Modifications to end nanny-car harassment, nagging & beeping annoyances?

[RickMachE]

On the other hand, I was trying to back out of my spot at Target yesterday when two folks decided to step behind my car and stop to chat all the while glaring at my car for making those backup sounds which it had been making before they stepped in behind it. So … ?‍

Clearly you simply should have driven over them.

Sponsored

 

[kodiakng]

at the risk of throwing more gas on the fire for this one issue, the actual law that required the regulation and rule making to commence is the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010. @mkhuffman and @Mirak are correct in that the requirement is on manufacturers, not end users. the intent is to strike a balance and make the overall lived environment safer while allowing end user choice.

here is a reasoned exploration of the history, with citations to pedestrian safety, etc studies and global standard/regulations, along with areas of future exploration and research for future enhancements and fixes from 2020 you might be interested in:

Electric Vehicles Get Alert Signals to be Heard by Pedestrians: Benefits and Drawbacks

 

[Cdrive]

Recapping the folks who so badly need to be heard, so far:
- brake like a normal adult
- change your behaviour to adapt to the vehicle
- just don't use the features
- read the owner's manual [btw, yes #8 is in the manual but couldn't find other solutions there]
- drivers without reverse beeping are "scummy".
These opinions have been so valued.

Solutions have been sparse but as you dig deeper you'll find some in this thread, its otherwise a verbal musket-loading contest. Fire away with those zingers!
Additional suggestions from under the troll bridge:
- Drive a 1997 Buick - yes, after this thread concludes my trade in value will hopefully afford me such a gem.
- RTFM - yes, I have Read The Ford Manual.
- Yeah... but... Toyota!
- Keep the beeps or you'll break the law or kill a blind person.

 

[Mach1E]

at the risk of throwing more gas on the fire for this one issue, the actual law that required the regulation and rule making to commence is the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010. @mkhuffman and @Mirak are correct in that the requirement is on manufacturers, not end users. the intent is to strike a balance and make the overall lived environment safer while allowing end user choice.

here is a reasoned exploration of the history, with citations to pedestrian safety, etc studies and global standard/regulations, along with areas of future exploration and research for future enhancements and fixes from 2020 you might be interested in:

Electric Vehicles Get Alert Signals to be Heard by Pedestrians: Benefits and Drawbacks

Yup, and with most laws, that’s not the end of the story.

Federal regulations also (for the end user) can’t have them disabled and sell or trade the vehicle.

OSHA regulations (linked earlier) cannot have any safety equipment disabled on work vehicles.

State regulations (those with safety checks) cannot have safety equipment disabled.

And even if you happen to live somewhere this doesn’t apply (where you could legally disable if you put it back before selling), you open yourself up to civil and even criminal liability if you get into an accident or accident with injury/death.

Add in the DATA (linked earlier) where pedestrian accidents before these mandated sounds with hybrids were DOUBLE those of ICE? It’s a really bad idea to disable them.


Bottom line…….. almost everyone here (myself included) was at least partially wrong because it’s sometimes legal, sometimes illegal, but always a bad idea. And I don’t think anyone to this point has said that.

 

[mkhuffman]

Yup, and with most laws, that’s not the end of the story.

Federal regulations also (for the end user) can’t have them disabled and sell or trade the vehicle.

OSHA regulations (linked earlier) cannot have any safety equipment disabled on work vehicles.

State regulations (those with safety checks) cannot have safety equipment disabled.

And even if you happen to live somewhere this doesn’t apply (where you could legally disable if you put it back before selling), you open yourself up to civil and even criminal liability if you get into an accident or accident with injury/death.

Add in the DATA (linked earlier) where pedestrian accidents before these mandated sounds with hybrids were DOUBLE those of ICE? It’s a really bad idea to disable them.


Bottom line…….. almost everyone here (myself included) was at least partially wrong because it’s sometimes legal, sometimes illegal, but always a bad idea. And I don’t think anyone to this point has said that.

I went back to post 52 and read through multiple pages in the report you included. Here are my take-aways:

1. They made a huge assumption: the only difference between the ICE and HE vehicles in the study is the noise produced when moving. I don't agree that is the only difference, and likely there are other differences that have just as much impact as car noise.

2. In order to be fair to your position, it is reasonable to conclude the lack of noise contributed to the increase in pedestrian accident rates. However, see item 1 above. I have a different interpretation that I think is just as reasonable.

3. The difference in pedestrian accident rates between ICE and HEV is NOT 2x, as you keep saying. That was the old study. The study you posted updated that study with more data and more recent data. The difference is less than 2x, significantly less. Yes there is a statistically significant difference in some of the scenarios, but there is NO statistically significant difference in many of the scenarios they evaluated.

4. They found no statistically significant difference in the accident rates with bicyclists.

5. There was not enough data to study the accident rates in parking lots, so the backup beeper has no data to support the assertion that it makes cars safer. If you can find another study that proves it does, please post it. In the meantime, the backup beeper is NOT proven to reduce pedestrian accident rates. Claiming it does is just conjecture, and I disagree.

6. They did not evaluate any BEVs. They did not evaluate the MME. They used old cars without the advanced technology contained in my car, such as proximity sensors and cameras. And object detection that automatically brakes the car if it detects an obstacle.

7. They only evaluated two HEVs: the Prius, and the Accord Hybrid. So if you want to be accurate, you can say the Prius is less safe than the Corolla, and the Accord Hybrid is less safe than the regular Accord. But I not even sure you can say that, because they had a lot less Accords to test than Priuses. Really all you can say is the Prius is a stupid, unsafe, piece of crap. Oh, wait a minute. My bias might have slipped in there somewhere.

Here is my equally reasonable conclusion from the data in the study you posted:

The percentage of Prius and Accord Hybrid drivers is much higher in cities, and therefore they have a higher exposure (per capita) to pedestrian traffic than their ICE equivalents. In addition, people who buy those cars buy them because they do a lot of city driving, and the efficiency savings is the reason they purchased the cars in the first place.

Which means they drive more city miles, and drive around pedestrians more. The ICE vehicles have more highway miles (where there are no pedestrians) and the HEVs have more city miles (per capita). THAT is why there is a higher pedestrian accident rate for HEVs in cities, on roads that have a 35 mph speed limit or less.

Therefore, my car is not less safe when I disable the pedestrian speaker. It is not less safe when I disable the backup beeper. And the data has yet to prove I am incorrect.

 

[generaltso]

State regulations (those with safety checks) cannot have safety equipment disabled.

Which states have pedestrian sound emitters on the list of safety equipment they check during an inspection?

 

[Mach1E]

Which states have pedestrian sound emitters on the list of safety equipment they check during an inspection?

At this point? I would guess none.

Same goes with how many states check to see if a work vehicle has disabled safety equipment.

But both are illegal as shown in the government website links I posted earlier.

So will you get caught? Highly unlikely unless you kill someone and there is an investigation.

But the question wasn’t “will I get caught.”

The question was “is it illegal.”

And the answer in the situations I referenced is “yes.”

 

[generaltso]

At this point? I would guess none.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Mach1E]

I went back to post 52 and read through multiple pages in the report you included. Here are my take-aways:

1. They made a huge assumption: the only difference between the ICE and HE vehicles in the study is the noise produced when moving. I don't agree that is the only difference, and likely there are other differences that have just as much impact as car noise.

2. In order to be fair to your position, it is reasonable to conclude the lack of noise contributed to the increase in pedestrian accident rates. However, see item 1 above. I have a different interpretation that I think is just as reasonable.

3. The difference in pedestrian accident rates between ICE and HEV is NOT 2x, as you keep saying. That was the old study. The study you posted updated that study with more data and more recent data. The difference is less than 2x, significantly less. Yes there is a statistically significant difference in some of the scenarios, but there is NO statistically significant difference in many of the scenarios they evaluated.

4. They found no statistically significant difference in the accident rates with bicyclists.

5. There was not enough data to study the accident rates in parking lots, so the backup beeper has no data to support the assertion that it makes cars safer. If you can find another study that proves it does, please post it. In the meantime, the backup beeper is NOT proven to reduce pedestrian accident rates. Claiming it does is just conjecture, and I disagree.

6. They did not evaluate any BEVs. They did not evaluate the MME. They used old cars without the advanced technology contained in my car, such as proximity sensors and cameras. And object detection that automatically brakes the car if it detects an obstacle.

7. They only evaluated two HEVs: the Prius, and the Accord Hybrid. So if you want to be accurate, you can say the Prius is less safe than the Corolla, and the Accord Hybrid is less safe than the regular Accord. But I not even sure you can say that, because they had a lot less Accords to test than Priuses. Really all you can say is the Prius is a stupid, unsafe, piece of crap. Oh, wait a minute. My bias might have slipped in there somewhere.

Here is my equally reasonable conclusion from the data in the study you posted:

The percentage of Prius and Accord Hybrid drivers is much higher in cities, and therefore they have a higher exposure (per capita) to pedestrian traffic than their ICE equivalents. In addition, people who buy those cars buy them because they do a lot of city driving, and the efficiency savings is the reason they purchased the cars in the first place.

Which means they drive more city miles, and drive around pedestrians more. The ICE vehicles have more highway miles (where there are no pedestrians) and the HEVs have more city miles (per capita). THAT is why there is a higher pedestrian accident rate for HEVs in cities, on roads that have a 35 mph speed limit or less.

Therefore, my car is not less safe when I disable the pedestrian speaker. It is not less safe when I disable the backup beeper. And the data has yet to prove I am incorrect.

It’s double.

It’s literally the 2nd paragraph of the study:
“……an HE vehicle was two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than an ICE vehicle in situations involving low speed maneuvers.”

Double.

It’s double and you think it’s a coincidence?

Sorry, but that’s waaaaaaay to much of a difference to just write it off as “more Prius drivers are in the city.”

You asked for the data, we gave it to you.

And the governmental data was compelling enough for them to mandate the pedestrian sounds.

But you still don’t believe that noise makes a car safer around pedestrians?

Even ignoring the data, there is common sense. Have you never been walking in a parking lot or on a street and HEARD a car before you SAW it?

And you’re still ignoring the obvious point made earlier about BLIND people.

You seriously have no leg to stand claiming a silent car is as safe as a louder one.


That said, I will give you some leeway about the backup beeping. Why? Because other than a small child (or pet), you aren’t going to hurt anyone backing into them silently.

But there are small children and pets to worry about.

 

[mkhuffman]

It’s double.

It’s literally the 2nd paragraph of the study:
“……an HE vehicle was two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than an ICE vehicle in situations involving low speed maneuvers.”

Double.

It’s double and you think it’s a coincidence?

Sorry, but that’s waaaaaaay to much of a difference to just write it off as “more Prius drivers are in the city.”

You asked for the data, we gave it to you.

And the governmental data was compelling enough for them to mandate the pedestrian sounds.

But you still don’t believe that noise makes a car safer around pedestrians?

Even ignoring the data, there is common sense. Have you never been walking in a parking lot or on a street and HEARD a car before you SAW it?

And you’re still ignoring the obvious point made earlier about BLIND people.

You seriously have no leg to stand claiming a silent car is as safe as a louder one.


That said, I will give you some leeway about the backup beeping. Why? Because other than a small child (or pet), you aren’t going to hurt anyone backing into them silently.

But there are small children and pets to worry about.

This is getting exhausting.

The statistic in that paragraph is from the OLD study. Here is what the new study found:

"The crash factors of speed limit, vehicle maneuver, and location were examined to determine the relative incidence rates of HE versus ICE vehicles and whether the odds ratio (OR) was different under different circumstances. While the results did not provide an apparent set of scenarios for bicycle crashes, the findings provide a clearer picture regarding pedestrian crashes. The largest differences between the involvement of HE and ICE vehicles in pedestrian crashes occur with speed limits of 35 mph and lower (OR = 1.39), during low-speed maneuvers (OR = 1.66) and when the crash is on the roadway (OR = 1.50). This update further extends the analysis to various other vehicle samples with similar results. For example a comparison of all HE versus ICE passenger vehicles regardless of makes and models indicates that the odds of any HE passenger vehicle being in a pedestrian crash are 22 percent greater than the odds of any ICE passenger vehicle."

They say the chances of a pedestrian accident is 22% more likely, not 2x. And again, that does not mean it is due to the lack of noise. No, it could be for the reasons I gave as well. More HEVs in high pedestrian traffic areas. That is logical, and probably the real reason it is 22% more likely to happen.

You still have not proven my car is less safe when it is silent. The data does not prove it either.

Let's move on. Neither of us will agree. I like the fact that my car is quiet. I hate the noises. And my car is safe. And I didn't break the law. The end.

 

[Mach1E]

This is getting exhausting.

The statistic in that paragraph is from the OLD study. Here is what the new study found:

"The crash factors of speed limit, vehicle maneuver, and location were examined to determine the relative incidence rates of HE versus ICE vehicles and whether the odds ratio (OR) was different under different circumstances. While the results did not provide an apparent set of scenarios for bicycle crashes, the findings provide a clearer picture regarding pedestrian crashes. The largest differences between the involvement of HE and ICE vehicles in pedestrian crashes occur with speed limits of 35 mph and lower (OR = 1.39), during low-speed maneuvers (OR = 1.66) and when the crash is on the roadway (OR = 1.50). This update further extends the analysis to various other vehicle samples with similar results. For example a comparison of all HE versus ICE passenger vehicles regardless of makes and models indicates that the odds of any HE passenger vehicle being in a pedestrian crash are 22 percent greater than the odds of any ICE passenger vehicle."

They say the chances of a pedestrian accident is 22% more likely, not 2x. And again, that does not mean it is due to the lack of noise. No, it could be for the reasons I gave as well. More HEVs in high pedestrian traffic areas. That is logical, and probably the real reason it is 22% more likely to happen.

You still have not proven my car is less safe when it is silent. The data does not prove it either.

Let's move on. Neither of us will agree. I like the fact that my car is quiet. I hate the noises. And my car is safe. And I didn't break the law. The end.

Low speed maneuvers in one study is double the other is 66% greater.
And you don’t think that is statistically significant?

And you still ignore the logical (non data related arguments)?

Proven with data. Proven with logic. Your car is less safe. Your choice to ignore both I guess. ?‍

I honestly don’t care if you don’t care. What I do care about is you trying to convince other people of something that has been proven to be incorrect.

If low speed pedestrian safety doesn’t concern you more than the annoying noise, totally your choice.

But seriously, don’t try to claim the noise does nothing to improve safety. We have multiple studies that PROVE it does.

 

[mkhuffman]

Low speed maneuvers in one study is double the other is 66% greater.
And you don’t think that is statistically significant?

And you still ignore the logical (non data related arguments)?

Proven with data. Proven with logic. Your car is less safe. Your choice to ignore both I guess. ?‍

I honestly don’t care if you don’t care. What I do care about is you trying to convince other people of something that has been proven to be incorrect.

If low speed pedestrian safety doesn’t concern you more than the annoying noise, totally your choice.

But seriously, don’t lie and try to claim the noise does nothing to improve safety. We have multiple studies that PROVE it does.

Sigh.

I agree it is statistically significant. I posted that already. I don't agree it is due to noise. I think it is due to the fact that there are more HEVs around pedestrians (per capita), which explains why they are 22% more likely to hit an idiot looking at their phone.

 

[Mach1E]

Sigh.

I agree it is statistically significant. I posted that already. I don't agree it is due to noise. I think it is due to the fact that there are more HEVs around pedestrians (per capita), which explains why they are 22% more likely to hit an idiot looking at their phone.

Low speed maneuver is the only stat that matters (where the noise is now required). And those numbers are 66% or double depending on the study.

Do you honestly believe that Prius’ being in the city more is the cause?

I will give you that it could be a factor. There are more pedestrian accidents in the city, and probably more Prius’ in the city. I just don’t believe that would explain that large of a difference. Why? Because the logical reasoning of a pedestrian being able to hear a car coming.

The government didn’t believe that either. That’s why those studies are cited as the reason for pedestrian sound mandates.

I guess we will have to wait a few years for a new study to come out that shows pedestrian accidents decreasing with BEVs and hybrids built post 2020.

If the accident rates go down after the mandate, would that change your mind?

FWIW, pedestrian death rates were on a steady decline from 1975 to when they bottomed out in 2009.

But they have been increasing significantly since 2009. 4109 deaths in 2009 to 7,388 in 2021. Which is scary considering how the country was on lockdown in 2020-2021.

I’m betting the number of quieter cars is a factor.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians#:~:text=The rate of pedestrian deaths,but the lowest in 2021.

And just for fun, updated 2017 broader study. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812371

Summary? Low speed pedestrian crash- 51% higher. Bike crashes- 50% higher.

And this study actually answers your big city question! You’re right, it is a factor, but hybrids and electric are still higher in the city:

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Which states have pedestrian sound emitters on the list of safety equipment they check during an inspection?

I just had my car safety checked yesterday (I was late doing so) for the first time since new (It comes with a two year check, then goes annually). The checklist is about two pages long (the law is 48 pages long as it covers a lot of vehicles and possibilities). My MME was the first this particular station had seen and they showed me the checklist. The checklist was straightforward as you’d expect — no check on the pedestrian alert or backup sounds per se*. It will pass regardless of whether or not they’re disabled. No tail pipe check either. Good for another year.


*They check if the car goes in reverse and check the brakes. They put it in reverse and also drive it forward about 3 feet and stop it. Both those trigger the alerts but that’s not what they’re checking.

 

[RickMachE]

One indisputable fact - if you get into an accident, or injure / kill a person, a thorough investigation as well as research by anyone suing you would likely include social media posts. Posting under your name, describing how you disabled or removed safety features, doesn't bode well for your culpability. Not saying an insurance company could refuse coverage, but know the term contributory negligence.

Sponsored