Blind People Protest - Hybrid Cars Are Too Quiet

[N8N]

On Oct 9, 10:07 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:59 pm, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A friend of the family was driving one night in the rain and heard a
> > thump. Turned out her rear-view mirror had smacked a teenager in the
> > back of his head -- yes, he was black, and yes, he was wearing dark
> > clothes, and yes, he was riding at night with nothing more than dirty,
> > misaligned CPSC reflectors.
>
> > She said she honestly didn't see him before she hit him, and everyone
> > believed her. That didn't mean she wasn't liable, it meant she was
> > driving negligently but not criminally.
>
> And it's very likely that she didn't see him.
>
> But why? In these forums, we've heard of drivers that "didn't see"
> cyclists because they were driving while turned around reaching for
> cassette tapes in the back seat. We know about drivers talking, or
> dialing, or even texting on their cell phones while driving. I've
> seen drivers reading newspapers while moving at highway speeds... and
> so on.
>
> The motoring culture has the view that driving a car is no more
> complicated than watching TV, and that OF COURSE one can do three
> other distracting things while driving - and while trying to minimize
> travel time by going as fast as minimal law enforcement will allow.
>
> It's a rare driver that uses caution appropriate for operating deadly
> machinery. And consequently, our legal system doesn't treat gross
> negligence as criminal.
>
> A motorist who hits a legal cyclists because she "didn't see" him, has
> admitted to gross negligence. She should get no sympathy. In fact,
> she should lose her license.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

In my experience the "legal cyclist" is even rarer than a "legal
motorist" (implying strict compliance with all rules of the road.)

I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist even slow down for a
stop sign, and that's just one example. A cyclist riding at night
without any kind of lights is an idiot plain and simple. It's only a
matter of time until another cyclist gets hit around here (was about a
month ago that I saw the aftermath of an ugly car-cycle interface in
the middle of an intersection) and honestly, it is difficult to feel
anything but sympathy for the motorists. The way the cyclists ride
displays the same kind of arrogance and "make way for me lowly cars,
I'm a CYCLIST" attitude that I see frequently displayed on Usenet.

Nobody OWNS the road, we simply SHARE it. That means everyone has to
play by the rules. Yes, including cyclists.

nate

 

[Mike Kruger]

N8N wrote:
>
> In my experience the "legal cyclist" is even rarer than a "legal
> motorist" (implying strict compliance with all rules of the road.)
>
Is a three headed dog more rare than a three headed cat?

> Nobody OWNS the road, we simply SHARE it. That means everyone has to
> play by the rules. Yes, including cyclists.

Amen.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>>
>> In my experience the "legal cyclist" is even rarer than a "legal
>> motorist" (implying strict compliance with all rules of the road.)

> Is a three headed dog more rare than a three headed cat?

You channeling Michael Press*?!?

*the recent funny version, that is

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 4:06 pm, Studemania <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:54 am, AustinMN <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to know how those "crash safety ratings" take pedestrian
> > injury into account.
>
> > Austin
>
> I expect that the NHSTA could give you more information than you would
> care to read.
> Take a look at my 40 year old car and at my GF year old one. Those
> flowing lines and lack of "things sticking out" were not brought about
> merely for fuel economy.

Yet they still sell atrocities like this: http://tinyurl.com/2epe46

Some people don't care if they slice up pedestrians, so long as their
pretty truck isn't scratched.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Studemania]

On Oct 9, 3:46 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> zeldabee wrote:
> > Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>DYM wrote:
>
> >>>Eeyore <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> >>>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>
> >>>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>
> >>>>Think of the customising potential.
>
> >>>Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
> >>>just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>
> > Oh! I want my bike to sound like a choo-choo train!
>
> >>It already exists:
>
> >>http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>
> >>I'm ashamed that I know this.
>
> >>nate
>
> >>(making noise the old fashioned way)
>
> > Rats, it's expensive. I'd like to get one for my four-year-old. Come to
> > think of it, he's *very* good at making car noises. If I ever get a Prius,
> > I could drive with the window down, and have him do his thing. [Random
> > cuteness: The other night, he was in a cardboard box "driving." Vrooom
> > vrooom, etc. Then silence. I look over at him and he sighs and says,
> > "Traffic."]
>
> > Back on topic, though, a friend has a Prius, and complains about how quiet
> > it is. She's always startling people when she drives on side streets.
>
> Do what I did, get an old Studebaker, drop a 10.25:1 compression 289 in
> it, and when ordering a new exhaust from Don Simmons, ask for the "loud
> tone" mufflers ("Studemania" can probably attest to how sweet that
> combo sounds, although he's never heard my particular car run.) If your
> four year old is anything like I was at that age he'll have a stupid,
> silly grin on his face every time you nail it (well, so will you for
> that matter.)
>
> Of course, gas mileage may suffer a little bit relative to a Prius...
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm gotta get you a copy of the BBC Video (I was slight involved with)
and the mellow sound of the Avanti.
I've brought it to IMs, but there hasn't been a VCR to play it.

Like with most "loud" systems, it'sloud when you want it to be.

 

[Larry Bud]

On Oct 7, 10:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> drivers and peds.

If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
their other use?

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 10, 8:21 pm, Larry Bud <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
> > > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
> > drivers and peds.
>
> If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
> their other use?

Perhaps you've confused nouns. I said "the world," not "highways."

Nonetheless, highways - whatever exact definition you choose for that
word - were _not_ built exclusively for motorists. Most predate motor
vehicles, so they were clearly built with other transportation in
mind. And all but a few allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse-
drawn vehicles. Even many freeways allow bicyclists.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Oct 7, 10:03 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 7:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Seems to me the law is correct. Slow down. Watch where you're
>> > going. The world wasn't built for motorists exclusive use.
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Yup - slow driving would make our highways a lot safer for both
>> drivers and peds.
>
>If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
>their other use?

Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.

The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice. The roads, streets
and highways used by bicyclists and pedestrians pre-date that by
centuries. Automobilists are interlopers on any road not built for
their exclusive use. Toll roads and some others prohibit
non-motorised traffic but bicyclists, equestrians and pedestrians are
free to travel most roads where you're likely to encounter them.

Now the scud-enslaved sprawl dwellers get their consumerist whims
catered too by the same capitalists as tell them what to dream. Happy
Motoring is finished. You're going to have to adapt and I ain't
talking bio-fuels. Your plushy carapace is really an albatross,
sucker.

As it currently stands, your driving ends up costing non-drivers
$2.10 for every dollar you spend on your habitual, inefficient and
unsustainable transportation choice.

We're getting sick of it. It's time you started paying your way.

I pay for your permanently brain damaged kids on life support after
you've tossed 'em around inside your rolling coffin. I pay for the
cops to bust you for the increased damage that you cause by your
excessive speeds, inattention or hostile and dangerous hissy fits. I
pay for the worldwide epidemic you inflict on us with your programmed
pursuit of a packaged plastic American dream you feel you deserve.

Then I have to listen to your obnoxiously puerile car alarms at all
hours when I personally care less than nought whether your precious
widdle car is vandalised into scrap before my eyes.

Hollwood, Madison Avenue, GMAC and NASCAR own your imagination, ****.
--
zk

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
Just because you have the right of way does
> not mean that you're not an idiot.

Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.

Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
mountains of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
brown and no orange at all.

Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
pool....

(I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
distributed.)

 

[Mike Kruger]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
>>
>> If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
>> their other use?
>
> Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.
>
> The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice.

Yep. Ike was a general, and that's how he was convinced to go along with the
program.

There are even more uses that are less intentional than the ones Zoot
listed.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071011/full/news.2007.155.html

Moose use roads as a defence against bears.

(This is actually a pretty cool story. Sure, I posted it as a bit of a
joke -- but it helps make the point that societal structures are multi-use
structures in ways we often don't think of.)

 

[N8N]

On Oct 10, 2:30 pm, Studemania <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 3:46 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > zeldabee wrote:
> > > Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>DYM wrote:
>
> > >>>Eeyore <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >>>news:[email protected]:
>
> > >>>>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Blind people say quiet hybrid cars pose safety risk
>
> > >>>>I agree. Such cars should be fitted with a "Vroom, vroom" loudspeaker.
>
> > >>>>Think of the customising potential.
>
> > >>>Model railroaders buy digitized sound chips for their models that sound
> > >>>just like the real thing. Imagine the customizing potential!
>
> > > Oh! I want my bike to sound like a choo-choo train!
>
> > >>It already exists:
>
> > >>http://www.vroombox.com/vroombox/
>
> > >>I'm ashamed that I know this.
>
> > >>nate
>
> > >>(making noise the old fashioned way)
>
> > > Rats, it's expensive. I'd like to get one for my four-year-old. Come to
> > > think of it, he's *very* good at making car noises. If I ever get a Prius,
> > > I could drive with the window down, and have him do his thing. [Random
> > > cuteness: The other night, he was in a cardboard box "driving." Vrooom
> > > vrooom, etc. Then silence. I look over at him and he sighs and says,
> > > "Traffic."]
>
> > > Back on topic, though, a friend has a Prius, and complains about how quiet
> > > it is. She's always startling people when she drives on side streets.
>
> > Do what I did, get an old Studebaker, drop a 10.25:1 compression 289 in
> > it, and when ordering a new exhaust from Don Simmons, ask for the "loud
> > tone" mufflers ("Studemania" can probably attest to how sweet that
> > combo sounds, although he's never heard my particular car run.) If your
> > four year old is anything like I was at that age he'll have a stupid,
> > silly grin on his face every time you nail it (well, so will you for
> > that matter.)
>
> > Of course, gas mileage may suffer a little bit relative to a Prius...
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm gotta get you a copy of the BBC Video (I was slight involved with)
> and the mellow sound of the Avanti.
> I've brought it to IMs, but there hasn't been a VCR to play it.
>
> Like with most "loud" systems, it'sloud when you want it to be.

Funny you should mention an Avanti; JP had an Avanti with the factory
optional "quiet tone" exhaust with the crossover pipe but he installed
glasspacks as no mufflers came with the car; that was probably the
quietest, most civlized Avanti I'd ever driven. Under heavy
acceleration you could actually hear the intake noise (it was an R1)
much louder than the exhaust, with only a little hint of rumble. It
was an older guy that came to look at the car (and ended up buying it)
- he loved the car but said that his first order of business was to
"fix the exhaust" because it was "just too loud."

I can't imagine what he would have thought if it had had the standard
exhaust on it... (for non-Stude types, the factory Avanti exhaust was
a true dual with no crossover and a single glasspack on each pipe.)

nate

 

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else....

That is an impossible standard for a motor vehicle operator to meet.
Furthermore, it is also an impossible standard for a cyclist or pedestrian.

Since you are an engineer, look up the LRFD method. Notice that the
probability of failure can never be reduced to zero, no matter how high
the resistance factors. Similarly, have you even designed anything with
a factor of safety of infinity? That is what you are proposing with the
word "guarantee".

If you were a consulting engineer, and used the word "guarantee", you
would void your "Errors and Omissions" coverage.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

 

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:45 pm, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
>>> pedestrian or cyclist.
>> No, you can't.
>
> How many years of proof do you require? Not only have I never hit a
> pedestrian or cyclist, but I've never come nearly as close as you
> have....

For the use of the word "guarantee", driving an infinite number of years
without incident would suffice.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 14, 9:58 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 4:45 pm, N8N <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 7:53 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> My driving is careful enough that I _can_ guarantee I won't hit a
> >>> pedestrian or cyclist.
> >> No, you can't.
>
> > How many years of proof do you require? Not only have I never hit a
> > pedestrian or cyclist, but I've never come nearly as close as you
> > have....
>
> For the use of the word "guarantee", driving an infinite number of years
> without incident would suffice.

Hmm. And silly me, I thought I'd have to avoid hitting cyclists and
pedestrians only until I died. That was my plan.

But if you like, I can extend my strategy for the next infinity of
reincarnations. No problem.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 14, 9:51 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
> > limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else....
>
> That is an impossible standard for a motor vehicle operator to meet.
> Furthermore, it is also an impossible standard for a cyclist or pedestrian.
>
> Since you are an engineer, look up the LRFD method. Notice that the
> probability of failure can never be reduced to zero, no matter how high
> the resistance factors.

I suppose, then, that the word "guarantee" needs to be removed from
the English language. Right?

I think you should make that your personal project.

Get going, man! There's work to be done!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 10, 7:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just because you have the right of way does
>
> > not mean that you're not an idiot.
>
> Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.
>
> Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
> of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
> Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
> walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
> the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
> country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
> brown and no orange at all.
>
> Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
> there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
> pool....
>
> (I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
> distributed.)

Shooting cross country skiers would be more sporting than shooting
elk.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 10, 7:31 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
> >their other use?
>
> Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.
>
> The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice. ...

More accurately, a cold war artifice.

It's true that Ike was impressed with the German highway system (after
slogging across France), but really the idea that the US system would
be necessary for mass evacuation in case of nuclear attack was a
device to get average citizens to get on board. Nothing sells like
fear. Ask **** Ch@n#y about that.

Obviously, if there is need for mass evacuation, the highways would be
virtually useless. Which is proven every weekday at about 5 o'clock.

Robert

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:23:20 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 10, 7:31 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:21:07 -0700, Larry Bud
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >If highways weren't built exclusively for motorists, what exactly is
>> >their other use?
>>
>> Primarily for the movement of goods and armies, silly.
>>
>> The Interstate highways are a cold war edifice. ...
>
>More accurately, a cold war artifice.
>
>It's true that Ike was impressed with the German highway system (after
>slogging across France), but really the idea that the US system would
>be necessary for mass evacuation in case of nuclear attack was a
>device to get average citizens to get on board. Nothing sells like
>fear. Ask **** Ch@n#y about that.
>
>Obviously, if there is need for mass evacuation, the highways would be
>virtually useless. Which is proven every weekday at about 5 o'clock.

I thought a major part of the plan was to facilitate the moving of
ICBMs around the country as a backup for the hardened silo strategy.

Swiss highways are designed to take-off and land fighter jets
discretely hangered in the adjacent picturesque barns.
--
zk

 

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Oct 14, 9:51 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Even more basic is, when operating dangerous machinery, operate within
>>> limits that guarantee you won't harm anyone else....
>> That is an impossible standard for a motor vehicle operator to meet.
>> Furthermore, it is also an impossible standard for a cyclist or pedestrian.
>>
>> Since you are an engineer, look up the LRFD method. Notice that the
>> probability of failure can never be reduced to zero, no matter how high
>> the resistance factors.
>
> I suppose, then, that the word "guarantee" needs to be removed from
> the English language. Right?
>
> I think you should make that your personal project.
>
> Get going, man! There's work to be done!

Even do any consulting on the side? Ever consider loss prevention and
liability? If so, you would not use the word guarantee in such a
cavalier manner.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

 

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Robert ??? wrote:
> On Oct 10, 7:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 6:35 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just because you have the right of way does
>>
>>> not mean that you're not an idiot.
>> Hmph. It's not limited to driving alone. Idiots are everywhere.
>>
>> Some years ago I was elk hunting with a number of friends in the
>> of Colorado. It was a very woodsy area.
>> Each of us got a moment of excitement when we saw the brown legs
>> walking through the forest. Yes, we were all wise enough to look for
>> the rest of the critter. But not everyone is. Here was a cross-
>> country skier, in the woods in big game season, wearing two shades of
>> brown and no orange at all.
>>
>> Oh, it would have been our fault for sure, and rightfully so. But
>> there is something to be said for asking to be removed from the gene
>> pool....
>>
>> (I know it's off-topic for driving, but idiots are generically
>> distributed.)
>
> Shooting cross country skiers would be more sporting than shooting
> elk.

Is there a season for downhill skiers?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!