3 ms·

There is EU regulation 2017/1576 that requires to make noises if driving at low speeds. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/electric-and-hybrid-car

by est31 3y ago

There is EU regulation 2017/1576 that requires to make noises if driving at low speeds. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/electric-and-hybrid-cars-new-rules-noise-emitting-protect-vulnerable-road-users-2019-07-03_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/electric-and... I'm an EV fan, but lower noise levels makes them more dangerous, not less, at least to the people they can potentially hit (of course for people living next to roads, noise is more hazardous from a more general health point of view). Cars are killer machines and stuff like seatbelts and airbags protect passengers but not pedestrians or cyclists hit by the car. So if you are a pedestrian or cyclist, then having the ability to hear the car is really great.

kqr 3y ago
You're right, but it's still weird. It's asking the outside people to shoulder the responsibility of avoiding the killer machine. I'd rather have quiet cars and much harsher crackdowns on drivers that use them in ways that jeopardy the lives of others. There are many things drivers can do to reduce the hazard, such as slowing down, buying smaller vehicles, using cars that don't isolate outside noise, only driving when in good mental condition, etc. It's crazy to me that we allow cars that isolate their cockpit more and more from their surroundings (quiet, small windows, high up from the ground) and instead ask the surroundings to avoid the danger. I know, ultimately it is each person's own responsibility to avoid death, and it might make sense for the legal system to reflect that. But we don't have these laws with other dangerous things ("it's okay to practise throwing molotov cocktails in public squares, as long as you wear bright clothing so people know to keep their distance"), so cars are sort of an outlier.
- djaychela 3y ago
  The flipside of that is that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And I think this is because a lot of them are distracted (many just cross the road while on their phones, and some have over-ear headphones), and some just think "well, the car has to stop, so I'll step out". It's not just car drivers who are at fault - I've had some crazy near-misses with arrogant pedestrians, and sometimes when I've been on my motorbike which is not quiet, and also I would pay quite a price for an accident, even if with a pedestrian or trying to avoid one.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > I'd rather have quiet cars and much harsher crackdowns on drivers that use them in ways that jeopardy the lives of others. There are many things drivers can do to reduce the hazard, such as slowing down, buying smaller vehicles, using cars that don't isolate outside noise, only driving when in good mental condition, etc. I get what you're saying, but IMO, that just wouldn't work well. If you want a better system, it's better to make as many changes as possible to the system so that problems are impossible and/or unlikely. Personal responsibility will always have it's place, but it'll never be particularly reliable. > It's crazy to me that we allow cars that isolate their cockpit more and more from their surroundings (quiet, small windows, high up from the ground) and instead ask the surroundings to avoid the danger. Being quiet and high aren't issues here. Drivers aren't going to hear pedestrians - not at 30 mph. And I've never been in a vehicle that had windows that I felt affected my awareness, aside from the rear window of the Prius. > I know, ultimately it is each person's own responsibility to avoid death, and it might make sense for the legal system to reflect that. But we don't have these laws with other dangerous things Sure, but that's because there's enormous social utility in allowing people to drive cars. If there was a similar utility in letting people throw molotov cocktails, then there'd probably be some sort of dispensation to do just what you suggest.
  - kqr 3y ago
    > If you want a better system, it's better to make as many changes as possible to the system so that problems are impossible and/or unlikely. I disagree with this premise. If you want to make a system better, you need to enable as many information flows as possible, shorten feedback loops, etc. The classic Meadows leverage points. The proposal of making cars noisy has the opposite effect, by sweeping problems under the rug. Just "doing as many things as possible" is a great way to paint oneself into a local optimum.
- xienze 3y ago
  > It's asking the outside people to shoulder the responsibility of avoiding the killer machine. It's adding a layer of redundancy. The driver needs to pay attention but should that fail, hopefully the car noise will alert the pedestrian, who should also be aware that a car is nearby.

by est31 3y ago

kqr 3y ago

You're right, but it's still weird. It's asking the outside people to shoulder the responsibility of avoiding the killer machine. I'd rather have quiet cars and much harsher crackdowns on drivers that use them in ways that jeopardy the lives of others. There are many things drivers can do to reduce the hazard, such as slowing down, buying smaller vehicles, using cars that don't isolate outside noise, only driving when in good mental condition, etc. It's crazy to me that we allow cars that isolate their cockpit more and more from their surroundings (quiet, small windows, high up from the ground) and instead ask the surroundings to avoid the danger. I know, ultimately it is each person's own responsibility to avoid death, and it might make sense for the legal system to reflect that. But we don't have these laws with other dangerous things ("it's okay to practise throwing molotov cocktails in public squares, as long as you wear bright clothing so people know to keep their distance"), so cars are sort of an outlier.

djaychela 3y ago
The flipside of that is that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And I think this is because a lot of them are distracted (many just cross the road while on their phones, and some have over-ear headphones), and some just think "well, the car has to stop, so I'll step out". It's not just car drivers who are at fault - I've had some crazy near-misses with arrogant pedestrians, and sometimes when I've been on my motorbike which is not quiet, and also I would pay quite a price for an accident, even if with a pedestrian or trying to avoid one.
nordsieck 3y ago
> I'd rather have quiet cars and much harsher crackdowns on drivers that use them in ways that jeopardy the lives of others. There are many things drivers can do to reduce the hazard, such as slowing down, buying smaller vehicles, using cars that don't isolate outside noise, only driving when in good mental condition, etc. I get what you're saying, but IMO, that just wouldn't work well. If you want a better system, it's better to make as many changes as possible to the system so that problems are impossible and/or unlikely. Personal responsibility will always have it's place, but it'll never be particularly reliable. > It's crazy to me that we allow cars that isolate their cockpit more and more from their surroundings (quiet, small windows, high up from the ground) and instead ask the surroundings to avoid the danger. Being quiet and high aren't issues here. Drivers aren't going to hear pedestrians - not at 30 mph. And I've never been in a vehicle that had windows that I felt affected my awareness, aside from the rear window of the Prius. > I know, ultimately it is each person's own responsibility to avoid death, and it might make sense for the legal system to reflect that. But we don't have these laws with other dangerous things Sure, but that's because there's enormous social utility in allowing people to drive cars. If there was a similar utility in letting people throw molotov cocktails, then there'd probably be some sort of dispensation to do just what you suggest.
- kqr 3y ago
  > If you want a better system, it's better to make as many changes as possible to the system so that problems are impossible and/or unlikely. I disagree with this premise. If you want to make a system better, you need to enable as many information flows as possible, shorten feedback loops, etc. The classic Meadows leverage points. The proposal of making cars noisy has the opposite effect, by sweeping problems under the rug. Just "doing as many things as possible" is a great way to paint oneself into a local optimum.
xienze 3y ago
> It's asking the outside people to shoulder the responsibility of avoiding the killer machine. It's adding a layer of redundancy. The driver needs to pay attention but should that fail, hopefully the car noise will alert the pedestrian, who should also be aware that a car is nearby.