7 ms·
Indeed, so my assumption is that this law is trying to keep things from changing. People will have to adapt to silent cars. But that's scary. Everybody knows
by phicoh 7y ago
Indeed, so my assumption is that this law is trying to keep things from changing.
People will have to adapt to silent cars. But that's scary.
Everybody knows that you have to look before making a turn or changing lanes. We also know that by and large people who listen to music or have a headset for a phone conversation are not killed en masse.
I think that is law is a pity. There is enough noise pollution already.
- Retric 7y agoSilent cars are dangerous. It’s not extremely dangerous, but we have lots of cars. Consider even very slow speed collisions can be dangerous. People get pinned or pushed into traffic etc. Comparing even a fairly low number of deaths and serious injuries vs a minor noise from moving cars and it’s an obvious choice IMO.
- phicoh 7y agoIn my opinion these kinds laws are of the kind that "we need to do something because we need to do something". The effects are marginal. If these laws were the result of solid scientific studies and engineering it would be different, but they are not. Basically everybody has to pay the price of having more noise pollution to save a few people not paying attention at what they are doing. The reason we get these kinds rules is because there is a regulatory framework for cars. which makes it easy to add additional requirements. For example, in the Netherlands both electric mopeds and high speed electric bikes get more popular. Certainly the bikes are at high speed essentially silent (small bike tires have less friction and make less noise). Because there is no framework to require bikes to make noise they don't have to. And needless to say, a collision with a bike going 45 km/h will do a lot of damage. If people bumping into silent things was a wide spread problem, then yes it would make sense to require every thing to make noise. But these types of accidents are just that, accidents. They will always happen. Taking random measures to reduce accidents with an unknown amount will just make society as a whole worse.
- Retric 7y ago> Taking random measures to reduce accidents with an unknown amount will just make society as a whole worse. It’s not random, actual studies gave demonstrated the risk for years. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811204 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... “The HEV was two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash in these situations than was an ICE vehicle.” And no it’s not just about people not paying attention, the blind don’t get the option on this one.
- phicoh 7y agoThat's why it is random. Solid engineering implies that you estimate how much effect this measure will have. Note that the report says 'Incidence rates provided in this report should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.' If this was solid engineering, there would minimum noise requirements to help people with reduced vision. This is similar to having a man with a flag walk in front of car. Because those horseless vehicles are just scary.
- Retric 7y agoI was intentionally linking to an early study. There are plenty of studies looking into this issue and more than enough data to determine it’s a real problem. In fact many hybrids have included such systems for years. Here is a more recent example with far more data. https://www.iihs.org/media/0465243f-89d5-4fa7-95c1-367f1e2c1c0a/-1115601825/HLDI%20Research/Bulletins/hldi_bulletin_28.12.pdf https://www.iihs.org/media/0465243f-89d5-4fa7-95c1-367f1e2c1... Overall it’s on the order of hundreds more deaths in the US alone assuming every car becomes a hybrid or electric vehicle without these systems.
- nitrogen 7y agoAnd even without deaths it's far more comfortable as a pedestrian if I can hear a car coming before I turn my head. Situational awareness as another comment mentioned elsewhere relies on all of the senses. I for one would like more sound from e-scooters; been almost hit a few times.
- zaroth 7y agoIt’s hard to put a value on what lowering ambient sound levels in a city might be worth. Or overall even how many lives it could save. Or productivity and wellbeing increases due to lower stress levels. A minor noise from moving cars? How about this horrifying little marketing piece from Nissan [1] about their new “Canto” noise they are going to emit? Besides, these noise levels are calibrated to be loud enough in a bustling city at high noon. They are not dynamic based on time of day, or location, or actual ambient sound levels. So, in other words, they will be loud and obnoxious, particularly outside of the city, where ambient is almost 20dB lower. [1] - https://youtu.be/p4cjPk8mqEM https://youtu.be/p4cjPk8mqEM
- samastur 7y agoI hate noise pollution too but some people are blind.
- Reason077 7y agoRight. And electric vehicle with AVAS emitters fitted are still much, much quieter than most combustion vehicles!
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoIs that still actually true? Surely they're quieter than the average car from the 1970s, but the loudest sound you get from a lot of modern gasoline-powered vehicles at low speeds is the "whoosh" from air displacement, not the engine.
- Reason077 7y agoEven modern combustion engines are still pretty noisy at low speeds compared to EVs. Especially when starting up or when revving to pull away at an intersection. At < 12 mph they’re not displacing enough air to make a “whoosh”! Diesel engines, endemic in Europe even in small cars, are particularly noisy.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoConductive headphones are great for running outside and not getting killed. Your ears are free to hear while you feel the music well enough.