*sigh* Toyota To Sell Noisemaker add-on for Prius

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant had a device installed on his vehicle that would have prevented this tragedy(points to little girl in wheelchair). He purposefully disabled it. Because of that callous action my client must spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair, totally dependent on others for her care. I ask you to award her the full amount of $23,000,000.

That's why.

 

How many people out for a walk would look UP when they hear a spaceship?

And I still think my solution of using the stereo in parking lots is both simple and effective.

 

I guess Toyota is now leaning on the "SAFE" side to avoid any and all litigation after the "sudden acceleration" problem earlier this year...

1st 2010 recall of the GX460 SUV due to consumer reports about possible rollover

and now this... *sigh* is right...

 

Darwin was right, except when it comes to humans. We have laws and government policies that protect stupid people and illogical behavior. For example - logically speaking, one should have a family based upon one's ability to provide for one's progeny until they are able to care for themselves. However if one wants more progeny and cannot afford it without financial aid, then our government will pay for that fertility service. Remember Octi-mom?

Darwin's Theory does not apply to human beings, in fact the opposite seems to be true (super entropy?).

Keith

P.S. Ever think that humans get more and more cancer because we now have the technology to detect, accurately identify, and treat it? I feel sick every time I watch TV because the pharmaceutical commercials tell me about all these new expensive wonder drugs that will cure problems that I never knew I had. (If only I could afford the drugs....)

 

amen, brother...because we all know this will happen.

it's like the woman that spilled coffee on herself and sued Mickey D's because it was hot.

 

Oh Well,,,, I guess your client will still be able to listen to her iPod - The same one she was using when she stepped in front of the moving Prius.

Keith

 

Gimme a break. McDonalds had had 10-20 people in random restaurants burned already; had been warned by their own people to turn down the heat, including people involved in how it tastes; and the lady in question didn't just get her lap "burned" - she ended up in the hospital with 3rd degree burns.

She wanted McDonalds to pay her hospital bills; they refused, rightly figuring that might open the floodgates; and internal memos, testimony, and all that pulled out during ended up indicting McDonalds for their actions.

It's not a case of lawyers run amok. Go read Snopes.

And, yeah, coffee served at Micky D's is no longer a couple of degrees short of 212 F. Like it was back then. Would you hand somebody in a moving vehicle something straight out of the teapot after it whistled?

KBeck.

 

Pointers? What does the Second Law have to do with Evolution?

Despite reading plenty of material from Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others of similar ilk, I never saw this proof.

In particular, I need to see how the boundary of the free body diagram is drawn when computing and accounting for entropy.

 

We're a relatively young species, and the laws of natural selection work slowly. Give it time...

But yes, we seem to be doing our best to thwart the methods that would otherwise keep us healthier. If we followed the example provided by the rest of the animal kingdom, for instance, only the smartest, strongest and best-looking would breed.

 

I'm hoping he was kidding.

 

Was this the first time she had ever ordered mcdonalds coffee? Did mcdonalds cause her to spill it on herself? Sorry but this is just more nanny state shenanigans. And for the record, most people do drink their coffee or tea as soon as it's whistling from the pot. No one made that woman order it, or drive around with it. That is the risk she took.

I'm just sick of people who injure themselves and try to find someone to blame for it.

 

As a regular cyclist, I cannot hear the benefit you claim.

At the speeds of cars overtaking me from behind, the great majority of ICE vehicles already emit more tire noise than engine noise. Hybrids and EVs already emit that same tire noise. And the wind noise past my ears already masks most of that noise, so I must detect them by vision, not hearing.

The Prius noisemaker will operate only below 15 mph, where there is less tire noise. At those speeds, I am passing them, i.e. I will be hearing noisemakers only the slow vehicles already easily visible in front of me as I overtake them.

I won't fight a minimum noise requirement on one condition -- it must cover ALL NEW ON-ROAD VEHICLES, REGARDLESS OF PROPULSION METHOD. The modern quiet non-hybrid designs must not be exempted. Most ICEs won't need added synthetic noise yet, but some will need it now, and more will need it in the near future.

 

As a fellow cyclist, I think we'd be far better off putting noisemakers on the potholes instead.

Like some others here, I can almost always identify when a hybrid is about to pass me (even when other traffic is present) simply through the whine of the inverter. I also have a helmet mirror, which I consider an essential piece of safety gear for biking. I'm far more worried about the idiots behind me that I can hear than the slightly-less-idiotic ones that I can't. After all, the car that's about to rear-end you or cut you off sounds surprisingly similar to the one that's about to give you a whole lane of clearance as it safely passes.

 

For best flavor, coffee should be made with boiling water. Tea prefers slightly cooler water. If you are making both, boil the water, pour it onto the coffee, then do the tea. The small amount of cooling while making the coffee is just about perfect for tea.

Tom

 

I suggest this "noise maker" devise be automatically triggered by the radar of the cruise control unit which detects nearby moving small objects.

The train of events would be like this:

1. radar detects nearby small (smaller than other cars) moving object.
2. a camera automatically swings towards that object and takes a photo.
3. onboard computer scans and try to recognise what the object
4. If computer determins it's a human (including byciclists), it will try to determine his/her race and/or nationality, thus switching to the appropriate language to speak out "'Scuse me, pardon me, I'm sorry, coming through, 'Scuse me, pardon me...." in Bugs Bunny's voice.
5. If computer determines it's dog, then it barks.
6. If computer determines it's a cat....
...and so on

I know, I know! This devise will not work for large animals close to the size of a car, such as cows, or elephants. But how often do you encounter them on the streets?

The only problem I can see here is mounted police on horses. Can someone give a little help here?

 

If we are dealing with a situation where a vehicle (any vehicle, Prius or ICE) strikes or injures a person and/or damages property there is likely to be courtroom and lawsuits involved.

The idea that someday a Prius or Leaf or Volt owner is brought to court for negligence and it is presented that because the vehicle was quieter, the the injured did not perceive it's presence probably WILL happen. When it does, let's hope that the case get's decided based on the reality of events. In other words, was the driver negligent or was the bicyclist or pedesterian careless.

In anycase, I would think eventually this reality in some degree of manifestation becomes inevitable. As I said, we are dealing with the evolution of the interaction between a "new type" of vehicle and the enviroment around it.

However, I would argue that the potential inclusion of an available optional noisemaker doesn't make lawsuits any the more inevitable or likely, or any the less. If a tragedy happens, and damages are involved it's going to end up in court regardless of whether a noisemaker has been installed or not. I would think the legal arguement that a driver had a noisemaker and chose NOT to use it, would be a weak arguement akin to someone not using fog lights, or in the case of Prius V, any of the tech package "plus's" designed to avoid collision.

The idea that a vehicle is "less safe" or more likely to involve an owner in a potential lawsuit because it has an optional accessory installed is ridiculous. The idea that a quieter vehicle might be accused in court of being a greater hazard on the road...unfortunately NOT ridiculous.

Simply look at the converse. It seems the majority of Hybrid, Prius owners enjoy what they perceive as the entitlement of driving a vehicle that is quieter than the average. Okay. I understand. Prius lovers like the idea of rolling along sidestreets without the ICE burning fuel, and without the exhaust emiting smog and/or sound. Fine. BUT what if the person WANTS a noisemaker? Would you argue that person can't or shouldn't be allowed to have one? Again as I said, the reality is "kids" have been tuning their cars and exhausts to be louder than they should since Midas first touched the golden muffler. If they don't exceed local noise pollution standards, it is generally allowed to happen and accepted.

Bottom line for me, is that I think you can feel anyway you want about the idea of a noisemaker being added to your vehicle. As of now? It's optional. I also believe that Hybrids, Electrics are in operation quieter than corresponding ICE vehicles. I further believe that people are conditioned to the expectation of a certain level of sound from a moving vehicle. Do I believe the lower decibel emmision of a electric vehicle could present a greater risk to the enviroment around it? Yes.

We are just going to have to adjust. On both sides of the ledger. If more and more electrics and hybrids take to the sidestreets and roads are pedesterians and bicyclists going to have to learn that these vehicles are potentially quieter and they cannot expect to hear the firing of an internal combution engine? Also Yes.

But as we find out, or discover what the balance will become, what actually is the safest standards to apply not only for the good of Prius or Hybrid drivers but for everyone, I think arguing AGAINST a PURELY OPTIONAL noisemaker, a waste of time.

My guess, is 100 years from now when there are no ICE engines being used as personal transportation devices, there probably won't be added noisemakers either. Future generations will probably look at videos of our noisemakers and laugh the way we look at old time driving laws concerning the interaction of Horses and Horseless Carriages. But in the meantime...noisemakers might be something that could help the transistion, and whether YOU like them or not, if optional, it might even be something some people would want.

 

I haven't read the whole thread yet, maybe this is discussed, but in the japanese video, they show a button where you can activate or inactivate the sound maker. So it's not really a chirpy horn sort of sound, but it is under your control, and if you want you only turn it on when there's a pedestrian you think may not be paying attention.

Except then it might evolve to become like DRLs. Why the heck should we be mandated to have our headlights on during daytime? I'm glad my state doesn't have that, but some people seem to think people can't handle turning their lights on and off.

 

Learn to listen the tire noise rather than the engine noise.

 

At speeds under 20 mph (and on smooth pavement), you won't hear the tires. From the inside you don't really notice this because you have a fan running or the radio or whatnot. Try it sometime, have somebody drive your Prius past you on a smooth road, it's pretty cool.