There is a favorable probability that HR 5734, the "Bell the Hybrid Act," is all but dead. There is no equivalent Senate bill and the current business has pretty well sucked out all of the oxygen. Sure there will be a lame duck session but I suspect it won't be terribly productive. Without claiming victory, I want to propose and discuss one last letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

I propose that a warning label be added to the driver sun visor, next to the air bag warning, that says:

WARNING Pedestrians may not hear you in parking lots and streets. Be careful of pedestrians in parking lots.

Our hybrid lore recognizes that we are quiet in parking lots. Most of us compensate by being especially attentive to pedestrians. But a new hybrid owner may not be aware of this and drive too casually around people.

Posting this warning on the sun visor, next to the air bag warning, would more likely catch the eye of a new owner or driver than a similar note in the owner's handbook. It is a reasonable precaution when loaning your hybrid to someone else.

This letter would give the NHTSA advocate(s) of HR 5734 some cover and a graceful way to retire. The warning note is not the silly, worthless noise makers but an opportunity for the advocates to gain some standing as not having been a total waste of time. It gives them a chance to then put this HR 5734 nonsense aside and focus on other, real safety issues.

This proposed letter also lays a serious challenge before the extreme "Bell the Hybrid" advocates. If they oppose it, it directly challenges their claim that this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed urgently. But having gotten this warning note, the obvious answer is "Lets see how well it works."

The warning proposed in this letter may reduce the possibility of a future EV fatality or injury. It is a common sense approach that matches the likely risk. It doesn't cost much; it is unobtrusive; and it might help. Best of all, it gives enough cover that "Bell the Hybrid" might quietly fade away.

Comments?

Bob Wilson

After April 3, use e-mail to contact me:

Have you ever counted the warning stickers on a ladder. Last time I counted, there were about 30 of them. Have you ever read any of them? Do you carefully review all of the warnings every time you use a ladder? Do you actually think anyone ever has done either of those things, other than the lawyer who works for the ladder company?

We could completely cover the entire surface of an automobile with bright yellow warning labels. "Warning: Twisting the steering wheel while car is moving may cause car to change direction." "Warning: Do not drive into a ditch." "Warning: Do not drive into a tree." "Warning: Do not drive off the side of a bridge." "Warning: Do not drive with eyes closed." "Warning: Do no cover glass with opaque material." "Warning: Driver must remain seated while driving." "Warning: Do not light fires in back seat." . . . ad infinitum. Just about every sentence in any driving instruction book could be reworded as a warning.

I seriously doubt that any such warning labels would have any effect at all.

If that's what they want to do to be "safe" and to appease the special-interest group's lobby, then go ahead.

What will be more effective is publicizing the debate over bills such as this one. It's not only hybrid drivers that need to be aware that a stealth mode exists. As hybrids become more popular and more common, pedestrians need to know, too.

A better informed public is the answer to most problems.

I agree. People should be aware of their surroundings.

Green Vehicles

"Warning: Do not drive into a tree."
Now you tell me Nearly 25 years later...

Steve

STOP terrorism - Drive a HYBRID

Vehicles:
350 miles a week ------------ 2006 HCH II, Magnetic Pearl, w/NAVI (born on May 25, 2006)
350 miles a month ---------- 2003 Mazda Tribute ES-V6
350 miles a year (for now) - 1986 Mercedes 560SL

you're kidding, right?

Best fill 66.7 MPG, best tank 801.5 miles


laurie, central minnesota

I was thinking for just those hybrids that have a significant EV capability as well as luxury vehicles with nearly silent engines at slow speed. Actually "you're kidding" was my first thought when reading HR 5734 but the advocates were and are serious as a heart attack. So one thought is tactical.

There is an old saying that 'perfect is the enemy of good enough' and the proposed WARNING offers:

• low cost - no significant engineering or vehicle changes
• 'may' help - so far, there has not been a single, documented instance of EV injury and no deaths. However, thousands of EV capable hybrids are sold monthly to folks with no clue about how to efficiently drive them. We see a small percentage of the newbies here and other hybrid web sites yet none of us warn newbies about parking lot quiet operation. We know about it but don't consider it worth mentioning.
• gives the illusion of having done something - cover for those who may realize this is a dead end so they can 'declare victory' and walk away.
• trap for the advocates - who might oppose it. There is a small core of "noise makers" for whom a noise generator is their only acceptable solution. I ran into one in another forum who actually posted that wireless triggered noise makers would 'stigmatize' the blind. Opposition to the "WARNING" would call attention to their lack of interest in the goal.

The potential risk of EV quiet is infantesimally small. Actually it is only supported by anecdotal stories taken out of context and dubious experiments:

1. boy doesn't look and rides into a Prius - mother claims it was the absence of noise, not her failure to teach her son to look before turning into traffic.
2. Prius backs over foot - a combination of abysmal rear vision shared by more than hybrids and the silly cabin, back-up beep instead external horn bleep. There is other legislation, already passed, that addresses this problem.
3. parking lot experiments - nothing reflecting actual data from real world parking lots and situations.
4. "insufficient data" - the official NHTSA claim due in part to their failure to look at all years and the fact that they can't find anything.

Timing is important. Any such letter should wait until the last days of this Congress to know how many co-sponsors will be back and especially the sponsors, the mischief makers. In one respect, this letter lays down the mark, the counter claims that any repeat of HR 5734 would face.

I remain on the fence about suggesting the "WARNING," which is why I posted the poll. I'm looking for insights and opinions about whether or not the "WARNING" should be part of the 'nail it' letter.

Bob Wilson

After April 3, use e-mail to contact me:

If my car had a label like that on the visor, I'd probably put another sticker over it, just as I have the one that tells me that small people (like myself) may be killed by the airbag going off.

http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/m.../car/5679.html