H.R. 734 - "Bell the Hybrid" II

Hi folks,

Finally, the text of this bill showed up at the usual web sites so we can analyze the words. Also, we see there is a distinctly different strategy being followed this year. However, the same problems remain: (1) only noise is to be considered, (2) there must be a noise standard, and (3) hybrid owners, insurance companies, medical professionals, are excluded.

ANALYSIS - SECTION 4

Quote:
SEC. 4. STUDY OF METHOD TO PROTECT BLIND AND OTHER PEDESTRIANS.

• (a) Required Study- Not later than 90 days following enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study to--
  • (1) determine the most practical means of assuring that blind and other pedestrians receive substantially similar information to information such pedestrians receive from sound emitted by vehicles that use internal combustion engines;
    (2) determine the minimum level of sound emitted from a motor vehicle that is necessary to provide blind pedestrians with the information needed to make safe travel judgments; and
    (3) consider whether the minimum level of sound requirement or another method that conveys information essential for pedestrian safety provides the most reliable information to support safe travel of blind and other pedestrians, including--
    • (A) which method provides blind and other pedestrians the greatest amount of information regarding location, motion, speed, and direction of travel of a motor vehicle;
      (B ) the cost and feasibility of each method, including the cost and feasibility of equipping each individual pedestrian with any technology necessary to receive information; and
      (C) which method assures the least reliance by blind and other pedestrians upon technology they must possess when traveling and thereby provides the greatest amount of independence and opportunity for spontaneous travel for these pedestrians.
  (b) Required Consultation- When conducting the study, the Secretary shall--
  
  • (1) review all available research regarding the effect of traffic sounds on pedestrian safety, and commission such research as may be necessary;
    (2) consult consumer groups representing individuals who are blind, other pedestrians, cyclists, and advocates for children; and
    (3) consult with automobile manufacturers and professional organizations representing them.
  (c) Report- The Secretary shall complete the study within 2 years of its commencement and shall transmit a report of the findings to Congress.

Correcting the legislation

The parts need correcting are in Section 4 that covers the study:

1. Part (a), sentence (1), quantify the risk - In section 3, our vehicles are declared "extremely dangerous" without supporting accident data. Correct the first sentence to read "determine the quantitative fatality and injury risk and most practical means of assuring that blind and other pedestrians receive substantially similar information to information such pedestrians receive from sound emitted by vehicles that use internal combustion engines;"
2. Part (a), sentence (3), parts (A-C) - methods - The problem is "vehicle based systems" such as the Saab and Denso have been excluded. This section needs part (B) corrected to read: "the cost and feasibility of each method, including the cost and feasibility of equipping each individual pedestrian with technology as well as vehicle based systems and other technology necessary to prevent or reduce injury in a pedestrian accident, and"
3. Part (b), phrases (1-3) lists who may be consulted in this study and omits hybrid electric vehicle owners and others with relevant expertise. Phrase (2) needs to read: "consult consumer groups representing individuals who are blind, other pedestrians, cyclists, hybrid vehicle owners, and advocates for children; and"
4. Part (b), phrase (3) ommits the insurance industry who probably have the greatest collection of accident costs available. Phrase (3) needs to read: "consult with automobile manufacturers, automotive and medical insurance, medical, and professional organizations representing them."

These corrections fix the bill so all technical solutions are considered, including those carried by the pedestrian and built into the vehicles. Furthermore, it needs to include hybrid owners, the ones who will have to pay for these systems, as well as the insurance and medical professions that deal with the consequences.

I have not proposed including other gas engine vehicles because it is not required. They are already paranoid enough to realize that they are next. However, it is also selfish in that I want another insurance rate savings for hybrid electric owners. Having hybrid cars become unusually pedestrian safe gives our favorite rides another advantage over the 'honorable competition.'

HR 734 - STRATEGY

Starting out with a lobby effort is brilliant and puts the burden on hybrid electric owners to react. The difference this year comes from these observations:

2009 Washington Seminar - February 8-11, they are planning to train '500' blind and blind advocates to visit Congressional offices. Compared to last year's approach using the NHTSA, this is a more effective approach.

Typical news advocacy: Group wants law requiring hybrid cars to be louder - the article is less important than the follow-up comments. This is the first time I've seen a concerted effort to answer the "you must be kidding" and my own fact based postings. They are trying to do more than say "it is a good idea." Let the debate begin and be there!
​

Counter Lobby Effort

Hybrid owners are not 'organized' with a professional, paid staff but we all have $15-60k cars sitting on our driveways. This substantial financial commitment, second only to home ownership, gives us standing IF we let our Congressional Representatives know we are here and concerned. After all, we are the ones who will have to pay for any new regulation imposed on our next hybrid vehicle.

Petitioning Congress is one approach but not nearly as effective as your individual, letter to your congress representative and a phone call. Let them know, especially their legislative aid, that you oppose this legislation unless it has whatever corrections you want. I've outlined mine but by no means am I an expert. But I do know what I don't like and what it would take to make HR 734 something positive instead of "Bell the Hybrid."

Counter "Comments" Effort

We have to answer these "hybrids are dangerous" with the facts and data and cite our sources. It is critical that the "you must be kidding" posters have the backup information they need to resist the biased, one-sided postings of the "Bell the Hybrid" crowd. This means monitoring the news, letters to the editor, and an active effort to point out their nonsense.

Thanks,
Bob Wilson

 

Thank you!

I'm sending postal letters to my Congressman and both Senators. Fortunately the Senators try to identify themselves as 'free market' Republicans so there should be no problem there. The Congressman is new and I've met him. But we're a fairly conservative district and I doubt this bit of nonsense will get much traction.

One funny thing, we had a new user "blind_dad" sign-up and post in one of our vehicle specific threads. He had the usual inaccurate claims but also "a chip on his shoulder." He came with the belief that hybrid electric owners have some personal animus against the blind. Attitude is OK but to make a false claim of there having been a personal attack has to be treated the same way we deal with those who make personal attacks.

Sad to say, I had to give him an infraction and delete his first posting because he made a false claim. Not to worry, I'd quoted most of his posting with on topic, facts and data. Only his 'invective' and my reply citing his 'invective' were converted to '********."

This is not a ban, we give some latitude to new users who don't yet understand the rules of the road. But we can't tolerate folks calling each other "so and so" or the mirror image "<someone> was called so and so." It just isn't going to happen.

Bob Wilson

 

Thank you Mike!

This helps a lot. This provides a metric of Prius vs other vehicles to help support our claims.

Bob Wilson