5 ms·

It's a complicated issue, but my disappointment is that we have the chance to be free from widespread traffic noise, for the first time in almost a century. Yet

by m0nty 7y ago

It's a complicated issue, but my disappointment is that we have the chance to be free from widespread traffic noise, for the first time in almost a century. Yet it's to become mandatory. It's not as though traffic noise is benign: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7440003 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7440003

lame-robot-hoax 7y ago
I’ll be honest, I haven’t read into it much, but maybe they can make the frequency emitted relatively high in order to reduce the amount of distance the sound travels? I know it can’t be too high or elderly or the hard of hearing may struggle to hear it, but just a thought.
sokoloff 7y ago
The reason this only applies under 12 mph is that tire noise (and aero drag later) takes over as cars start to go faster. Even without this mandate (many already have it), you would not have had silent traffic.
skrause 7y ago
> but my disappointment is that we have the chance to be free from widespread traffic noise No, we don't have this chance unless you implement a 20 mph speed limit everywhere. Above that speed it matters less and less that you have an electric engine because the tires and aerodynamic noise will be the main sources of sound. That's why this regulation only requires the artifical sound up to 12 mph, above that speed they car is loud enough anyway.
- legulere 7y ago
  The motor is louder than the tires until around 40 km/h for cars and 60 km/h for trucks [1]. And it matters even a bit after that because noise is adding up. Those speeds are pretty close to how fast cars go where people live. [1]: http://www.leiserstrassenverkehr.bayern.de/entstehung/index.php http://www.leiserstrassenverkehr.bayern.de/entstehung/index....
  - samastur 7y ago
    The limit doesn't have to be at the point where motor stops being louder. They only have to cover the range where all car induced noise is too quiet and only to extent necessary to mitigate this for EVs.
- audunw 7y ago
  You’re right, but it’s absolutely possible to optimize wind and tyre noise too, but it doesn’t make much sense unless you eliminate engine noise. There are already tyres marketed for EVs that claims to reduce noise. EVs also tend to optimize for lower air resistance as well, since it increases range. Seems like we’re getting cameras instead of mirrors too now. Another thing that would help a lot is if we can keep asphalt smooth. Driving an EV on fresh asphalt is incredibly satisfying, as it seems to eliminate most of the tyre noise. Maybe we could have automate vehicles laying down a thin layer of that rubbery material (bitumen?) regularly? Id also claim that winds and tyre noise is less annoying than engine noise. It’s more like a water fall, and don’t penetrate walls as much as, say, a deep rumbling truck engine.
pgeorgi 7y ago
The implementation requirements are defined in Annex VIII of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52014AG0003 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52... and there's an upper bound (as in: not louder than an ICE car) but no lower bound. From reading that Annex, Renault Zoe should be compliant (sound engine below 30km/h, can be disabled, sound adapts to speed) and while it's clearly audible on the sidewalk, it's significantly more muted than an ICE car: I don't think it's audible through a closed window, and probably not even through an open window that's somewhat raised. Plus, such a system doesn't _allow_ for the more pronounced noises ICEs can make in urban traffic (eg. cranking up the engine speed to show off).
- anticensor 7y ago
  Blip to show can be replaced by a multi-tone air horn system as in trains (low tone as departure and impatience horn, higher tone(s) as aversive warning).
- zaroth 7y ago
  Interestingly the beginning of the document you linked is all about reducing noise levels and the deleterious effects of car noise on human health and well-being. > Traffic noise harms health in numerous ways. Protracted noise-related stress can exhaust human physical reserves, disrupt the regulatory capacity of organ functions and hence limit their effectiveness. Traffic noise is a potential risk factor for the development of medical conditions and incidents such as high blood pressure and heart attacks. But you are looking at an old draft. The updated Annex VIII references another document which does indeed specify a minimum noise level. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2017/EN/C-2017-4296-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2017/EN/C-201...
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    Oops, thanks. Because this requires more digging: the detailed specs come from UNECE Regulation 138 which can be found at https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2017/R138r1e.pdf https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs... (which also seems to be the current edition at this time, according to the special interest database at https://globalautoregs.com/rules/205-quiet-road-transport-vehicles https://globalautoregs.com/rules/205-quiet-road-transport-ve...). The relevant parts are 6.2.1.2 and the table in 6.2.8, and they lay out a minimum sound level of 56dB(A) at 2m distance to the car (PP' line, as defined in the appendix to Annex 3) at 20km/h, that must be spread out over two of the bands in the table (at least one <= 1600Hz) In other tables on the net, I get 50dB as the "minimum street noise", 70dB for a car at 10m distance and 45-60dB for a quiet-to-normal conversation at 1m distance. 56dB at 2m still seems relatively muted in that context.
Hamuko 7y ago
If you want to eliminate traffic noise, you have to rip horns out of cars. And I'm not sure how many are actually advocating for that.
- ginko 7y ago
  Isn't using your horn banned in most major cities anyways? It is in Vienna at least.
  - ulfw 7y ago
    It isn't in many really big cities, e.g. Hong Kong or Istanbul
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    I see the "no horn" sign occasionally in Europe, but the country I learned in (the UK) doesn't use it. I think the only time I've used the horn was when, stopped at a red light, the car ahead started to roll backwards towards me. What do people do in this situation, in Vienna or some other place where using the horn is banned?
    - dazc 7y ago
      'What do people do in this situation..' Assuming the horn actually still works, use it. In such a situation, the risk of being hit far outweighs that of being prosecuted.
  - blensor 7y ago
    As a fellow Viennese I think we can agree that even if it is banned nobody cares and one is frequently blasted with a horn for no apparent reason rather than being in front of someone
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mymythisisthis 7y ago
We are not a smart species. Birds have been impacted by traffic noise as well. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/california_waterfix/exhibits/docs/LAND/part2/land_148 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/prog...
jaclaz 7y ago
>widespread traffic noise, for the first time in almost a century Well, in cities horses and horse driven carriages on pebbles/stone pavements weren't that much silent even before that. Admittedly there were much less vehicles overall, but the sound of the horseshoes is very loud, to which you add the wooden (but usually with a steel ring) wheels, possibly the drivers shouting at their horses and what not and I don't think that a street in - say - central New York in 1899 was particularly silent. Compare with (scroll down to find "THE HORSELESS CARRIAGE AND PUBLIC HEALTH": https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1899-02-18/scientific-american-v80-n07-1899-02-18_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1899-02-18/sc... >The noise and clatter which makes conversation al- most impossible on many streets of New York at the present time will be done away with, for horseless vehi- cles of all kinds are always noiseless or nearly so. This question of noise has much to do with the general health of the community. Specialists have many times expressed an opinion that the nervous diseases which exist in the city are aggravated, if not caused, in many cases, by noises incident to a great city's traffic. The bells of the new vehicles will of course be somewhat annoying at first.
- flaque 7y ago
  This is a "whataboutism," the point was that we could have much less noise in towns and cities, which would be nice.
  - jaclaz 7y ago
    Well, my point was simply that the same wish has been made - almost to the letter - when the horseless carriages were introduced, or - if you prefer - that when the electric cars will be the only vehicles around we will have finally some less noise after several centuries, but the noise was not "introduced" by cars, and as a matter of fact 19th centuries city streets were likely as noisy or worse.
Scott_Sanderson 7y ago
Disagree, the safety noise is significantly lower than the noise of a car driving fast.
carapace 7y ago
Wouldn't stop the sirens.

by m0nty 7y ago

lame-robot-hoax 7y ago

I’ll be honest, I haven’t read into it much, but maybe they can make the frequency emitted relatively high in order to reduce the amount of distance the sound travels? I know it can’t be too high or elderly or the hard of hearing may struggle to hear it, but just a thought.

sokoloff 7y ago

The reason this only applies under 12 mph is that tire noise (and aero drag later) takes over as cars start to go faster. Even without this mandate (many already have it), you would not have had silent traffic.

skrause 7y ago

> but my disappointment is that we have the chance to be free from widespread traffic noise No, we don't have this chance unless you implement a 20 mph speed limit everywhere. Above that speed it matters less and less that you have an electric engine because the tires and aerodynamic noise will be the main sources of sound. That's why this regulation only requires the artifical sound up to 12 mph, above that speed they car is loud enough anyway.

legulere 7y ago
The motor is louder than the tires until around 40 km/h for cars and 60 km/h for trucks [1]. And it matters even a bit after that because noise is adding up. Those speeds are pretty close to how fast cars go where people live. [1]: http://www.leiserstrassenverkehr.bayern.de/entstehung/index.php http://www.leiserstrassenverkehr.bayern.de/entstehung/index....
- samastur 7y ago
  The limit doesn't have to be at the point where motor stops being louder. They only have to cover the range where all car induced noise is too quiet and only to extent necessary to mitigate this for EVs.
audunw 7y ago
You’re right, but it’s absolutely possible to optimize wind and tyre noise too, but it doesn’t make much sense unless you eliminate engine noise. There are already tyres marketed for EVs that claims to reduce noise. EVs also tend to optimize for lower air resistance as well, since it increases range. Seems like we’re getting cameras instead of mirrors too now. Another thing that would help a lot is if we can keep asphalt smooth. Driving an EV on fresh asphalt is incredibly satisfying, as it seems to eliminate most of the tyre noise. Maybe we could have automate vehicles laying down a thin layer of that rubbery material (bitumen?) regularly? Id also claim that winds and tyre noise is less annoying than engine noise. It’s more like a water fall, and don’t penetrate walls as much as, say, a deep rumbling truck engine.

pgeorgi 7y ago

The implementation requirements are defined in Annex VIII of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52014AG0003 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52... and there's an upper bound (as in: not louder than an ICE car) but no lower bound. From reading that Annex, Renault Zoe should be compliant (sound engine below 30km/h, can be disabled, sound adapts to speed) and while it's clearly audible on the sidewalk, it's significantly more muted than an ICE car: I don't think it's audible through a closed window, and probably not even through an open window that's somewhat raised. Plus, such a system doesn't _allow_ for the more pronounced noises ICEs can make in urban traffic (eg. cranking up the engine speed to show off).

anticensor 7y ago
Blip to show can be replaced by a multi-tone air horn system as in trains (low tone as departure and impatience horn, higher tone(s) as aversive warning).
zaroth 7y ago
Interestingly the beginning of the document you linked is all about reducing noise levels and the deleterious effects of car noise on human health and well-being. > Traffic noise harms health in numerous ways. Protracted noise-related stress can exhaust human physical reserves, disrupt the regulatory capacity of organ functions and hence limit their effectiveness. Traffic noise is a potential risk factor for the development of medical conditions and incidents such as high blood pressure and heart attacks. But you are looking at an old draft. The updated Annex VIII references another document which does indeed specify a minimum noise level. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2017/EN/C-2017-4296-F1-EN-ANNEX-1-PART-1.PDF https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2017/EN/C-201...
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  Oops, thanks. Because this requires more digging: the detailed specs come from UNECE Regulation 138 which can be found at https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2017/R138r1e.pdf https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs... (which also seems to be the current edition at this time, according to the special interest database at https://globalautoregs.com/rules/205-quiet-road-transport-vehicles https://globalautoregs.com/rules/205-quiet-road-transport-ve...). The relevant parts are 6.2.1.2 and the table in 6.2.8, and they lay out a minimum sound level of 56dB(A) at 2m distance to the car (PP' line, as defined in the appendix to Annex 3) at 20km/h, that must be spread out over two of the bands in the table (at least one <= 1600Hz) In other tables on the net, I get 50dB as the "minimum street noise", 70dB for a car at 10m distance and 45-60dB for a quiet-to-normal conversation at 1m distance. 56dB at 2m still seems relatively muted in that context.

Hamuko 7y ago

If you want to eliminate traffic noise, you have to rip horns out of cars. And I'm not sure how many are actually advocating for that.

ginko 7y ago
Isn't using your horn banned in most major cities anyways? It is in Vienna at least.
- ulfw 7y ago
  It isn't in many really big cities, e.g. Hong Kong or Istanbul
- Symbiote 7y ago
  I see the "no horn" sign occasionally in Europe, but the country I learned in (the UK) doesn't use it. I think the only time I've used the horn was when, stopped at a red light, the car ahead started to roll backwards towards me. What do people do in this situation, in Vienna or some other place where using the horn is banned?
  - dazc 7y ago
    'What do people do in this situation..' Assuming the horn actually still works, use it. In such a situation, the risk of being hit far outweighs that of being prosecuted.
- blensor 7y ago
  As a fellow Viennese I think we can agree that even if it is banned nobody cares and one is frequently blasted with a horn for no apparent reason rather than being in front of someone

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mymythisisthis 7y ago

We are not a smart species. Birds have been impacted by traffic noise as well. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/california_waterfix/exhibits/docs/LAND/part2/land_148 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/prog...

jaclaz 7y ago

>widespread traffic noise, for the first time in almost a century Well, in cities horses and horse driven carriages on pebbles/stone pavements weren't that much silent even before that. Admittedly there were much less vehicles overall, but the sound of the horseshoes is very loud, to which you add the wooden (but usually with a steel ring) wheels, possibly the drivers shouting at their horses and what not and I don't think that a street in - say - central New York in 1899 was particularly silent. Compare with (scroll down to find "THE HORSELESS CARRIAGE AND PUBLIC HEALTH": https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1899-02-18/scientific-american-v80-n07-1899-02-18_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/scientific-american-1899-02-18/sc... >The noise and clatter which makes conversation al- most impossible on many streets of New York at the present time will be done away with, for horseless vehi- cles of all kinds are always noiseless or nearly so. This question of noise has much to do with the general health of the community. Specialists have many times expressed an opinion that the nervous diseases which exist in the city are aggravated, if not caused, in many cases, by noises incident to a great city's traffic. The bells of the new vehicles will of course be somewhat annoying at first.

flaque 7y ago
This is a "whataboutism," the point was that we could have much less noise in towns and cities, which would be nice.
- jaclaz 7y ago
  Well, my point was simply that the same wish has been made - almost to the letter - when the horseless carriages were introduced, or - if you prefer - that when the electric cars will be the only vehicles around we will have finally some less noise after several centuries, but the noise was not "introduced" by cars, and as a matter of fact 19th centuries city streets were likely as noisy or worse.

Scott_Sanderson 7y ago

Disagree, the safety noise is significantly lower than the noise of a car driving fast.

carapace 7y ago

Wouldn't stop the sirens.