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

[Mirak]

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.

Lol. Listen, bub, no matter many times you try to save face - which is all you are doing now - you were wrong. The act of an end-user disabling the speaker is not, in and of itself illegal. I was not “partially wrong” for pointing that out.

This is getting exhausting.

Yup. Let the blow hard have the last word. He needs this for his own fragile ego.

Sponsored

 

[Mach1E]

Lol. Listen, bub, no matter many times you try to save face - which is all you are doing now - you were wrong. The act of an end-user disabling the speaker is not, in and of itself illegal. I was not “partially wrong” for pointing that out.




Yup. Let the blow hard have the last word. He needs this for his own fragile ego.

I admitted where I was wrong, posted links and data to prove that as well.

So which is it, am I “saving face” or do I have an ego problem?

Pick a lane mr prosecutor. ?

I posted the end user thing (with links) way back in post 59.

It’s not saving face. It’s called “changing my mind when I learned something new.” You should try it sometime.

 

[mach-ebert]

Obviously, the only way to settle this is to have a double blind study.

Both of you go in a parking lot full of blind people and see who hits more pedestrians while backing up.

Mystery solved.

 

[RickMachE]

I also need to point out that having the car emit noise isn't just to benefit blind people. It specifically says blind "and other pedestrians". Why? People play with phones, people yacking, people in general not paying attention.

In Ann Arbor, they have a huge population of distracted youth. Crosswalks have been "enhanced" using all measures of warnings. Laws have been changed to require stopping as people "approach" the walkway, in other words, they may not even be crossing. And yet, accidents and fatalities continue. Distraction is a big problem in our society.

Of course may don't even use the walkways...

 

[Mach1E]

I also need to point out that having the car emit noise isn't just to benefit blind people. It specifically says blind "and other pedestrians". Why? People play with phones, people yacking, people in general not paying attention.

In Ann Arbor, they have a huge population of distracted youth. Crosswalks have been "enhanced" using all measures of warnings. Laws have been changed to require stopping as people "approach" the walkway, in other words, they may not even be crossing. And yet, accidents and fatalities continue. Distraction is a big problem in our society.

Of course may don't even use the walkways...

For sure cell phones help explain why pedestrian accidents have almost doubled since 2009.

That’s cell phone use of the drivers and pedestrians.

 

[Mirak]

I admitted where I was wrong, posted links and data to prove that as well.

So which is it, am I “saving face” or do I have an ego problem?

Pick a lane mr prosecutor. ?

I posted the end user thing (with links) way back in post 59.

It’s not saving face. It’s called “changing my mind when I learned something new.” You should try it sometime.

The amount of obfuscation and deflection - it’s like arguing with a teenager.

1. You were wrong in making overly sweeping declarations about the illegality of end users disabling speakers.
2. I was correct in stating that this is not illegal.
3. To save face, you then retorted that well “almost everyone here (myself included) was at least partially wrong.”
4. I wasn’t wrong in my statement, partially or otherwise. What I said was correct.

You added conditions such as resale which are not what I was responding to. It would be as if I had said “owning a gun is not illegal” and you responded “yeah, but if you shot someone with it that would be illegal, so you’re partially wrong.” No, I’m not partially wrong in what I said - you attached a condition I was not addressing.

It is not illegal for an end user to disable the speaker. Period.

 

[Jimrpa]

Is the OP serious? Sounds like they might prefer a somewhat “simpler” cat (maybe a 1966 Mustang Coupe)?

 

[Mach1E]

The amount of obfuscation and deflection - it’s like arguing with a teenager.

1. You were wrong in making overly sweeping declarations about the illegality of end users disabling speakers.
2. I was correct in stating that this is not illegal.
3. To save face, you then retorted that well “almost everyone here (myself included) was at least partially wrong.”
4. I wasn’t wrong in my statement, partially or otherwise. What I said was correct.

You added conditions such as resale which are not what I was responding to. It would be as if I had said “owning a gun is not illegal” and you responded “yeah, but if you shot someone with it that would be illegal, so you’re partially wrong.” No, I’m not partially wrong in what I said - you attached a condition I was not addressing.

It is not illegal for an end user to disable the speaker. Period.

**except when it is illegal.

**if you sell it, use it for a work vehicle, or live in a state with safety inspections.

Your sweeping declaration is just as false as my original one.

No clue why you seem to just want to win and argument rather than actually get accurate information to the people here on the forum.

It’s not as simple as “illegal or not illegal.” It depends on where you live, how you use your car, and if you make sure to put it back before selling it.

If people just listened to your advice, they would BREAK THE LAW, as soon as they sold it.

Hopefully someone will appreciate me saving them from that mistake.

 

[generaltso]

or live in a state with safety inspections.

Didn’t you say that zero states include it in safety inspections?

 

[Mach1E]

You added conditions such as resale which are not what I was responding to. It would be as if I had said “owning a gun is not illegal” and you responded “yeah, but if you shot someone with it that would be illegal, so you’re partially wrong.” No, I’m not partially wrong in what I said - you attached a condition I was not addressing.

If you want a more accurate version of the gun analogy it would go like this-

You say owning a gun in the US isn’t illegal.

I say it is.

I research and find out it’s illegal if you’re under a certain age, have a criminal history, or live in certain places. I restate these facts and admit that sometimes it’s legal.

You then state, “it’s not illegal, period.”

?‍

 

[Mach1E]

Didn’t you say that zero states include it in safety inspections?

Because in the law for one of the states safety inspections I researched earlier it makes blanket statements about not removing any equipment that makes your vehicle less safe. You could go state by state to read the wording, but who has that time?

Maybe a brave soul with a state inspection will ask the inspector.

They don’t check for it, but that doesn’t make it legal to remove.

And in every state you cannot sell the vehicle with it removed.

Do they specifically check? No, but you have to sign a document stating you don’t remove any required equipment etc.

So you won’t get caught, but the question was about the legality of it.

Pretty similar to airbags.

Federal law- isn’t to the end user. You can remove.
State law- many states have laws specifically about removing them. But most don’t check.
All states- can’t sell the car with it removed.

 

[generaltso]

Because in the law for one of the states safety inspections I researched earlier it makes blanket statements about not removing any equipment that makes your vehicle less safe.

Do they specifically check? No, but you have to sign a document stating you don’t remove any required equipment etc.

Maybe you should point out that state then instead of saying it applies to all states that do inspections. I’ve never had to sign anything.

 

[Mach1E]

Maybe you should point out that state then instead of saying it applies to all states that do inspections. I’ve never had to sign anything.

I did earlier with a link.

The signature thing was for every car I’ve traded in. Had to sign a thing that stated I haven’t modified or removed any safety or emissions equipment (which is illegal in all 50 states).

Not sure anyone has the time or cares to go research it state by state. In the end, even if you ignore the legality, I would
Think the multiple studies proving it’s less safe should be enough.

 

[mkhuffman]

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:

I am conflicted. This debate is not fun, and I like fun debates. It is not fun because people actually think my car is less safe because I disabled the speaker. It is not. So one more try...

The last study you posted is not any better than the others. Yes, it does acknowledge that there are more HEVs in cities, but it does nothing to account for that. They could have made an effort to determine how much higher the percentage of HEVs are, and then adjust results accordingly, but they didn't. It is very frustrating.

They did say that when you consider other potential causes for the accidents, the probability of HEVs goes down: 20% likelihood of a low speed accident instead of 51%. That is a huge difference.

Not only that, there is NO difference in accident rates when all maneuvers are included.

20% could easily be explained just by the fact that there is a higher percentage of HEVs in cities, or by one of the other causes they didn't include in the model. 20% is really not that much higher. 50%, yes, but 20%? So small. They even state they need more data to better understand the impact of other causes.

These studies you are posting are not facts. They are statistics. And they are not convincing to me. Not only that, my personal experience as a pedestrian and cyclist matters. ICEV engines are very quiet. It is possible to hear a ICEV engine over the ambient noise in the parking lot or city, but it is also common to not hear them at all. Like the F150 that came up behind me and I didn't hear it at all.

When I ride my bike on the street, cars come up behind me all the time. I hate it. And I never, ever hear the engine unless it is a work truck. So the data in the study regarding cyclists is unbelievable to me. It makes no sense at all.

Anyway, my car is safe. I am a safe driver. And I am not turning my pedestrian speaker back on, because I hate it. It is irritating and annoying. And it does not do anything but annoy me and others around me.

 

[Mach1E]

I am conflicted. This debate is not fun, and I like fun debates. It is not fun because people actually think my car is less safe because I disabled the speaker. It is not. So one more try...

The last study you posted is not any better than the others. Yes, it does acknowledge that there are more HEVs in cities, but it does nothing to account for that. They could have made an effort to determine how much higher the percentage of HEVs are, and then adjust results accordingly, but they didn't. It is very frustrating.

They did say that when you consider other potential causes for the accidents, the probability of HEVs goes down: 20% likelihood of a low speed accident instead of 51%. That is a huge difference.

Not only that, there is NO difference in accident rates when all maneuvers are included.

20% could easily be explained just by the fact that there is a higher percentage of HEVs in cities, or by one of the other causes they didn't include in the model. 20% is really not that much higher. 50%, yes, but 20%? So small. They even state they need more data to better understand the impact of other causes.

These studies you are posting are not facts. They are statistics. And they are not convincing to me. Not only that, my personal experience as a pedestrian and cyclist matters. ICEV engines are very quiet. It is possible to hear a ICEV engine over the ambient noise in the parking lot or city, but it is also common to not hear them at all. Like the F150 that came up behind me and I didn't hear it at all.

When I ride my bike on the street, cars come up behind me all the time. I hate it. And I never, ever hear the engine unless it is a work truck. So the data in the study regarding cyclists is unbelievable to me. It makes no sense at all.

Anyway, my car is safe. I am a safe driver. And I am not turning my pedestrian speaker back on, because I hate it. It is irritating and annoying. And it does not do anything but annoy me and others around me.

Full circle I guess.

You (or someone, can’t remember who at this point ) asked for studies and data to prove it. We posted multiple studies that draw the same exact conclusion and you just assume that “there has to be some other explanation” for the statistically significant difference in pedestrian crashes with hybrids and electric cars at low speeds.

The slower the speed the bigger the difference in increased crashes.

And that’s inside and outside the city.

Other than hybrids and electrics being QUIETER at low speeds, what possible explanation do you have.

And no, it’s not “because there are more in the city.” If that were the case, the huge difference wouldn’t happen just at slow speeds. And when they ONLY looked at big cities, that was the 20% difference. So it is accounted for. (Big city low speed crashes are 20% more common with BEVs and hybrids).

The worst part about that 20%? I would guarantee that hybrids and BEVs are much NEWER vehicles than the average ICE on the road and should have better crash avoidance tech (blind spot monitoring, backup cameras etc) and they still hit 20% more people in the city.

But again, even if you still choose to ignore the data, what logical argument do you have to prove a quiet car is just as safe as a louder one for a pedestrian? How could it possibly be safe if they can’t hear you coming?

I do understand why you wouldn’t like this debate. It’s because it’s personal. We are actually accusing you of doing something that endangers the people around you and is possibly illegal and/or opens you up to civil liability. They’re pretty serious allegations.

A little different than the typical “is the Tesla ugly” debates. ?

At the end of the day though, I honestly don’t feel as strongly about the topic as it may sound. I put this right in line with speeding (something everyone here does, is illegal, and endangers people around you).

I’m only still debating because there still seems to be a disagreement. I would do the same if anyone tried to argue that speeding is safe or legal. And to be clear…… I speed sometimes.

Sponsored