MORE efforts to "bell" the hybrids!

LOL

The article repeats THE SAME line THREE times. Talk about lousy editing.

 

wow.. what a pathetic little article....

isn't this why blind people hold RED canes? so we can see which people are blind and avoid them? since they can't really hear us at all times?

plus.. in CA.. pedestrians have the right away. it will be a long time before a blind person gets hit. i should know, there are several blind people around on my everyday commutes. i've had to go around them in parking lots... ev switched on, of course.. hehe

 

Hi BobWilson,

Good Post on the Sun-Times website. I tried to get registered and post, but its not working for some reason.

V8 - look at the links below the article for the full article.

And here is one more time I almost got run over by a vehicle. This was Friday about 5 pm. The previos time you might remember was an 18 wheeler, which did not make enough noise to overcome the engine noise of an overhead jet airliner. This time, I walked out from between my car and a large SUV. Ahead of me to the left about 15 yards away were four loud airconditioning units, all running. So, with the sound blockage due to the large SUV (taller than I am) and the AC unit noise, I did not hear the car coming through the parking lot at 20 mph. I took one step out, saw the non-hybrid car, and took one step back. A blind person may very well have continued walking forward and would have been hit for sure. I took the one step out because I did not hear a car coming.

The point of this, is specific aural circumstances are so complicated, that no single sound maker would make any sense. And with a big piece of metal between me (if I was a socalled special pedestrian) and the vehicle, the RF/Light/Ultrasound would not have been communicated to any special beeper fob.

 

A better URL to the article:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/1138580,CST-NWS-ride01.article

The first one looks to be an aborted, first cut. This second URL points to the one where comments can be left. Yes, the registration process is a little 'brain dead.' It seems to require at least two or more 'login' before you' re really where you can comment.

There will always be special cases where the best safety device doesn't work. But the keyfobs in North America work at 315 MHz, an ultra-high frequency and that gives them unique properties.

Like radar signals, these are ordinarily line-of-sight but they also reflect. It is usually called "multi-path" and the success and range depends upon the transmitter radiation pattern and receiver antenna location.

It will take testing but I suspect the proposed shoe mount may wind up being the second best altitude for the transmitter. Pure speculation on my part but the area under cars may work a bit like a wave guide at these frequencies. At 315 MHz, the wavelength is about 30 cm., which is similar to the gap under a car body. But it will take testing.

Being sighted, you could compare your visual world to the audio world and see the inconsistencies. Sad to say but the blind "don't get it" and it is terribly difficult to get this concept through to them. That they are relatively successful navigating today is amazing considering the limits of audio clues.

Bob Wilson

 

BTW, one thing I wanted to add is the importance of identification of the specific legislation, HR 5734, and the local co-sponsors, the politicians who declared their support. Telling the reporter they have "sh*t for brains" or leaving a "stupid idea" comment is not nearly as effective as including a road map to those who are responsible.

We can't change the minds of the blind but we can let our representatives, both House and Senate, know what we think. So when we reply to these articles, it is important to state the facts and data and identify WHO is supporting WHAT. You may have already contacted your representatives but we are also leaving pointers so others who agree with us know what to do.

Bob Wilson
:deadhorse:

 

Hi Bob,

If the signal was vertically polarized, then you mean. Small enough to fit into a shoe, yet flexible is also a problem. Operation within the thickness of a shoe from the ground would be problematic for a vertical polarized antenna. I think it would need to be an ankle bracelet so the antenna could be vertical. In the sole of a shoe, the fields would be shorted out by the asphalt, or water on any surface after a rain storm. Of course a child sitting on the ground is going to make the ankle bracelet antenna horizontal, thus reducing omindirectionality, range, and capability to waveguide under cars.

As far as children and reversing goes the major issue is rear sensing. And the Prius rear view camera does a very good job for this. Every SUV and Pickup should have the same thing.

SUV's and other tall vehicles cause serious line of sight limitations to normal sized vehicles in parking lots. So some sort of sideways perriscope, with the mirror made of soft material and held out by soft material would be good too. The extending of the perriscope would itself be a warning to adults.

Its really too bad this issue (pedestrian fatalaties from vehicles) is being dominated by the blind. Because its a big problem, and it will only get screwed up by their interest and in the end nothing effective will be accomplished. Seems the government has been behind the issue, with so many pedestrian deaths and no positive movement to address the problem. The special circumstance of the blind hardly makes them unique as pedestrians, as your comment regarding 4K plus per year sighted people deaths indicates. I support your effort to generalize the arguement, but think the blind will get nasty over this. As you say, they do not get it. A sighted person has the same problems they do. While in a high noise enviorement, with visual obstacles a sighted person can be killed just as quick. A sighted person is not some kinda robotically aware, 360 degree visual scanner. Its aural cues which direct our limited field of view.


It really ticks me off that this is being made into a "hybrid" issue, when standard vehicles are statistically so much more dangerous in comparison and many are just as quiet above 15 mpg, and the Prius designers put the rear-view camera into the car preemtively.

 

You're asking the right questions:

Take your keyfob and if you have a small kid shoe handy, see how to fit it. My thinking are two places: (1) the side and (2) at the base of the laces. Normally a keyfob is 'pinched' which masks the built in antenna. Mounted on the side or base of the shoe tongue, it should have a good radiation pattern, better than when pinched.

Fortunately the signal strength is proportional to the square of the distance. As the distances decrease, the signal strength increases very rapidly.

I would normally agree with the camera except for one of the four backup accidents involved a kid coming down a sidewalk from the side. The ultrasonic, object detector had been turned off and the sensor was in the impact area. However, there might not have been enough warning time because of the angle the kid came in from. It is rough reviewing but I included the Chidester report: www.regulations.gov - search NHTSA-2008-0108-0020.2. But these problems may require more than one response.

The problem is complex and HR 5734 certainly has stirred up the mix. The Chidester report was released April 2008 and I only found it 3-4 days before the June 23 hearing. The NHTSA has been doing the right thing and without realizing it, handed me the most effective argument one could imagine. The political effort took a lot of care and preparation and it is hard to say what is financing it. That Lotus jumped on it is curious since they don't make a hybrid and are in competition with Toyota. But it is too tempting to project malice when momentary incompetence or ignorance may be the root cause.

There is enough hubris by all parties that it will be a wonder if any good comes from it. That is why I keep emphasizing 'the data.' If we focus on the data, we can find solutions that work ... which does not necessarily mean mine. It has to be results driven and anything else only ensures another 'path to H*ll paved by good intentions.'

Agreed.

Bob Wilson

 

Last I knew, blind people carried WHITE canes, possibly with a red section at the bottom.

And blind or not, deaf or not, pedestrians having the right of way in a crosswalk requires the drivers to LOOK. Last week (AGAIN), I passed an intersection on a main road and a residential road. A driver coming out of the residential road fully crossed the crosswalk before stopping, looking to her left the entire time. Either planning to '"roll (fast) the red" or hoping for a quick stop. Thank goodness no pedestrian was starting to cross from the right.

Now don't take this to mean I agree with the 'bell the Hybrid' idea. Plenty stupid. I still say - 'cut the volume of EVERYTHING ELSE on the road' instead.

 

One of the sad side effects of this effort is I've read more traffic safety accident reports than I would otherwise read. But you might find this one helpful:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nht...OT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/Reports/2008/810968.pdf

• Single-vehicle crashes on roadways make up an overwhelming majority of pedestrian deaths.
  
• The significance of non-intersections, urban roadways, and city streets as closely related to pedestrian fatalities mentioned in an early research report1 are confirmed by this report.

". . . Over three-fourths (78%) of the pedestrians were killed at non-intersections and less than one-fourth (21.2%) were killed at intersections over the past decade. Table 2 shows that roadways without crosswalks accounted for 42 percent of all pedestrian fatalities. The table also shows that the percentage of pedestrian deaths in crosswalks (near 9%) is less than deaths in roadways (80%). This indicates that using a crosswalk is the safest way to cross a street. . . ."

Bob Wilson

 

Not sure if anyone has seen this link yet...

Cell Phone Offers Pedestrian Protection

 

You just wanted us to check out the chick with the long legs.

No really, I think something of the sort is cool, why not an ear bud equipped for the blind, a vibrating one for the deaf. Wouldn't need the cell.

 

I appreciate the 'heads up' on the Oki cell phone. This is something I'd first suggested to the blind but their answers were a distinct "NO." Yet they are quite content to use cell phones. At least now there is a second proposed wireless solution. Good news!

Bob Wilson