3 ms·
Except that's not true, it does make sense. Electric vehicles are apparently 40% more likely to hit a pedestrian than a conventionally engined car. There's bee
by NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Except that's not true, it does make sense. Electric vehicles are apparently 40% more likely to hit a pedestrian than a conventionally engined car.
There's been research going on for at least the last 10 years into both the risk and effective sounds that don't simply prove annoying (like a beep would), or lose directionality.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-combats-silent-menace-electric-cars https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-...
https://www.rnib.org.uk/rnibconnect/silent-deadly-electric-hybrid-vehicles-sight-loss https://www.rnib.org.uk/rnibconnect/silent-deadly-electric-h...
- icc97 8y agoI was being followed on my bicycle by an almost entirely silent hybrid driving on electric power. It really is quite freaky when you know it's behind you and can see it in your peripheral vision when you turn your head but can't hear it.
- icc97 8y agoAnnoyingly that 40% figure is almost impossible to find, it's from a survey done by a Guide Dogs charity in the UK but their own page on it [0] now just refers to it and doesn't link to the original report. [0]: https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/how-you-can-help/campaigning/safe-and-sound/ https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/how-you-can-help/campaigning/sa...
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoSo it is. Can find lots of references to the report, even from gov.uk, but no actual links to it.