@fastmover: one of my earliest and best learned lessons in mobility was not to be dependent on technology, because it will fail at crucial moments and one should never depend on it. Instead, I depend on my travel skills and these have served me well. Part of this emphasis on technological solutions may stem from the fact that sighted people infer -from their own experience if they close their eyes for any length of time - that a blind person would be completely helpless when traveling, and that his can only be solved by technology. But this isn't true. I use GPS to give me a map to unfamiliar surroundings, but I never rely on it. Likewise, I would never rely on a complicated technological solution, because such a solution will fail at crucial moments. Adding a sound device, (again, it doesn't have to be loud) to a hybrid is -to my mind - a solution that is low tech enough to be reliable to blind pedestrians. The resistance to this amuses me: I thought the objective was to use less fossil fuel. But I seem to be mistaken.

 

Here in the USA, it is different. We expect everyone to share the roads. We have some unique safety provisions in a few local jurisdictions and to a greater or lessor extent have cross-walks with sound systems to help the blind. We have to deal with the problem that exists in the USA.

We'll address that in the trip report.

Excellent advice.

Our accident statistics appear to show helmets convert fatalities into injuries and disabling injuries into fully functional recoveries. Still, it is question of risk management and when I see a motorcyclist without a helmet, I think, "There goes a potential organ donor."

Bob Wilson

 

That is a shame. In contrast, the hybrid electric owners are those who have most embraced technology. Does that also apply to other areas?

No problem, many hybrid skeptics suffer a certain amount of hubris about both our vehicles and the owners. Hopefully, while you are here, you may gain a clue and insights. We often find technology is both fascinating and empowering.

Bob Wilson

 

How is aiding by an electronic noise maker less risky than aiding by a two-way electronic link with built-in integrity monitoring? I absolutely agree that you should not soley depend on any single technology, but the fact is that even the noise maker is subject to interference, from trucks passing, screeching brakes and a mariad of city noises. Are you suggesting that the noise maker be so loud that it can be heard inside the vehicle over the top of such noise as well for integrity purposes? The fact is that a powerful argument can be put forth that the passive RF device is more reliable and less subject to interference.

Also I don't understand how adding a power consuming device to my vehicle will use less fossil fuel. Amplified audio outputs require much more power than short range RF devices, even directional ones.

 

Realistically, a small low-power noise maker does not have to cause any problem for the diver of the vehicle. The sound could even project forward, so the driver can't hear it at all. If the noise level is low, it need not bother anyone else, either. And, it is probably actually is the cheapest solution to the problem. The cost issue is real -- high tech solutions cost hundreds of $'s per vehicle, and require each blind person to spend hundreds more, while a small speaker would cost just a couple bucks per copy. It won't entirely prevent vehicle-pedestrian collisions, but it would go a long way toward avoiding at least some of them.

The real question is, how many decibels are needed? And, what type of noise (waveform, frequency-spectrum) can enable hearing-acute blind people to sense the vehicle with minimum annoyance to everyone else? I suspect it is much less than the roar of a diesel with a broken muffler.

Of course, a sonar/radar/ladar sensor that actually detects things like pedestrians, and couples with the brakes to avoid hitting them, might also be a nice safety feature.

 

Hi Steve,

The problem is filling the streets with noise makers is just as deadly as today's cars that already have noise makers. The problem is called "sound masking" and it means the background noise will always win. Substantial numbers of cars are not heard by the blind because the ambient noise already masks them. It means 4,700 dead pedestrians every year will continue to die even with the noise makers.

There is a solution and I briefly discussed it in my trip report titled, "Blind leading the blind." You are of course welcome to your opinion. But I was at the meeting and Les Blomberg of Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, clearly shows the problem, the "cocktail party effect."

I understand that all of the presentation materials will be in the released package.

Bob Wilson

 

actually there's quite a bit of research in this direction and it seems that something rain like can be recognized the most accurately. so you'd have cars making the sound of a soft rain that has a "driving" pattern and a "wait" pattern. Again, it doesn't have to be that loud. I know I can hear individual cars, so a softer "rain" sound would really stand out for me.

 

As a blind listener, I listen for patterns of noise, not individual noises per se. so, if I'm at a crossing, I'd expect a surge of traffic from the side where the light is green and cars with stationary engines where the light is red. For safety, I listen for deviations in that pattern. Now the point is that a hybrid car is simply an absence of sound and doesn't fit in the pattern. If all cars where hybrids the problem wouldn't exist (someone already pointed that out), because the meaningful sound pattern then would be the noise tires make. But now, I think, a little sound would be helpful, to "fill up" the sound pattern again.

The point is: rf devices may and will fail: i have no choice in how I move in traffic, because I can't drive. You guys have a choice in making your car less of a hazard to certain pedestrians. It amazes me how hard the choice apparently is.

 

4,700 dead pedestrians every year will continue to die even with the noise makers.

blind pedestrians? every year?

 

In the USA, we have been running around 4,700 pedestrian and cyclists deaths per year. In that same National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) data, we find encoding for the blind. It looks like 5-6 blind pedestrians per year from ordinary cars.

I've written my trip report, "Blind leading the blind", and it includes our first analysis of the accident data:So my interest is on the 4,700 pedestrian and cyclist deaths per year. One option suggested is to ban technology or turn the clock back. For example, the blind poet Homer as in "Homer and His Guide" by William-Adolphe Bourguereau (see Wiki article.) In this painting we see Homer and these technologies:

• a staff or stick in Homer's left hand
• a goatherder, Glaucus, leading him

We think it is beyond time to upgrade the white cane so it includes something like a 'hybrid horn button' so the blind can on demand, ask the local, hybrid electrics to make a very brief, horn bleep whose magnitude is proportional to the distance, shorter is louder, and approaching speed, faster is louder. These same bleeps will let the driver know, "hazard - blind in the area." Now two brains, two eyes and four sets of ears can pay attention to their common problem, not having an accident.

Fortunately, this is a dual-use system that would allow hybrid electric owners to use the silent, wireless network to achieve greater vehicle safety and more fuel savings. This allows us to get a reduced insurance rate and not pay so much at the pump.

I agree that the car should emit a sound for both the blind and the driver but the button, the switch, should be remotely operated by the blind from their white cane transmitter driven by the mechanical tapping the tip on the ground. Not a switch, the tap actually generates the electricity needed for the wireless transmitter. Those who want a more sophisticated and accurate system can opt for a two-way cane that would have significantly improved capabilities.

This simple, one-way wireless system should start with our hybrids so we can prove the technology. Then we can help the other cars, the deadly ones hiding in the "noise" to start announcing their position relative to the blind. We can even look at moving this same electronics to the heels of children's shoes and those who have a history of substance abuse. Again, an alert to the driver so they can be more diligent and help avoid pedestrian accidents.

Every journey begins with a first step and the mobility problem of the blind and high-tech capabilities of our hybrid electrics should lead the way.

Bob Wilson