ARTICLE: Anti-Noise activists oppose sounds for electric cars

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

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

After reading what I wrote, you actually think that *I* am "promoting suing people"???

I could see from your replies that you are illogical and now I understand why: your lack of reading comprehension. (And the double negative in the second sentence indicates it also extends to writing skills.)

[Thymeclock]

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.[

They will when they are issued a summons.

If what you are saying is true, why don't we just drive with only our parking lights on? Actually your statement that you don't need headlights in a city is untrue. I lived my whole life in and around NY City and other than on the major roads the street lighting is not adequate to see clearly for driving on secondary streets. Nor are street lights intended for that purpose. Headlights are not optional!

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

I know that and I agree, but it is a secondary reason.

[vinny1989]

Originally Posted by azaviator

...COMMON SENSE, not LAWS!!!!!

Problem there: Common sense isnt so common, point in case: the idiots who walk out into traffic without looking.

It doesnt matter it our cars are loud, quiet or even silent, if people (Both drivers and pedestrians) dont pay attention there will be accidents.

An EV is almost silent by design, so keep it that way.

[Piwoslaw]

So is there a lobby to mandate chirping sounds for all bicycles?

[bestclimb]

The world changes, as autos transition from ICE to quieter electric people need to adapt to that change. Far from being it in a "that's someone else's problem" it is fundamental view our own safety is primarily our own responsibility.

A person may have the right to walk the straightest line betwixt two points but they also have the responsibility for their own safety whilst doing it. A person has the right to drive their vehicle in the designated areas and/or those not verboten. While doing that they have responsibility to be aware of what is going on around them. When we have a mixed group of users each has the primary responsibility for their own safety as well as a civic responsibility for other users of that space. When the space is used for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic speeds are often reduced (if not they should be) and folks are usually more alert (if not they should be). Adding noise to something you should already be paying attention to is redundant.

I see the "privilege" to drive thing a lot. We license drivers to keep society safe from people who do not know how to do it. Most accept the licensing as a necessary evil even if they do not recognize it for what it is. I wonder where people get the idea that one does not have a right to operate a piece of machinery that they own or otherwise have access to? If they abuse that right they can and should loose it. I wonder what the Founders would have thought about saying it was a privilege to operate a horse and buggy? For now I will just count driving in with all the others in the 9th

[dcb]

a horse has a brain and a sense of self preservation, and can act autonomously, it is not a car. There isn't much comparison there.

A right is something that you can reasonably expect not to be taken away, people lose driving privileges all the time, even for non driving offenses (i.e. non-compliance with testing in some states).

In the US, it would be an abuse of the term "right" to include cars, but people still find room to experiment as we don't live in a complete police state, yet (not hoping for that).

[bestclimb]

We may just have to agree to disagree on that one. A horse and buggy or an automobile are both property used for transportation, the analogy works well. A bicycle does not have a sense of self preservation is it a privilege to ride one? The dangers to the public of operating a motor vehicle are much greater than operating a bike so we impose limitations on that part of the right to travel to keep the public safe.

People can reasonably expect to loose many rights. Nonviolent felons some parts of the right to self defense. Hackers and the like can expect to loose portions of the right to free speech. Just because we have put limitations on the right to travel and someone called it a privilege because it is easier to regulate when designated that way does not mean it is not a right.

[dcb]

Ok, we disagree. I think operation of lots of heavy machinery in public areas is a much closer match for the "things we gotta regulate" category and not the "inalienable rights" category.

[Piwoslaw]

Crossposting:
EV noise mandate

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by azaviator

COMMON SENSE, not LAWS!!!!!

Common sense has gone down the drain somewhere along the lines, so now it's laws.

Your common sense may not equal mine, or the other way around.
A society needs a set of common behavioural rules to function.
Wether we need this many is another issue ...


I startle people while coasting through the city.
It's quite obvious they hear me rather late, when I'm already close to them.
Yet the diesel engine is still idling, and diesels tend to be even louder than gas engines.