically significant difference in incident rate of pedestrian crashes involving HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles when both type of vehicles were going straight." (US Dept of Transportation study)
Also, after looking at the actual data in the US Dept of Transportation study, the difference in accident rates in low-speed and turning collisions (the only category where there was any statistically significant difference) was actually much less than the "double" figure in the headline of the Sun-sentinal article.
There may also be an issue with the sample size in the study, which appears to be quite small. (Only 75 Accidents involving Hybrids were used in the analysis).
Plus, the last time I checked, when a driver is involved with an accident with a Pedestrian or Bicyclist it is assumed that the driver is at fault unless proven otherwise. This means that it is the drivers responsibility not to run into people. I also remember from drivers training class being instructed to be extra careful whenever you see a blind pedestrian (identified by a walking cane or seeing eye dog). There are also lots of silent and near silent vehicles on the roads: ever been to Florida or Palm springs? You can drive Golf Carts on the roads there, which are silent and can go pretty fast, and they don't seem to cause havok. When going downhill or on very smooth streets I will often shift my car into neutral. It becomes nearly silent when I do so, yet no pedestrian (blind or fully sighted) has ever stumbled into my car because of it. It is not the vehicle manufacturers responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Actually, I did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Ok well let's look at the evidence you presented. The Sun-Sentinel article was based on the Department of Transportation study (and also has a misleading, fear-mongering title). So the Sun-Sentinel is not in itself evidence, but simply a reference to the study done by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation study is based on 77 incidents involving Hybrid vehicles, vs 3,519 incidents involving Non-Hybrid vehicles. The "double" number referred to in the article's headline is taken from the low speed incident data in which shows incident rates as follows (incidence rate is a measure of percentage of vehicles on the road that will be involved in an incident in the studied time period):
Going Straight: Hybrid 0.9%, Non-Hybrid 0.8%
Making a turn: Hybrid 1.8%, Non-Hybrid 1.0%
Slowing/Stopping: Hybrid 0.5%, Non-Hybrid 0.2%
Backing: Hybrid 5.3%, Non-Hybrid 2.9%
Entering/leaving parking: Hybrid 1.2%, Non-Hybrid 0.9%
Starting in traffic: Hybrid 2.9%, Non-Hybrid 1.2%
Other: Hybrid 0.3%, Non-Hybrid 0.2%
At first glance it appears that the hybrid vehicles are involved in a higher rate of incidents. But the flaw is that due to the small sample size (remember, only 77 incidents involving Hybrids were used in the study) the confidence interval becomes a whopping +/- 3% for the Hybrids. The confidence interval for the non-hybrid incidents is a much more reasonable +/-0.3% due to a much larger sample size of non-hybrid incidents. That means, for example, that the 5.3% number for "backing" may actually be as low as 2.3% or as high as 8.3%. The confidence interval of 3% for the Hybrids is larger than the any of the differences involved, so the differences are not actually statistically significant due to the small sample size. The study does make claims of statistical significance, but the calculations for statistical significance that they used appear to be based on only the total number of vehicles studied, and are therefore flawed. As a result, the Department of Transportation Study cannot actually be viewed as evidence either. A new study would have to be conducted with a much larger sampling of incidents involving Hybrids before any real conclusions could be drawn.
So, no your examples still do not offer any evidence that the lower noise levels in Hybrids cause more pedestrian accidents.
Even if conclusions could be drawn from this study(which they can't), why would that actually warrant a mandatory loudening of Hybrids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
But I disagree that this can't be used as evidence that quiet hybrids aren't a greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists. We can argue how much more of a danger, and if so what solutions might be undertaken to mitigate that danger, but I still think Mike's claim that there is no evidence is false. If he'd taken the study into account and dismissed it as you have, he would have at least been more accurate (though I might still disagree).
And, for the record, I don't think that a "mandatory loudening" of hybrids is warranted. However, if car manufacturers want to provide it, I also don't seem much wrong in that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
So you want to use statistically insignificant data as evidence? Well, ignorance is as ignorance does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or..
Or... The Fast and The Furious..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Car sounds DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Car sounds DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sell car tones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly people, why do we need a law for everything? Why do we need a government full of ignorant and self-serving people to cater to every group, no matter how small and no matter how costly to the majority? Is it not enough that I avoid plowing into blind people lollygagging across the highway? I have to pay for noise devices for my car and a bunch of new tunnels for the three bikers a day that use it and are allegedly too stupid to look both ways for oncoming traffic? Can we occasionally assume that people will go on living if we don't coddle them from cradle to grave?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Give me quiet cars that travel below the surface so the rest of the world can be enjoyed in all its natural and man made wonder! during the fossil fuel conversion which will happen over the next several decades feel free to scrub the emissions from the subterranean roadways before you unleash it on the world. Take the brown out of downtown!!
How cool would it be to be able to walk or ride a non-motorized vehicle virtually anywhere on the surface?!
Obviously the difficulty will be in neighborhoods where you'll somehow need to get your car into the driveway from below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Another problem: if everyone has a custom car tone, walking around the city would be like hearing everyone's ringtone going off at once. Without stopping. Like a 24-hour out-of-tune GirlTalk concert.
If this happens (which it shouldn't but probably will), there needs to be standard sound and max volume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good one
Now seriously, could you imagine having a Prius that sounds like a DBS? Of course, it will still look and drive like crap, but what the hell we'll at least like the soundtracks.
Or better (way better!), having a Tesla that sounds like a Hayabusa. Yumm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about animal noises?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The implications would be impressive because if a blind person can use it then so can a computer which could use the same information to determine the location of cars around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That actually doesn't seem like a bad idea.
I'm not really for adding sounds to the car, but some type of wireless signal may be an interesting idea. That way, devices could be made to detect the cars signals (if they are in motion).
If the argument for adding this is to help people with disabilities, they could carry a device on them that alerts them in any way necessary (sound, vibration, flashing)
The downside is having a wireless signal on every car could lead to easy location tracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So there would really have to be a set-standard in order for it to address the problem that it's supposed to be causing.
But of course, corporate $$$ will win out over common sense - as usual. No problems will be solved and instead of just having to put up with annoying ring tones, cars will be driving around playing stuff from their favorite bands or porn videos.
I guess it all that much more gives truth to that 'de-motivator' saying: "GOVERNMENT: If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CarTones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution already exists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkmWQ5A0SqY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution already exists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvdjOsvBXFU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Pedestrians
I've been living in the US for a year. The ignorance of the average pedestrian is amazing. People will routinely step out into the road without giving the slightest thought that a car might be bearing down on them. This is also reflected in the rules which says a car can not overtake a school bus on wither side of the road as a child may run out. They should be taught to respect the road, as it's deadly.
So, with respect to noises on electric cars - don't get me wrong, it's a geeks wet dream to have knightrider noises etc - the burden should be put on the pedestrian to check that the road is clear.
It's basic Darwinism in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the relative lack of engine noise almost certainly contributed to this, although it's probably something I could get used to.
I think more noise in general could be helpful for things like cars backing out of driveways (or even going forward out of them), although I suppose I should be careful what I wish for: the backing truck beeps are really annoyingly loud and high-pitched.
As for money, I'm sure it just costs a few extra dollars to to put in these speakers and whatnot, which, compared to the price of a car, is practically nothing. The question should just be whether this is a good idea in the first place, not the role silly sound effects will play in the car commercials of the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant
We could use a sound and smell generator that's powered by some sort of refined crude oil product. This way we'd only need a single device for both outputs.
*OR* people could be less stupid when they're driving, walking, and riding.
Perhaps, if we quit letting people get away with stupidity, we'd have less stupidity? Best intersections I've seen in cities: one direction goes, then other direction goes, then all pedestrian traffic goes. Never a conflict between drivers and pedestrians. Simple and much safer than noisy cars. What do you do with hearing impaired people? Or people jacked into their music players? Or distracted people?
Anyway, given the recent track record of the US, whatever solution is crapped out by the political process will stink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more pollution
So to compensate for that, are we going to ban ring tones, and force people to use them on vibe?
Anyway, since stupidity always find a way, I want a hybrid (i.e. solar-powered battery coupled with pedals) Smart, but I want to have a 18 wheels truck sound...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flagmen
All we need to do is bring back the flagman laws. Think of the children! Think of the animals! Think of the idiots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that what Canada did adding a tax to blank CDs and DVDs and sending the payments to the music industry? It's hardware, and since it exists, it's 'obvious' that users are going to use it solely for 'piracy' (or so they say). So why not tax ultra loud hardware like they do media hardware?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real life example
I was walking through the local grocery store parking lot. I nearly walked into a silent hybrid vehicle that was driving down the lane. Both the driver and I noticed before anything happened. My first thought was not "Those things need to be louder", my first thought was actually "I need to pay better attention".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons in a hurry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
car tones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silent runnings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake Car Noises
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence?
VRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]