More "Bell the Hybrid" nonsense

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by Rokeby

. . .
I can't tell if you're gonna' like this or not. This on the recent London
intro of the new all-electric Smart Car, the BRABUS

I've noticed that Lotus and some of the German car companies are trying to 'beat that gong.' But there aren't enough hybrids made in Europe or bought to be a significant part of the hybrid market.

The USA and Japan are the two countries with the highest numbers of hybrids and the legislation is in the USA Congress. I am sympathetic to Euro hybrid advocates and share the USA data but our plate is pretty full here.

So I would recommend humor:

Point out with photos and dead-on, facts and data what nonsense it is. Ask if we can get those noises as "ring tones." Play the Benny Hill theme song.

Bob Wilson

[brad_rules_man]

I seem to keep reading these articles, but I haven't seen any stories or examples of blind people being hit. I think their hearing is probably more sensitive sense they rely on it. If they install bells or some stupid "engine simulator" noise then it will be the first thing I rip off the car. I think getting rid of the noise is moving forward.

[hybridtwins]

Originally Posted by brad_rules_man

I seem to keep reading these articles, but I haven't seen any stories or examples of blind people being hit. I think their hearing is probably more sensitive sense they rely on it. If they install bells or some stupid "engine simulator" noise then it will be the first thing I rip off the car. I think getting rid of the noise is moving forward.

>I think getting rid of the noise is moving forward

I couldn't agree more... this is a side of the coin almost nobody has mentioned.

Assuming that hybrids are quieter (and pure electric cars are almost always naturally quieter) and assuming these vehicles are our future, then they offer a real chance for cutting down the noise pollution in our inner cities.

[bwilson4web]

I've been fighting a summer cold and heavy work load so it wasn't until yesterday that I sat down and really read 'the plan.' Poorly written, it has technical problems but one thing became clear ... the author's goal is not safety as much as 'blind access' and the language of this plan is at odds with the legislation.

This weekend, I'll probably write a follow-up letter to my congress critters and FAX it to them. A fax is not subject to an anthrax hold. Understand that I have no illusions about the effectiveness but it is another, necessary step.

I'm also thinking of submitting a critique of the plan. I'll post the draft but several things come to mind:

• Where is the call for public comment? - the record was 're-opened' to post this plan without a Federal Register notification. This is counter to any fair and open government review.
• Split in 'semantics' with the legislation - this plan uses the term "countermeasure" when the legislation calls for evaluation of technical alternatives. Worse, there is no serious call for "fair and open competition," the antithesis of open competition.

Given the advocates are about two weeks away from the Detroit convention, it looks like their schedule is to try and get it pushed through this summer. So it will be important to go "face to face" with our Congress critters when they return for the July 4th break. I'll try to make sure we have our facts and data ready in time.

Kudos to Chris Hogan for his excellent report. That it was included has pretty well deflated the inflated safety claims. Now it becomes our task to carry the water to our Congress critters and make sure they understand our opposition.

Bob Wilson

[chogan2]

Bob,

Little did I now when I wrote that study that NHTSA staff were just going to sit on their hands for a few years. This is the classic contrast between a policy analyst (which is what I was) and a data analyst (which is what they are). The data analyst says, the information does not yet meet our typical quality standards. The policy analyst says, the Congress is going to make a decision anyway, tell me what you know and how much confidence you have in it.

Somebody really needs to prod them to release whatever they can infer from their all-incidents databases (not just fatal accidents data). Even if all they can say is that they can only find an extremely low count of relevant accidents, that, by itself, officially said in writing, would be useful information.

You'd think the Congress would be asking these questions. I sure handled enough calls for information on health-related topics when I worked for the government. Was glad to, considering that the alternative was to have the Congress just take a guess.

But this one? There's almost zero federal budget implication, so there's not even the check from the agencies who total up the cost of the legislation. I think this one's going to go based on a vague feeling that they are doing good.

Chris