ARTICLE: Anti-Noise activists oppose sounds for electric cars

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

speaking of cowpaddies

If you only use existing laws (i.e. explain it to the cop) to describe right and wrong, how do you ever expect to learn anything?

You were the one who made the irrelevant analogy to driving without headlights. What have you taught us with THAT?

I'm not saying there should be a law, and it certainly should not single out electric vehicles if there was one, I'm just looking for facts, not emotional tripe, screw the handicap, lets blindly kill more pedestrian for vanity, responses.

Who advocated "screw"ing the handicapped? Who advocated "kill"ing more pedestrians for vanity? NO ONE here did. Bad enough that you provoke an argument - but don't misrepresent what anyone has said in reply in an attempt to bolster your point of view.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

You were the one who made the irrelevant analogy to driving without headlights. What have you taught us with THAT?

It is the best analogy so far, they have reasons for putting lights on cars, so people can sense them.

When you are always in a car, you might not appreciate the sense of sound?

Like I said though, I'm on the fence, would like to hear some logical discussion, if possible. It may be a subject that defied logic, dunno. But I wouldn't be hasty to dismiss the possibility as silliness, because making cars safer for pedestrians isn't silly IMHO.

[dcb]

I recall a similiar discussion here:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...html#post46414

After looking into it I found some data that seemed to indicate that DRLs were
MORE hazardous for pedestrians. That could easily be the result of putting noise makers on every car, but we need some way of testing it, and traditionally you have to wait until enough "stuff happens" before assessing it, unless you live in a utopia where everyone always pay perfect attention and never cross lines when they are not supposed to

DRLs also cost hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline per year in the US too, so that might be a double whammy.

[azaviator]

Bringing my previous story back into the discussion, I was actively watching as I backed up because I was aware of the dangers of small children playing in the parking lot. Should they have been playing in the parking lot? Their parents seemed to think so!!

I don't believe that laws are written for the greater good of the many, I believe they are written to replace common sense for those who choose not to use it.

Common sense dictates that a parking lot should not be used as a 'park'.

If I am a pedestrian and I CHOOSE to walk into the street, I am aware that I may be struck by a car, no matter how loud or quiet it is. My momma told me "Always look both ways before crossing the street". She never said "Listen out for cars". Though the argument could be that she was telling me to PAY ATTENTION, using all methods available to me.

If I am in a car, and I leave the road to enter a parking lot, I understand that there is a greater chance that a pedestrian may be on the sidewalk or in that parking lot, so I adjust my speed and scan accordingly.

It is pretty easy to determine if an area (road, sidewalk, parking lot) was designed for a vehicle, or a pedestrian. If it wasn't designed for your current mode of transport, then BE CAREFUL! Use COMMON SENSE!!! Learn to assess risk.

Don't create a new law to make people MORE complacent!!

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

It is the best analogy so far, they have reasons for putting lights on cars, so people can sense them.

So you think that is the primary reason for headlights? So pedestrians can see cars? You don't think we use headlights at night so we can see where we are going?

When you are always in a car, you might not appreciate the sense of sound?

Huh? (Another provocative but pointless question.)

Like I said though, I'm on the fence, would like to hear some logical discussion, if possible. It may be a subject that defied logic, dunno. But I wouldn't be hasty to dismiss the possibility as silliness, because making cars safer for pedestrians isn't silly IMHO.

I don't think you are "on the fence" at all. I think you have an ideological agenda (pedestrian activist?) and are trolling for an argument. Every time a point is addressed you drop it and bring up something else in a way that is illogical. As you yourself admitted, you "dunno". That's something I'll agree with.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

...
I don't think you are "on the fence" at all...

I actually JUST SAID that more noise could easily make things worse for pedestrians. But we got no data so it is all speculation. But I do have to call out the "Its someone elses problem" when it's really everyone with car driving privileges problem.

I don't think I've dropped any relevant points. There are a few with agendas, My agenda is to get folks to think about it is all, before consigning it to the "not my problem" part of their brains.

re: lights, recall that my initial statement was in the city, where there is ample street lighting.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by azaviator

Bringing my previous story back into the discussion, I was actively watching as I backed up because I was aware of the dangers of small children playing in the parking lot. Should they have been playing in the parking lot? Their parents seemed to think so!!

My momma told me "Always look both ways before crossing the street". She never said "Listen out for cars". Though the argument could be that she was telling me to PAY ATTENTION, using all methods available to me.

Apparently you are a dinosaur who grew up in a world before trial lawyers and gullible juries made liability lawsuits into a highly profitable venture. Nowadays mommas don't tell their kid what you were told. The prevailing modern attitude is 'you have a right to be in the street, so go play in traffic'; if you are lucky and get hit by a car we can blame everyone but ourselves and collect a settlement or jury award, hopefully substantial enough to retire comfortably on it.

In short, the message is: you are not responsible for anything that happens - society is - especially those who might have pockets deeper than yours.

[dcb]

Why are you promoting suing people? Why do you think people don't have a vested interest in not getting hit by cars?!?

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

So you think that is the primary reason for headlights? So pedestrians can see cars? You don't think we use headlights at night so we can see where we are going?

In many cases - yes. Of course, the primary (as in historically first) may have been to see better in the dark, and this is still the case on dark roads after dusk. But as soon as there were enough cars on the road to have a chance of collision, lights became mandatory so that the cars could be seen by others. By then, horse carriages were also required to be lit after dark.

Today you don't really need lights to see the road within city limits. In fact, many people forget about lights and don't seem to care.

Lights, whether at night or during the day, are not only for pedestians but also for other drivers.

We take noise for granted, because it's not something that ICE vehicles need to generate, but something that is suppressed.

[azaviator]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Apparently you are a dinosaur who grew up in a world before trial lawyers and gullible juries made liability lawsuits into a highly profitable venture. Nowadays mommas don't tell their kid what you were told. The prevailing modern attitude is 'you have a right to be in the street, so go play in traffic'; if you are lucky and get hit by a car we can blame everyone but ourselves and collect a settlement or jury award, hopefully substantial enough to retire comfortably on it.

In short, the message is: you are not responsible for anything that happens - society is - especially those who might have pockets deeper than yours.

The funny thing is, I'm only 31 years old, with 3 young kids of my own. This change has occurred within the last 15 or so years. I could actually see the mentality change in the younger kids while I was still in high school (late 90's). I'm not quite sure what difference a couple of years makes, but damned if I didn't notice it.

Kids nowadays (now I sound old!!!) have too many, mostly electronic, distractions to allow them the time to acquire common sense. These are usually bought for them by parents who feel bad about the fact that when the kids were younger, they were farmed out to a childcare facility so the parents could work and feel appreciated. I never understood why you would have children, just to have someone else raise them!

I try the best I can to supply my kids with common sense by allowing them to experience things. I protect them when necessary, and give them the freedom to make mistakes when it is safe to do so.

COMMON SENSE, not LAWS!!!!!