How soon we forget how quiet the Prius really is !

I have had my new Prius for about two months and 3500 miles now. I drove my wife's 2007 Honda Accord last night for the first time in a few weeks now. When I first started the car I thought she had developed problems since the last time I drove it.

After driving it for a few minutes and coming to a stop light, I realized that I had gotten so used to the quietness and smoothness of the Prius that I had already forgotten what a gas engine car felt like. The normal vibration of the engine running, and especially with the A/C compressor kicking in and out and the motor idle increasing slightly to accomodate this, made me realize just how quiet and smooth the Prius is when stopped. I had not realized how quiet and smooth the Prius' electric A/C compressor motor really was either compared to a gas engine and belt driven compressor.

I also need to add that at the time we bought it, I thought that the Honda engine was one of the smoothest running engines that I had ever owned ! Of course I still do for a gas only engine.

Go Prius !!

I completely agree .... but the more we talk about it the "do gooders" will want us to install bells, beeps, and other noise makers.

With H.R. 734 in the House and S.841 in the Senate, we need to discuss the issues openly, fairly and with the one thing we bring to the party ... Prius experience. Insights, random thoughts, brainstorming are always welcome. In this case, a quiet cabin is perfectly OK.

The quiet and lack of vibration means I drive without fatigue ... attention sapping, mind numbing tiredness. Without this distraction, the noise and vibration, I'm a better driver.

Bob Wilson

I agree that I want the inside of the car to remain peaceful. I have always thought the inside beep when in reverse was weird. However I wish that we as a people could simply learn to take responsibility for our own selves. So many times I am behind people walking in parking lots who are absolutely oblivious to anything around them. If everyone simply was more alert and less in the "me" mode then we would not need these discussions.
Don't walk in the middle of the road, watch for cars when a pedestrian and watch for pedestrians when in your car!!

Yes, I was thinking more about the smoothness and quietness to ther driver inside the vehicle like Bob was saying.

I was not even thinking about the issues regarding pedestrians injuries and the outside of the vehicle.

I noticed that at full speed, my V is actually more noisy than my 2001 Passat. I think it's due to the road noise. The Prius obviously has less insulation underneth.

I remember I saw a post here about a mod for better insulation but not sure if it works. Has any one reported the results of such mod？

I also find the Prius to more noiser then a I6 or V8 where you step on the gas

And do not open the sunroof

On the subject of Prius's and silence in regard to the pedestrians, well, I used to think those people (including the blind, like me), were raising a lot of stink for nothing, and ought to get a life!

However, after my wife and I purchased our Prius, we both began to appreciate how quiet it really was, and that even if you were paying attention, and it wasn't noisey outside, if you're not looking directly at the car, and it's in EV mode (or operating in electric mode) it IS virtually IMPOSSIBLE to detect!

We own one, and my wife didn't hear one coming up behind her in the mall parking lot. It really opened up our eyes to this delema.

Here's where I differ from MOST of the blind community and their support groups. Why should the majority be made to conform to the minority? There are literally hundreds of thousands of Prius's, why should they be made to modify that car to satisfy a relatively miniscule population of blind individuals.

That's a lot like the ADA (Americans with Dissabilities Act) law that was passed a few years ago, thousands of small mom and pop restaraunts were forced to install handicapped bathrooms, at costs of hundres to thousands of dollars, and many (if not most) small town diners and hamburger joints saw maybe 1-2 handicapped individuals each year, again, another example of the many conforming to the few...but we do have to be politically correct.

In another Thread, I mentioned, and still believe, it's the responsibility of those with the problem (the blind for example) to solve the problem themselves.

My solution, was for an aftermarket company to develop a small receiver that an individual wanting to know the proximity of a ULTRA quiet vehicle, would carry with them to alert them of the presence of one of those type vehicles. While each ULTRA quiet vehicle would be equipped with a transmitter, that when interrogated by that receiver, would send a signal to the receiver that a quiet vehicle was present. That way manufacturers would not be forced to install a various asundry of horns and sound makers that would irratate most of the general population! Granted, manufacturers WOULD stil have to install a sending unit of some sort, but, with micro technology, that should be a small expense, and transparant to everyone except those with a receiver.

Just some food for thought.

David (aka Blind Guy)

Some data points:

• "50,000 members" - National Federation of the Blind June 23, 2008 statement by Debra Stein in transcript.
• ". . . Legally blind individuals accounted for 0.11 percent of deaths and 0.15 percent of hospitalizations. But they account for 0.43 percent of the US population, or 0.23 percent of the US population under age 80 (Section 4.4)." - ANALYSIS OF BLIND PEDESTRIAN DEATHS AND INJURIES FROM MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES 2002-2006, Dr. Christopher Hogan
• "The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB ), by contrast, cites a 10-year-old estimate of roughly 1.3 million legally blind Americans of all ages. ..." - ibid Dr. Christopher Hogan (The American Foundation for the Blind cites a decade-old estimate of 1.3 million. Adjusted for population growth, that would yield slightly over 1.4 million currently. The citation can be found at: Facts and Figures on Americans with Vision Loss - American Foundation for the Blind. The original data source for that estimate was the National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey - Disability Supplement, 1994 and 1995.)
• "In 2008, 69,000 pedestrians were injured and 4,378 were killed in traffic crashes in the United States, representing 3 percent of all the people injured in traffic crashes and 12 percent of all traffic fatalities." - "Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Data" (DOT HS 811 162), NHTSA.
• USA Prius sales, just over 776,000 since 2000 - Wiki and September sales.
• Estimated all hybrid sales, 1,294,000 - using ratio of 60% Prius to all hybrid sales, Dashboard monthly hybrid sales, New Hybrid Reviews, News & Hybrid Mileage (MPG) Info | Hybrid Cars

The number of hybrids sold in the USA has just about matched the number of blind and exceeds the number of ambulatory blind who live alone. But I have a different take on the problem.

I look at last year's 4,400 pedestrian deaths and 69,000 injuries and see a car-pedestrian problem that needs to be addressed and not just by hybrids. Accident avoidance systems are just coming to market along with car bodies designed to minimize pedestrian injuries. Application of these technologies, like seat belts and air bags, could see a significant reduction in not only pedestrian deaths and injuries but also car-to-car accidents.

I agree with the goal to reduce pedestrian accidents but oppose HR 734 and S.841 because they legislate one solution ... "minimum sound level." We have run that experiment since the invention of the car and it has and continues to fill too many graves. Passing a bad law, one that institutionalizes a failed technology, ensures the death toll continues.

Bob Wilson

I was trying to pull out of a petrol station, after filling up, on Friday night. It was about 8pm, and full dark. Lights on, foot on the parking brake, indicating to turn, as close to the actual roadway as possible. I still had pedestrians walking in front of the car, coming from the direction that the turn signal was flashing, so they could see that.

Would it have happened had the engine been running? I don't know, but it might have made a difference.

I was not even thinking about the issues regarding pedestrians injuries and the outside of the vehicle.[/QUOTE]


I think a ring type of audio device is required. About two weeks ago, I actually faced a blind lady walking toward me on the traffic stop until she physically sensed the car. At that moment I was so hoping that the combustion engine would start up for her to hear it.

In most of the USA we just switched from daylight savings time to standard and with that means we will be driving in the dark in the evening. The good news is the lights will be more effective. The bad news is cold and frequently bad weather will lead to impatient pedestrians willing to take a short-cut.

Bob Wilson

I happen to work with deaf population. Will increased noise help in warning deaf pedestrians? Go figure!

Very interesting comments indeed! But I still think the US is setting a good example to the world by the disability ACT. We are here to protect anyone and everyone with special needs, no matter how small the population is.

However, I agree that how to find an effective way to help them is still open to discussion. For example, increased noise certainly will not help a deaf pedestrian. In fact, as I understand, deaf people do have their way to protect themselves (I am not saying that other people should not help). They adapted better peripheral vision and awareness of their surroundings. Should all hearing people learn form them? I think so, at least when you are in parking lot around cars!

I have two questions on the subject:

1. Is the problem at issue really the blind or is that just a proxy for the much more plentiful group of injured pedestrians that just weren't paying attention to their surroundings?
2. If there really is a legitimate issue with blind pedestrians, it definitely needs to be addressed. ADA is a great example of something that is right to do, even though it serves a small minority. But is making the vehicle louder really the answer? Several good arguments have already been made that it is not, including the point that we have tested that theory for a century and still have pedestrian deaths.

So as an alternate suggestion, what if all the loud vehicles were made quieter? The Prius does make noise - it is just usually drowned out by the din of all the louder vehicles. So if we're getting to mandates, which I'm not sure we should, but if we are, why shouldn't we outlaw buzzbox mufflers and mandate a maximum decibel level so that we can all hear better and concentrate more easily on our surroundings? Just a thought.

See THIS kind of common sense will just not fly! It's just too hard to do that...sarcasm. It's sad that we as a species have trouble 'fixing' problems where there ain't any and introducing problems where there weren't in the 1st place. How many out there just HATE when Sturgis rumbles into your town for 3 weeks and NO ONE can hear anything...but that's not a problem, right? No "too loud" ordinances are there?

In case the sarcasm is lost on anyone...I want too loud to be outlawed and more quiet instituted.

It is mighty ironic that we're actually considering mandating that vehicles must be loud and annoying... kind of runs counter to what the designers of cars have been working toward since their inception. Would this also apply to very quiet luxury vehicles? Will Beemers be mandated to have buzzbomb mufflers? I'm just waiting to get my first 'fix-it ticket' for not having a functioning grogger (traditional noisemaker used in Jewish Purim celebrations). Just wait until the supreme court gets a hold of that one. Oiy.

bwilson4web;

THANKS for your response to my Post, I would like to discuss with you one of my PET PEEVS.

The numbers the NFB quotes as members they have that are blind, is dramatically skewed. They include Legally Blind individuals, and MOST of those individuals are NOT TOTALLY blind, they are Legally Blind...there's a BIG difference!

Let me explain, I was in that industry for over 20 years, and have sold more than 2.5 Million dollars in Low Vision and Blindness products to those individuals in need of those type aids, as well as being a consumer/user myself.

The reason I say the Legally Blind SHOULD NOT be included is because those individuals HAVE vision, albeit peripheral. To further expound, the peripheral vision is used in 90% of our visual acuity, the portion of our vision consists of the Macula, a tiny group of cells in the center of our retina. This Macula is what we see detail with, and is the portion of our vision that is 20/20. A good way to explain this is to ask if you remember the last time you had your picture taken with a flash? Remember that white spot you saw in the center of your vision? That was your Macula, washed out by the flash. That's the part of your vision you use to see detail with, read the paper, see faces and DRIVE. That's why, when you see something out of the cormer of your eye, you instinctively turn your head to look directly at it, when you turn your head to look at it straight on, you put that Macula right on top of what you're looking at.

What we use 90% of the time in our vision, is our peripheral vision, that's the cells that surround the Macula, or most of our visial field. The peripheral vision is the part of our vision we use to navigate walking, avoid obstacles and see the overall picture, they CANNOT see detail or distance.

The government defines Legal Blindness as 20/200, that's anyone not being able to read the paper or perform everyday normal tasks. What the 20/200 means is that someone with 20/200 sees at 20 feet what a normal person, with 20/20 vision, sees at 200 feet., Legally Blind people can lead normal lives, and unless you knew they were Legally Blind, you would probablly NEVER know. Many of us have grandparents, parents, friends or loved ones with AMD (Age Related Macular Degeneration) the leading cause of Legal Blindness, and many times the only people who know are those close to them. Most of us just think ""they're just someone who doesn't see very well". I WAS one of those individuals with Macular deterioration, so I know of what I speak, and I fooled people for years that I could see OK.

I would like to see the Legally Blind removed from the registry of the NFB, at least for the purpose of Ultra quiet Vehicle complaints. They would be capable of seeing a vehicle, although it would have to be relatively close to them. But in parking lots and other low speed situations they would be reliant on their vision to see approaching traffic.

Those that are TOTALLY blind, is a different subject, and are at the mercy of the vehicles and their drivers.

I honestly believe there needs to be assistance for those who are unable to ascertain the proximity of an Ultra Quiet vehicle, but those who are simply inattentive, should not be afforded that luxury.

If anyone has any questions, you are welcome to PM me.

David (aka Blind Guy)

One thing I've commonly seen is people talking on cell phones or texting while even walking down the street, they just are not aware of their surroundings. Wonder if they will starting laws against texting while walking?

Since I started this thread, let me give my opinion on the Bell the Hybrid debate. There have been some good opinions given so far to this topic.

I am not deaf, but I am hearing impaired and wear hearing aids. Do I think the government owes me anything to help protect me from injury, be it a vehicle or anything else? Heavens no ! I think I need to use my other senses that God gave me to help me be more aware of my surroundings.

I think it is a noble idea for us to try to take care of everyone's disabilities, but where do you stop and draw the line? If we add sound to the cars to aid the blind, then add blinking lights to help the deaf, what do you need to add next for the next disability?

I think we need to quit depending on Uncle Sam to fix all of our problems and learn to do more for ourselves. If we expect Toyota to fix the perceived floor mat issues and the perceived pedestrian issues, etc., where do we think they are going to have the funds available to develop the next generation of automobiles ? Much less the chance to work on some of the minor issues reported on the 2010 Prius ?