To further complicate the problem, a "simple" noise maker may not provide the clues that the advocates of this solution seek.

A simple tone cannot provide the dynamic aural cues that a motor provides when the revolutions and volume are increasing or decreasing, or when a sudden drop in engine RPM, accompanied by a braking noise (perceived by either a deceleration or the noise of friction brakes) indicates a pending vehicle stop. Worse, if all of the hybrids are to operate with a common noise or tone, the present of two hybrids will be confusing and may actually provide false cues of direction and the number of vehicles present. If the tone is diffentiated by vehicle, then how is the pedestrian to know the nature of the threat?

How about device integrity. Will the "simple" noise need to loud enough for the driver to hear it when the car is closed up, so as to ensure that it is working? An RF device can be designed with an integrity monitor as an integrated part of the design. A light or dash warning would be simple to provide for such a device. Also, from the pedestrian's point of view, a selft test of the receiver would provide confirmation that the device is working correctly.

From an energy efficiency point of view, amplified audio devices require much more power than low powered or passive RF transponders. Consider the difference of the battery life for an IPOD "Boom Box" vs. your garage door opener or turnpike toll transponder.

Finally, consider this. The blind population is not the only one that uses aural cues as inputs to safety. If the forcast for millions of hybrids over the next few years is accurate, and if a noise maker is ultimately required, what will be the impact on the background noise level along major streets and freeways? Will drivers be able to hear the immediate, urgent noises related to road construction, playing children, accidents about to happen and the mariad of other aural cues that drivers routinely use now?

 

This is just a rough draft and I need to take a nap. But it shows you what I'm thinking about:Here are my preliminary requirements / specifications:

• key 'fob' technology - use the readily available, key fob RF and signal electronics. They are already hardened to auto specifications and low power. This provides an off-the-shelf set of communication chips.
• CSMA-CA wireless protocol - instead of today's unicast, "learned" key fob IDs, we use a carrier sense multiple access - collision avoidance protocol. All devices must have a minimal receiver for arbitration to work. This approach allows dynamic, peer-to-peer networks to form on the fly using very short, 1 ms. or smaller packet bursts for reasonable bandwidth and low latency.
• personal devices - are self-powered (aka. piezoelectric or other sources), and are built to be extremely rugged. It must also fit within a cane or on a dog harness with a uniform radiation pattern.
• vehicle systems - the front may have an antenna system capable of angular resolution as well as reporting the signal strength. The rear must have at a minimum, an omni direction antenna with just a signal strength capability.
• pulsed horn activation, wire-ORed with operator control - the receiver will pulse activate the horn upon detection of a personal device with the duration and rate in proportion to the closing rate and estimated impact time. The pulsed horn activation shall not exceed <tbd> duty cycle. Anything longer requires operator intervention.
• non-moving vehicle - if the car is in "P" or not moving with the brakes applied sufficient to light the brake lights, the car will not pulse the horn.
• predictive ranging - release of the brakes, pushing the accelerator or turning towards a personal device shall cut the predictive distance <tbd> to provide advanced warning.
• advanced ephemeris - the system will communicate with other vehicles to share location, velocity, acceleration (if available), and/or operation control information.
• operator assist (optional) - depending upon the amount of data shared, the vehicles may use horn or other operator control inputs to avoid an accident or form close following convoys.
• open standard based - following the IETF approach, all communications standards shall be open source and IPV6 based.
• IPV6 address based - a joint public-private organization shall own a block of IPV6 addresses that shall be the only addresses authorized. Any system must demonstrate compliance with the minimum RF standard or approved RF parts having passed acceptance testing.
• toddler shoe device - a self-powered, personal device shall be built that fits in the shoes of small children, walking stage to age 6. A unique identifier shall modulate the horn in such as way as to identify the toddler.
• impaired shoe device - people with a physical limitation to their mobility or a history of intoxication may use such shoes to announce themselves as needed additional operator attention.

This is just a rough draft but incorporates the primary requirements. The simplest systems provide blind protection by 'bleeping' the vehicle horn in proportion to the likely risk. All processing is vehicle based and the self-powered, personal device need only have a uniform RF field and CSMA-CA protocol.

The vehicle peer-to-peer network, depending upon what ephemeris is available, will allow our vehicles to avoid accidents. This should lead to reductions in our insurance rates ... a good thing.

Advanced systems will use the peer-to-peer network to auto-steer, accelerate and brake at least two vehicles to form close-following convoys at high speed. This means the following vehicle operator gets a chance to 'relax' while getting a great MPG. After a fair interval, say 10 minutes, the lead vehicle slacks off and the following vehicle passes to take the lead. They exchange positions so each gets fair advantage of the convoy savings.

Vehicle to vehicle communications may include an optional text or voice system to allow communications between the operators. This allows fair negotiation of trip planning.

BTW, every vehicle based system will come with a personal assistance device. If not taken by the owner, the dealer will make any available to pedestrians who need assistance. They may also be sold to bicyclist and others who share the road.

 

I am not sure that I like the idea of activating the vehicle horn. After all, the vehicle/(driver) does not know the intent of the blind pedistrian. He/She may not be crossing the street at all, but merely walking on the sidewalk and within range. The horn, going off at irregular intervals and seeming at random, could startle other pedestrians or drivers, and could potentially be confused with some other horn-justified warning like a pending collision or excessive closing rate.

I think I would prefer that the pedestrian device issue the warning to pedestrian using a tone and vibration, and that the vehicle issue an internal notification to the driver via a visual on the dash and a chime or tone. IF not that, then a significantly different acoustical device that could not possibly be confused with the vehicles main warning horn and probably with fewer decibels and a very distinct audible ouput -- after all the pedestrian is listening for it.

Yes, the former solution would require the pedestrian equipment to be an active device, or at least that portion that warns the pedestrian, but the activation portion of the pedestrian equipment that warns the driver could still be passive, thus providing some protection if the active device failed.

 

Hi,

If not clear, I was thinking along the line of 'chirp' or 'bleep'. Depending upon the horn relay characteristics, it will be as brief as possible versus a regular horn bleep.

The problem is power for the pedestrian device. We are working close to the limits of what a self-powered device would have available. Also, the blind have a lot of resentment for over-promised, engineering gadgets in the past.

Now a car based system runs into a parts count problem. Anytime we add one more part, reliability goes down and cost goes up. So overloading the horn solves several problems:

1. already in the car - nothing else to add
2. already under the RKE "panic" button - nothing else to add
3. can be modulated - I have not check the current horn relay but if it is 'solid state,' we can pulse modulate the horn to achieve exactly the effect wanted. If mechanical, it becomes more challenging

I agree with you about false positives which is why the better system uses two antenna in the bumper cover. This provides a why to detect the angle of personal device. If "off axis," no 'bleep' is needed.

I agree that false positives are a real problem and need to be minimized. But understand that this pedestrian warning is something that falls of a "smart highway" system. It is the car-to-car function that will give us adaptive cruise control or following. Eventually, the distances and be reduced until we have 'convoy.' <grins>

Bob Wilson

 

Sighted & fully able to hear people walk out in front of even the loudest vehicles. They're oblivious/in their own world/texting/talking on their cells.

I've yet to read where someone's actually shown blind/hearing impaired pedestrian injuries and deaths from motor vehicles have risen since the advent of hybrids (1999 in the USA).

I had people walk out in front of my Corolla a lot. I just rolled down my window and had the radio up if I thought I needed a little extra "DUDE, LOOK WHERE YOU'RE ABOUT TO WALK" warning.

And hybrid's do make noise at low speed. My Escape Hybrid makes a characteristic high pitch whirr/whine when underway in electric mode (and/or coasting with engine off) and of course there's the road noise of the tires. I'm just as loud as a bicycle, I dare say, though I don't have a decibel meter to prove it.

This is a driver and pedestrian EDUCATION issue. We don't need to legislate noisemakers. Hybrid drivers can and do learn to anticipate the lack of attention of (fully able) pedestrians and are cautious when underway in electric mode; we should also be aware that some pedestrians may having hearing or sight impairments, and drive accordingly. Fully able pedestrians can and are learning that the look both ways before crossing, and look again, that their parents taught them really means something. As for the blind and those with hearing issues, I've seen them navigate their world. They ROCK and they hear and see things those of us with all our senses are completely oblivious to. Obviously their lobby wants to support this legislation because "why NOT" but someone ought to do a public relations campaign and get a bunch of them together, and a bunch of hybrids, and do a hybrid training session. They'd learn what to listen/watch for, we'd learn to pay the proper attention to peds that we ALWAYS should in ANY vehicle, and we'd do it all without the "aid" of our government. There are probably more bicycles on our roadways than hybrids, even today, and bicycles aren't that loud especially when the cyclist is actively pedalling (vs. coasting). A cyclist can hit speeds above 30 miles per hour on a nice hill, and bicyclists hit pedestrians (and vice versa) occasionally, too (though usually it's the bicyclist that gets a "door prize" -- eg. someone parks, doesn't check mirrors and throws their door open, right into the path of the oncoming cyclist.) But we haven't mandated bicyclists ring their bells, shout, etc. when getting to an intersection. (They ARE supposed to signal their intent to turn, and follow all other traffic laws, including observing lights, yields and stop signs.)

EDUCATION, not LEGISLATION.

 

Two problems:

We cannot assume horn relay characteristics. They would need to be global for all hybrids, PHEVs, and other 'quiet' vehicles from multiple manufacturers such that the electronics could be adapted to them. That implies an 'interface' standard, however crude for the horn (smart horn or smart horn relay?).

I don't think 'off-axis' is adequate here. The idea of a Rho-Theta position is good, but I think it will take some elemental processing to calculate the velocity and if in motion the direction of travel for the pedestrian. To avoid false positives, you need to be able to calculate that he/she is not moving, moving away or parallel. A cross course closure rate toward the vehcile path or actually in the vehicle path would be the indication for a true assertion in this case.

... and then, of course, there is always the backing-up deal.

 

Hi,

I consider this to a fascinating problem to work on since I also need to solve the problem for 'adaptive cruise control' and eventually, hybrid convoys. <grins> The pedestrian with RKE transceiver is just another 'vehicle'.

Bob Wilson

 

This has to be one of the strangest thing I've ever heard. Is there truly an epidemic of blind people dashing around through traffic? I've worked and interacted with many people who were sight impaired. The impression I got was they were more worried about the drivers who don't pay enough attention and don't see them.

Our cars already have noisemakers to alert the blind, it's called a horn. If you see someone blithely skipping across an eerily quiet but hybrid-filled intersection with either a service dog or a white cane, please do them the courtesy of honking your horn before you run them over.

What should we do for all the ice-cream truck drivers once their happy jingles are drowned out when we have attached the whistles, flutes, and kazoos to our silent killing machines.

There are many pedestrians and bicyclists who are killed each year by regular noisy cars. Solve that problem first and you'll solve this one too.

 

There is a newspaper article this morning, that the US government has adopted a price per human life, for the purpose of doing cost-benefit analysis of safety requirements, of 6.8 million dollars. The price is determined from statistical data re how much people will pay to protect their own lives from similar risks.

Now, your statistics show that ZERO blind pedestrians were struck by a prius over the four-year period from 2002-2006. The cost-benefit analysis compares the cost of the proposed safety measure with the benefit of the reduction in lives lost. Multiplying ZERO lives saved by $6.8 million per life yields a benefit value of ZERO, which is less than the cost of any proposed safety system.

If we were to assume that ALL motor vehicles are hybrids, and ALL pedestrian deaths could hence be avoided by this regulation, the benefit of the regulation would be 11 times $6.8M, or $74.8 million per annum. Dividing this into the (roughly) 16 million vehicles that are sold in the US each year, yields the maximum price that can be justified for any safety regulation to prevent these deathhs would be $4.67 per vehicle.

I know these numbers are subject to argument. Someone might have more recent or more comprehensive numbers. But I'm pretty sure they are at least in the right ballpark. The calculations are how the US government makes decisions for vehicle safety regulations. And, it really does make sense when you think of it. These decisions have to be made on some rational basis.

 

I view the hole agument as only another attack against hybrid (And soon to be) electric cars.
and
If nobody is getting hurt, there is no reason to be forced to buy additional equipment. Personally, it's been a number of years since I've seen a blind person, and I work right next door to a major transportation hub. Yes they are occasionally there- but few far and between.

I've read where hybrids are about 2% of the fleet- quite a ways off from 100%. I'd suggest due to MFG limitations they won't be more than 5% for any reasonable time. I shouldn't be forced to purchase something that in all likelyhood won't ever, ever be used.
Keyfob? Those can be forgotten at home, so what's the next logical step?
Probably integrating the transmitter into the blind person's cane.
Wonderful.
Since most blind folks probably couldn't afford the expensive cane I see another expensive government tax payer project. Replace all the "Dangerous" canes with new ones, even if the "Dangerous" ones never caused any problems.

Since multiples of pedestrians are struck. hurt or killed every single day by regular drivers wouldn't it make more sense to force ALL vehilce purchases (Busses, cars, semi's, trucks, golf carts) a pedestrian detection system? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Additionally,
Everyone has had their fingers/hand slammed in a door. Almost everyone learns about it from the first couple instances. Yet, there are still a small number of people who just won't learn, and thus receive broken bones from repeated poundings. Should ALL vehicle purchases be forced to include hand-slamming protection? (Call it HSP for short) I'd say THOUSANDS of children's hands and fingers are maimed annually. Shouldn't we also do it for the children?

Well I admit the last example was rediculous but the point is ... it's always something and everyone can't be protected from everything, especially this argument which nobody has even gotten hurt.