Rosenblum tries for attention
#1
04-29-2008, 09:52 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Rosenblum tries for attention
http://media-newswire.com/release_1065176.html
Rosenblum changed his March 2008 results, which were not impressive, to addition of background noise, adding additional idling engines. He had to do this because his earlier results without out the background noise could easily be handled by having the blind use hearing aids.
The obvious answer is to repeat the test using bus and delivery truck noises ... and a marching band or even a boom-box car. Don't forget the low flying airplane and the screaming child. In fact, add diesel engine noises and the person talking on the cell phone. To me the real conclusion is we should eliminate the hazards of all other noises so quiet cars can be clearly heard.
Don't forget the obvious that of six blind people killed in pedestrian accidents in 2006 out of all 5,000 pedestrians and cyclists, all were struck by noise emitting vehicles. It would a terrible thing if the last sound they heard was a faux noise maker on a hybrid.
We need effective solutions to the 5,000 deaths, not more useless noise makers!
Bob Wilson
(Media-Newswire.com) - RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Hybrid cars are so quiet when operating only with their electric motors that they may pose a risk to the blind and some other pedestrians, research by a University of California, Riverside psychologist suggests.
. . .
In one study, the background sounds of two quietly idling combustion-engine cars were added to simulate the noise of a parking lot. With these stimuli, the hybrid needed to be 74 percent closer than the combustion-engine car before the subjects could hear from which direction the cars approached.
“Subjects could correctly judge the approach of the combustion car when it was about 28 feet away,” Rosenblum said. “But they could only judge the hybrid’s approach direction when it was seven feet away.” This means that a pedestrian would not be able to correctly determine the hybrid’s approach until it was one second away, he said.
. . .
At speeds above 20 to 25 miles per hour hybrid cars likely generate enough tire and aerodynamic noise to make them sufficiently audible, Rosenblum said.
. . .
. . .
In one study, the background sounds of two quietly idling combustion-engine cars were added to simulate the noise of a parking lot. With these stimuli, the hybrid needed to be 74 percent closer than the combustion-engine car before the subjects could hear from which direction the cars approached.
“Subjects could correctly judge the approach of the combustion car when it was about 28 feet away,” Rosenblum said. “But they could only judge the hybrid’s approach direction when it was seven feet away.” This means that a pedestrian would not be able to correctly determine the hybrid’s approach until it was one second away, he said.
. . .
At speeds above 20 to 25 miles per hour hybrid cars likely generate enough tire and aerodynamic noise to make them sufficiently audible, Rosenblum said.
. . .
The obvious answer is to repeat the test using bus and delivery truck noises ... and a marching band or even a boom-box car. Don't forget the low flying airplane and the screaming child. In fact, add diesel engine noises and the person talking on the cell phone. To me the real conclusion is we should eliminate the hazards of all other noises so quiet cars can be clearly heard.
Don't forget the obvious that of six blind people killed in pedestrian accidents in 2006 out of all 5,000 pedestrians and cyclists, all were struck by noise emitting vehicles. It would a terrible thing if the last sound they heard was a faux noise maker on a hybrid.
We need effective solutions to the 5,000 deaths, not more useless noise makers!
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 04-29-2008 at 09:56 AM.
#2
04-29-2008, 11:32 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Re: Rosenblum tries for attention
Ok, I know it is lame to reply to yourself but I wrote this letter to the editor of the "Los Angles Times," the major news paper of the area that includes UC Riverside. It is time Prof. Rosenblum face the facts and data and a newspaper, letter to the editor does just that:
If you live in the Riverside CA area, your letter to the editor IN YOUR OWN WORDS would carry more weight. I don't mind sharing my thoughts but you really need to write and speak in phrases that match your style. They really don't like to see a 'blizzard' of copy-cat notes.
GOOD LUCK!
Bob Wilson
Originally Posted by myself
Dear Editor,
A bill introduced in Congress following articles published in the LA Times about the risks of hybrid ("Blind pedestrians may not hear hybrid cars" 03/29/2008, "Bill aims to protect blind people from dangers posed by hybrids" 04/09/2008) will only make hybrids as dangerous as the existing cars. Today’s cars kill 5,000 pedestrians and cyclists per year but only six blind died in 2006 and only by engine powered vehicles. It is junk science to claim that noisemakers on hybrids will make anyone safer, either the blind or sighted.
Researchers for the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) published results in March showing that a hearing aid for the blind, 8 dB of gain, would let the blind detect hybrids at the current distance of today's deadly engine cars. It would nearly double the distance for detecting the engine-powered cars that killed six blind in 2006. Now the NFB researchers are adding additional background noise, other engine car noises to make more bad science claims about hybrid risks. Will they also add people talking on cell phones, noisy children, and delivery trucks?
Every year another five thousand pedestrians and cyclists die because we need effective solutions to accident avoidance but adding noisemakers to hybrids is not it. It would be a terrible waste if the last sound heard was a noisemaker that made a hybrid as deadly as today's cars.
A bill introduced in Congress following articles published in the LA Times about the risks of hybrid ("Blind pedestrians may not hear hybrid cars" 03/29/2008, "Bill aims to protect blind people from dangers posed by hybrids" 04/09/2008) will only make hybrids as dangerous as the existing cars. Today’s cars kill 5,000 pedestrians and cyclists per year but only six blind died in 2006 and only by engine powered vehicles. It is junk science to claim that noisemakers on hybrids will make anyone safer, either the blind or sighted.
Researchers for the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) published results in March showing that a hearing aid for the blind, 8 dB of gain, would let the blind detect hybrids at the current distance of today's deadly engine cars. It would nearly double the distance for detecting the engine-powered cars that killed six blind in 2006. Now the NFB researchers are adding additional background noise, other engine car noises to make more bad science claims about hybrid risks. Will they also add people talking on cell phones, noisy children, and delivery trucks?
Every year another five thousand pedestrians and cyclists die because we need effective solutions to accident avoidance but adding noisemakers to hybrids is not it. It would be a terrible waste if the last sound heard was a noisemaker that made a hybrid as deadly as today's cars.
GOOD LUCK!
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 04-29-2008 at 11:40 AM.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Curated Content Editor
Journalism & The Media
0
09-19-2014 06:20 AM
