A Big Name Weighs In on Hybrid/EV Noise

If I have to retro-fit my Prius, I'm going to get a 1000-Watt stereo and a recording of my friend's Harley (which will not be in any way synchronized with the speed of my vehicle - I want it to sound like it's doing 90 when I'm sitting at stop lights).

 

First and foremost, I am sensitive to safety issues for pedestrians -- my mother has been blind since about 5 years of age. And, even with guide dogs (which I believe is the best single strategy for many blind people), it's not a perfect world.

To exaggerate to make a point:



While I'm sorry to see anyone burdened by low hearing, they nonetheless have a perfect work-around ... rely on eyesight as should always be the case for those able to do so. A friend from some years back had six children, three of whom were profoundly deaf. All six children, not just those hearing-impaired, were taught how to walk safely in traffic areas ... by use of their eyes. Still, I appreciate that three lacked one of the other senses many others can rely on.

However, I have much less sympathy for those who have difficulties due to distraction from an iPod or cell phone. They have a choice. The difference is that these people can be relatively safe compared to those who are blind etc., but choose not to be. Must all cars generate so much noise that they can be heard over the blaring of music piped into the ears of those listening to music with an ear bud at 115 db or being so engrossed in a cell phone discussion that they are oblivious to their surroundings?

For the latter groups, I'm sorely tempted to rely on Darwinian selection.

 

Do you have any interest in a list of the killer cars?

The reason I ask is we know the Prius has half the fatality rate as the USA fleet. This means somewhere in the fleet are killer cars that this legislation ignores.

Your mom, every blind pedestrian, in fact, every pedestrian remains at risk as long as the Prius is the legislated 'scapegoat.' In truth, I'm of two minds about this effort.

On one hand, I've been following, actively posting, about nearly every Prius accident and pedestrian fatality for nearly a year. I've seen the bloody photos and read the reports, which I've shared here. But I've also followed Chris Hogan's path and looked into the NHTSA FARS database, which is why I know the Prius has half the fatality rate of the USA fleet.

On the other hand, it doesn't change anything. Today's pedestrians, including the blind, will be just as much at risk as before. Several 10s of millions of dollars will be wasted in faux studies. After passage, there will be a small increment to hybrid costs and a general annoyance followed by the well earned disdain for the authors of this sham. But not one life or bruise will be saved. Reality will continue to scourge the foolish more bloody than any note I might type.

It is long time past for the EV community to wake up. Better late than never but it only puts off judgement day . . . or perhaps judgement day will come sooner for those who die because our focus was misdirected by this legislation.

Bob Wilson

p.s. The reason why we oppose the injustice of hanging an innocent man is not just because of their personal loss ... people die everyday. It is because the true killer remains at large to kill again. It is why we use science, facts and data, to guide our actions, not the common sense that "witches float" or other non-fact based baloney. For example, Richard Jewell was wrongly accused in the Atlanta bombing so Eric Rudolph received a 'pass.' Then there is Dr. Steven J. Hatfill who was identified as the likely anthrax killer until the suicide of Bruce E. Ivins, who now forensic evidence, DNA signatures, shows to have likely been the source for anthrax killer.

It may be neat and clean to hang someone for a crime until it means the true killer is free to kill again. It may be neat and clean to accuse hybrids, 2/3s are Prius, of being pedestrian killers until you look at the accident data and discover how made up are the supporting claims and far removed from the FARS data.

 

Well, the world is over populated, EV cars should be quiet, then the rest of us can eat, Darwinian cake, and for those that do not watch where they are walking, where cars apply, then, err, they won't be.. eating any more cake.

Look at the bright side, there will be, more cake !

 

One late thought:

The NHTSA has excellent reports about 'safety' that do not touch on specific vehicles. They have correctly identified alcohol, impaired driving, failure to follow traffic codes and long list of human failings in their accident summary reports. But selecting specific vehicles or even classes of vehicles is something they have avoided except when there was credible accident data to support the claim.

There have not been the kind of differential studies that compare vehicle-to-vehicle, taking the human out of the fault tree. Such a change in thinking, once started, is hard to reverse. It means we are likely to find some classes of vehicles and specific models, those favored by the least skilled drivers, will gain a negative safety rating and ranking. I was reminded of this last night when I was running the dogs at a shopping center after midnight.

There was a full-size SUV several hundred yards away with an exceptionally loud muffler (if any) cruising around the parking lot. Soon it was joined by a Jeep with similar muffler and a mid-sized SUV. My first thought was folks cruising to 'hook up.' But as the dogs and I came out from behind a row of shops, these three vehicles had stopped and the young men were out in 'drunk speak' loud socializing (or ears ringing from the lack of mufflers.) The profile of a high risk drivers were at that moment associated with two SUVs and a jeep.

To properly 'blame the vehicle,' driver profiles have to factored into the vehicle risks. This is not trivial because the only hard data comes from fatalities, a grim sampling.

Bob Wilson

 

I haven't seen such a list in a while, but the major auto insurers do have the data on this ... many of the companies share their accident etc. data, even though they may employ different algorithms in setting auto insurance rates.

While dated info now, a (now retired) Ford safety engineer told me that the strongest variable was vehicle weight when it came to car-to-car crashes.

I suspect that the risk to pedestrians would correlate to a driver's

• (1) low age
• (2) gender,
• (3) multi-tasking while driving (eg, texting),
• (4) advanced age, and
• (5) how a given car is likely to be driven.

While it varies considerably from person to person, there's a point at which advanced age becomes a relatively large factor to the extent it's accompanied by low sight and hearing, and diminished reflexes and ability to respond to an unusual event. In turn, though, the data on this are tempered by factors such as not having to commute during congested periods.

Most cars' weights are probably enough to kill a pedestrian, even the (relatively) lighter ones.

I found something which was (at the time) surprising to me in the late 1980's. I was planning to buy a Firebird ... heavily optioned. When I spoke to my auto ins agent, he said that I should consider a six cylinder engine, as it carried no surcharge in their rating system. But if I went up a notch and had an eight cylinder, the premium for my accident/ticket free profile would be 2.5 X the rate of the six. I got the six.

 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) publishes an annual "Comparision Insurance Costs" that can be downloaded from their web site. They group the cars and the "Four-Door Models:"

• 97 - Ford Focus
• 104 - Honda Civic Hybrid
• 105 - Toyota Prius
• 109 - Honda Civic
• 116 - Volkswagen Rabbit
• . . .
• 152 - Suzuki SX4
• 183 - Nissan Sentra SE-R
• 186 - Subaru Impreza WRX 4WD
• 210 - Mitsubishi Lancer
• 337 - Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 4WD

Bob Wilson

 

Being somewhat an outside observer to this debate it's been my obvious observation that the majority of Hybrid and potential EV owners are against the idea of adding a noisemaker to hybrids or EV's. In many cases venemously against the concept.

In another thread, In a Nyquil and Insomnia induced state, I wrote a post comparing Hybrid and EV's owners desire to remain as silent as possible to wanting to be "The Hunter" or "Silent Predator". I was kidding, but I think there is some truth to it.

I mean, step back and think about "why" this seems to be such a big issue? You can debate everything, Db's, adding to noise pollution, being a responsible car owner/operator, vs. being a responsible and alert pedesterian. Mutual responsibilty, individual reponsibilty and societal responsibility...all this and more can be brought to the table.

But at the heart of it for each person is "Why?". Personally? I think it hard to argue that vehicles either Hybrid, PHEV, or EV aren't quieter in operation than most of their ICE counterparts. Yes, modern and the latest ICE engines are also quiet but hard to argue that they are as quiet as an electric motor in operation. Before Hybrids and EV's became mainstream enough to bring this issue to the forefront, Toyota themselves created advertising that advanced the idea that The Prius was quiet. It was a selling point. So is this a common ground that we all can advance from?

If you believe that Hybrids/EV's are quieter in operation then the follow up question becomes does that make their operation in the real world, a real world still dominated by ICE vehicles, potentially more dangerous for pedesterians and the community around them?

I know it's unpopular around here, and people like to site a lack of collected data and/or statistics that have been collected to support the idea that Hybrids and EV's aren't posing a bigger danger than any other vehicle. But for me? Real common sense tells me simply that a vehicle in a world where most people are conciously or sub-conciously programmed to expect a certain level of sound from large moving vehicles, suddenly sparsely populated with a few large moving vehicles that don't make near the same amount of sound, simply must create a bigger risk in operation for drivers and pedesterians.

I know I've lost a lot of you. But if you advance from here? Then I ask, Why the all the angst about adding a noisemaker? I do believe the realities will shake out. There is probably going to be experimentation and adjustment, on the part of automakers and consumers and ultimately drivers and pedesterians. But why does the concept of making a quieter vehicle, outwardly louder in an effort to make it as noticeable in operation as the majority of the vehicles in operation so abhorrent?

I find it suprising that the concept is met with such resistance. To the point of people threatening to make their cars louder out of spite. These are noisemakers designed to create an outward sound. This isn't sound that is going to be piped through the inside speakers of you automobile. Since this is "added technology" the possibilty of designing it to be as unobtrusive to the operator as possible exists. I think it will be designed as such.

So I ask, and I ask those that seem so venemously opposed to the concept, why? Is it because you feel you've made the financial and intellectual and emotional sacrifice to the latest evolution and thus that entitles you to full advantage of it's operational parameters including almost silent operation? I'm sorry if that seems a bit selfish to me. Because you can say, I don't want a noisemaker, I don't want a recorded or created sound. You can say, it's the primary responsibilty of the pedesterians and bicyclists around me to stay alert...you can say, I'll always be driving perfectly, and I'll always see everyone around me and have the option of honking my horn...and you probably will be right, for most of the time, for most of the drivers. But noisemakers aren't being installed for the ideal situation, they are being proposed to guard against the reality of an unideal world. A world full of noise, a world where expectation is that moving vehicles create a certain level of sound. I think you can not want a noisemaker, and not think them valid or useful...right up to the day you hit a child or pedesterian who you did not see, and whom wasn't aware of you because your vehicle IS quieter than the majority of it's counterparts in operation.

As I have admitted repeatedly, and many of you know, and many more could care less...I don't currently own a hybrid or an EV. But I honestly feel if I did, or was planning to obtain The Leaf, (for example) as long as the noise wasn't any more intrusive than the noise of operating almost any standard vehicle then I wouldn't care. Add away! ( I admit, recordings of The Leaf I have heard...sound kinda neat to me)

I also don't think this is a static issue. Right now the world is changing. Hybrids and now mass produced EV's are relatively new, and still represent a small percentage of the entire vehicular population. Hopefully as the world does transistion from being petrol fuel burning combustion based...to more and more quieter options we could, can and should revisit the expectations society attaches to the loudness of vehicle operation. But in many ways, with the Leaf and upcoming PHEV's this is the genesis, and I don't find it all so damning that we are belling the EV, or belling the Hybrid, if only because until the world becomes more adjusted, I do feel it's a more dangerous cat.

 

If someone has evidence that hybrid vehicles are injuring or killing people because of their lack of noise, then that's that. Based on Bob's very thorough work, that does not appear to be the case. We should not be legislating or regulating based on hand-waved perceptions.

You argue that noisemakers are really only for certain limited situations. There are many other similarly limited situations that we have not legislated or regulated for. Your line of thinking could be used to mandate back-up cameras in all vehicles, or back-up beepers, or speed governors set at 80 mph, or a car that doesn't move until you buckle the seat belt or prove you're not drunk.

All of those items would certainly save lives. But as a society we've generally said that those mandates would go too far, both in terms of cost or mere annoyance (some would say 'nannying'). I don't see how this one is any different.

 

Most cars? How about all cars. A bullet can easily kill someone, and it weighs a lot less than any car. It's all about how much force is exerted on your body and how it is applied.

You are missing the main point: we shouldn't be trying to make *any* cars louder. We should try to make all cars quieter. Adding noise makers is a step in the wrong direction, and it distracts from the real safety issues.

Tom

 

I'm simply trying to be a realist. Of course, it would be nice if we move in evolution towards making vehicles more fuel efficient, or not fuel dependent at all. Also I am certainly not advocating FOR noise pollution. As I said, as the world changes I think the issue should be revisited. But the reality is today? Right now? and for the foreseeable future, EV's and PHEV's are quieter in operation than the majority of vehicles in operation. They also are the minority on the road and in operation.

You either believe this makes them more dangerous to pedesterians, children and blind people or you do not. Since this wheel is in spin...and this is in regards to upcoming mass produced vehicles available to the general public...that haven't been readily available in past, I don't think there is enough sample size to really get an idea from statistics whether they pose a danger or whether they do not.

There is always conflict with advancement in technology and change. I really do think this much like the very early days of automobiles when what seems today to be ridiculous laws were passed in relationship to operation. Where in some area's automobiles were required to stop to allow horse and buggy to pass, or drivers were to fire off warning shots when approaching rural areas where horse riders might exist.

As the world changed, these laws changed. It is my hope that someday the world is simply a quieter place in regards to man made transportation. But unless with the release of The Volt, Leaf, Prius and a few other hybrid options you want to simultaneously mandate the destruction of all ICE dependent vehicles, then this is not the world we live in yet.

I do believe pedesterians are acclimated to the expectation that vehicles will produce an ICE level of noise when being operated. The ideal would be that all vehicles are quieter, the ideal would also be that everyone could instantly adapt and realize that some vehicles now are very quiet and you need to pay attention...but that isn't going to happen over night. In the meantime? If addition of a noisemaker saves a few lives as we evolve from one reality into the next? I don't really see where a noise...recorded or produced by explosions in a piston chamber..is really such a big deal.

 

Is "AutoBlog" just an AOL-only, member posting site?

Bob Wilson

 

In many cases, this is not true, and this is the main reason why I am against noisemakers. Once it starts, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove, imo.

 

One thing his article pickup on slighty was whether these noise makers have been tested in situ. Are the blind (or anyone else) likely to pickup on an individual vehicle at a busy intersection or busy city street which happens to have many noise maker vehicles all humming along with the same sound? Or would they all blur into an electro hum?

Really is a missed opportunity, but I'm sure Governments around the world will pass the relevant legislation requiring noise makers rather than upset some disability group.

Pass a law that only affects a few or take the wrath of upsetting the disabled and all their charity and lobby groups?

 

Autoblog (and AutoBlogGreen) are owned by AOL, and has a team of writers- but anyone can comment on the posts.

 

Uh I'm talking about automotive history, how can it NOT be true, it's already happened. Now when approaching a rural area, you are no longer required to shut off your motorized buggy, and fire a warning shot into the air to warn potential horse riders or other livestock that might be in the area that you are approaching...or are you still doing this?

 

Until about 1905 we had a law here in the UK that a man waving a red flag had to walk in front of your new fangled automobile whilst you were driving it. Perhaps they should reinstate this law for EV's?

Just a thought and all in the interests of safety!

 

I oppose adding noise, and applaud Ms. Sexton's article. Show me the statistics. Prius has been on the road for 13 years. There is plenty of data. Why should my EV have to make an irritating noise but a bicycle does not? Both are potentially lethal to pedestrians. Both drivers are responsible if negligent. What about an ICE car in a FAS? What about when I am nowhere near another human being?

I do not like the sound of ice cream trucks, and this will be far worse, like a swarm of such trucks at every intersection. Sheesh. At a time when we need to enhance the urban living experience we are about to make it intolerable, and do so with an utter lack of evidence that a need exists.