It's so weird that the 'noise' of petrol cars is considered a safety feature. I've heard from the older generation "Yeah but EVs don't make noise which makes them extremely dangerous. Could easily kill a child or old woman who steps out on to a road because they don't hear a car coming".
It must be the same group of people with their anecdotes about seatbelts and airbags making cars more dangerous.
I'm an EV fan, but lower noise levels makes them more dangerous, not less, at least to the people they can potentially hit (of course for people living next to roads, noise is more hazardous from a more general health point of view). Cars are killer machines and stuff like seatbelts and airbags protect passengers but not pedestrians or cyclists hit by the car. So if you are a pedestrian or cyclist, then having the ability to hear the car is really great.
It's asking the outside people to shoulder the responsibility of avoiding the killer machine. I'd rather have quiet cars and much harsher crackdowns on drivers that use them in ways that jeopardy the lives of others. There are many things drivers can do to reduce the hazard, such as slowing down, buying smaller vehicles, using cars that don't isolate outside noise, only driving when in good mental condition, etc.
It's crazy to me that we allow cars that isolate their cockpit more and more from their surroundings (quiet, small windows, high up from the ground) and instead ask the surroundings to avoid the danger.
I know, ultimately it is each person's own responsibility to avoid death, and it might make sense for the legal system to reflect that. But we don't have these laws with other dangerous things ("it's okay to practise throwing molotov cocktails in public squares, as long as you wear bright clothing so people know to keep their distance"), so cars are sort of an outlier.
> I'd rather have quiet cars and much harsher crackdowns on drivers that use them in ways that jeopardy the lives of others. There are many things drivers can do to reduce the hazard, such as slowing down, buying smaller vehicles, using cars that don't isolate outside noise, only driving when in good mental condition, etc.
I get what you're saying, but IMO, that just wouldn't work well.
If you want a better system, it's better to make as many changes as possible to the system so that problems are impossible and/or unlikely.
Personal responsibility will always have it's place, but it'll never be particularly reliable.
> It's crazy to me that we allow cars that isolate their cockpit more and more from their surroundings (quiet, small windows, high up from the ground) and instead ask the surroundings to avoid the danger.
Being quiet and high aren't issues here. Drivers aren't going to hear pedestrians - not at 30 mph. And I've never been in a vehicle that had windows that I felt affected my awareness, aside from the rear window of the Prius.
> I know, ultimately it is each person's own responsibility to avoid death, and it might make sense for the legal system to reflect that. But we don't have these laws with other dangerous things
Sure, but that's because there's enormous social utility in allowing people to drive cars. If there was a similar utility in letting people throw molotov cocktails, then there'd probably be some sort of dispensation to do just what you suggest.
> If you want a better system, it's better to make as many changes as possible to the system so that problems are impossible and/or unlikely.
I disagree with this premise.
If you want to make a system better, you need to enable as many information flows as possible, shorten feedback loops, etc. The classic Meadows leverage points. The proposal of making cars noisy has the opposite effect, by sweeping problems under the rug.
Just "doing as many things as possible" is a great way to paint oneself into a local optimum.
The flipside of that is that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And I think this is because a lot of them are distracted (many just cross the road while on their phones, and some have over-ear headphones), and some just think "well, the car has to stop, so I'll step out". It's not just car drivers who are at fault - I've had some crazy near-misses with arrogant pedestrians, and sometimes when I've been on my motorbike which is not quiet, and also I would pay quite a price for an accident, even if with a pedestrian or trying to avoid one.
> It's asking the outside people to shoulder the responsibility of avoiding the killer machine.
It's adding a layer of redundancy. The driver needs to pay attention but should that fail, hopefully the car noise will alert the pedestrian, who should also be aware that a car is nearby.
Same logic created the "Loud pipes save lives!" mantra among motorcyclists despite the fact that there's no evidence to support this. By the time a car driver hears the bike it's already too late to avoid an accident.
I ride a bike. I don’t ride a loud bike: it’s still within Australian limits for sale, but it has some volume, and a little bit of lower end thump.
Two bikes before that I rode a 250cc four cylinder bike, that did up to 18,000 RPM. It, again, was within Australian limits, although honestly not by much.
In the middle of those two, I rode a 600cc bike that was significantly quieter than either of those.
My riding remained mostly the same, but one of the three I had significantly more people changing lanes while I was quite literally right beside them.
I don’t believe that ridiculous straight through drag pipes on high displacement twin engines are necessary, but being as loud as another car absolutely saves lives.
Anecdata here - I have had quiet and loud bikes, and the loud ones mean you're much less likely to get 'lane changed' on. Drivers are generally pretty ignorant of what's around them, and it's always the biker that pays the price if there is an accident. I generally don't put myself in harm's way, but there are always times when you have to be in a danger zone. And a loud bike is noticed more, in my experience.
They are right, though. After years of (probably subconscious) conditioning I have a "quiet => safe" condition imprinted very deeply. Especially on smaller streets in quieter neighborhoods.
Precisely (though "walking" is a better word than "jumping"). I need to put in a conscious effort to actually look, especially when I'm lost in thought. (The fact that in some places there is no clear visual distinction between the street and the pavement does not help, either.)
People here tend to walk in middle of the road in smaller one-way streets and move aside when they hear engine noise. More then once I've been startled by electric cars quietly creeping behind me.
> must be the same group of people with their anecdotes about seatbelts and airbags making cars more dangerous.
I don't think it has to be, it is definitely a safety feature that they make a noise, but these people try to justify burning petrol to do this passively "positive" thing
> It's so weird that the 'noise' of petrol cars is considered a safety feature. I've heard from the older generation "Yeah but EVs don't make noise which makes them extremely dangerous.
It's enough of an issue that early Priuses beeped while backing up.
I'm a look both ways kind of person, so I don't really "get" it, but I can also understand that not everyone prioritizes situational awareness.
Having started cycling recently I think people use sound to cross more than you expect. I've had people step into my path multiple times without looking purely because they can't hear me.
In Germany some organizations advocating for visually impaired people (rightfully) complained about this. Apparently the problem is that the „sounds“ EVs play to mimic other vehicles at low speed are too different from other vehicles, and that they stop playing them to early when reaching a certain velocity.
A while ago someone was driving my hybrid car towards me in electric mode. They passed an older lady going in the same direction driving ~10KM/h (6MPH), until the elderly lady made an abrupt 90 degree right turn and walked into the rear door. I guess there is something to say for modern EVs making some kind of artificial zooming noise, though I'm not sure it would have helped this lady as the car was already making noise on the cobblestones.
Not so sure. It might help children but old people are just old and deaf. When they stop in the middle of the path and people ask them politely if they can leave room at normal voice level they typically do not hear it and you end up shooting at them so they can notice you are here trying to pass and move aside.
As a bicyclist, the noise cars make is clearly a safety feature for me. The noise could likely be less and still serve that function adequately, but “silent” cars would be a nightmare.
Yeah. The issue in itself has little merit, because cyclists are also very quiet, even quieter than an EV, and would also send a pedestrian flying on collision.
The issue is negligible with bicycles since they can generally avoid distracted pedestrians unlike cars, and even then they are equipped with bells for that specific purpose.
I don't see how they are different in this case. Pedestrians need to watch out, whether it's a car or a bike, and with bikes, they already learned that they are silent. Cars being more quiet doesn't make them more dangerous then.
You understand you are talking to humans here, right? Actual humans, who perform a lot of actions "on autopilot", without consciously thinking about them, and who may have deeply ingrained habits which are very, very hard to change?
Right, but the problem is, it's unsafe to rely on sound in this manner to begin with, regardless of car noise levels.
Sound can only be used for positive identification - if you can hear a car, it's there. It cannot be used for negative identification - if you can't hear a vehicle, it doesn't mean anything.
This is because there are far too many factors that are at play when it comes to the ability to hear:
- Not every dangerous vehicle makes appreciable sound - an ICE car with its engine off, an EV, a bike, any other small personal transportation device, even a skateboard
- The sound may be masked by another, louder sound
- The sound may seem to come from a different direction, there's no telling how the surrounding environment will reflect the sound around before it's reaches one's ears
- The human crossing may, like you point out, be on autopilot, distracted, or otherwise not perceptive to sound
Because of these, and likely more, factors relying on sound when crossing the street is a horrible idea and will get you killed.
I cannot emphasize this enough, looking both ways when crossing *is mandatory*!
It must be the same group of people with their anecdotes about seatbelts and airbags making cars more dangerous.