Editorial on Quiet Cars

Sounds For Silent EVs: Solving a Problem That May Not Exist - Green Car Reports

Well it is about time except he used a different standard for a private report, injuries per vehicle miles, than the NHTSA report that does not have injuries per vehicle mile. I've left a couple of comments.

Bob Wilson

 

I don't remember mentioning this before:

• Seeing eye dog schools have Prius - several years ago they bought Prius to train the dogs and clients on how to deal hybrids.

The blind insist they don't want 'batteries' in any electronic device. But what is wrong with a little dog food?

Just in case you happen to run into one of these folks.

Bob Wilson

 

1. No, not with today's hybrids
2. After the legislated noise maker, . . . well after all, it is a legislated safety measure . . . why should we care?

One of the early questions I'd raise with the blind community is whether or not having the noise generator gave the driver 'legal protection' from prosecution. Now the blind community didn't understand the question.

Their advocates are sure, absolutely sure, that a disabled or adulterated noise generator should result in higher damages. In this, I agree. But they never considered that a 24x7 noise maker also gives the hybrid driver a "free pass:"

• Noise generator tested and verified to be working
• Blind casualty has NO LEGAL BASIS TO MAKE A CLAIM OF WILLFUL NEGLECT
  

So how does a lawyer for the blind find that the driver had anything but the firm and legislated understanding that H.R. 5381 and S. 3302 meant their "noise generator" means the hybrid and hybrid driver are free from culpability.

From a legal standpoint, the blind will find that noise generating cars have the same defense as today's engine equipped cars. They can try to claim the driver was negligent but the driver's attorney (if he has even a Harriet Meyer law degree) will point to H.R. 5381 and S. 3302.

No, these laws will not be a license to run over the blind. Rather, the mandated noise makers means we have the same defense as engine equipped car.

Every year, the blind die and are injured by noise making cars. Rather than address the accidents and fatalities, they are reverting to their 'blind access training' and that is a sad and possibly fatal mistake.

Bob Wilson

 

Based upon some of the inflated claims in the comments, I realized that there is a 'back of the envelope' approach to quantifying the hybrid risk:

• Prius was the predominate hybrid in the report
• Corolla was used as the analog to the Prius in the report
• Sales years 2001-07 cover the study interval
• Table 2 of NHTSA report, DOT HS 811 204 has incidents total and pedestrian

So I threw together a very quick summary, a back-of-the-envelope analysis to answer my own challenge to this report. Where is the rate per vehicle:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5
0	model	sales	percent
1	corolla (07)	371	390	67.2%
2	prius (07)	181	221	32.8%
3	total	552	611
4
5	corolla (01)	245	023	93.9%
6	prius (01)	16	000	6.1%
7	total	261	023
8
9	corolla (sum 01	07)	616	413	75.8%
10	prius (sum 01	07)	197	221	24.2%
11	total 2001-07	813	634
12
13	ICE (Corolla)	559	703	98.5%
14	HEV (Prius)	8	387	1.5%
15	table 2 injury incidents	568	090
16
17	ICE (Corolla)	3	578	97.9%
18	HEV (Prius)	77	2.1%
19	table 2 pedestrian incidents	3	655

The Prius was ~25% of sales yet worst case, 2% of the incidents.

Now the obvious criticism of these numbers is the Corolla started with a much larger share of the vehicle population before the first Prius was sold. If we adjust for the pre-2001 Corolla sales, we will get closer to true numbers. However, I wanted to share the approach, the methodology.

Comments?

I'll try to adjust for the pre-2001 Corolla population later.

Bob Wilson