Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.
CAR reveals spy shots of McLaren P11 supercar
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
In the Autobog Garage: 2009 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this thread(Page 1 of 1)
Keith Griffin @ Feb 19th 2008 7:50AM
The NFB has a good solution to the problem on its own website that wouldn't involve legislation. This is from its Quiet Car Conference November 2006:
"One alternative would be the development of a device capable of detecting vehicles and providing blind pedestrians with information about them which has in the past been available through hearing. Such a device, one that blind pedestrians would carry and use, would have certain advantages. There would be no need to convince people who have little incentive to change that a modification of their vehicle design is required. Inventing and overseeing the production of such a device could allow the people for whom the problem is most acute to be in charge of designing the solution. There would be no need to accommodate the blind through changes in the environment; rather, the blind would adapt for themselves."
If only more groups would embrace the idea of not changing an environment, but rather adapting to it, there might be less need for intrusive legislation.
AJay @ Feb 20th 2008 5:01AM
My sentiments exactly. I am appalled by how common place it has become for people to believe they are justified in forcing the many to conform to the needs of the few. It is far more realistic, intelligent and appropriate for the few (in this case the blind or vision impaired for all the PC freaks) to adapt to change. This whole situation is solved with a seeing eye dog. If people really feel something must be done, then why not have hybrid/electric vehicles transmit a signal that could be received by a device the blind can carry that would alert them to the approaching vehicles proximity?
recoveringlawyer @ Feb 20th 2008 9:28PM
The National Federation of the Blind has considered all alternative solutions to the problems posed by the silence of hybrid vehicles and other new vehicle technologies, including the solution you mention. However, it has been decided that the disadvantages of such a device outweigh the advantages. Why should the blind have to carry yet another device (in addition to our cell phones, PDA's, canes, keys, etc.) to do what our ears used to do perfectly well? What if we accidentally leave it at home, or its batteries die, or it simply fails to function properly at a critical moment? How would the device tell us if more than one silent vehicle is approaching, or how fast it's going, or in what direction--things which our ears now tell us? What about other pedestrians, people who ride bicycles, and small children, who might also be affected by the absence of vehicle sound? If it's unreasonable to expect all pedestrians to carry such a device, then it's also unreasonable to expect the blind to do so. Technology may in the future provide a comprehensive solution to this problem, but it doesn't appear feasible right now.