There have been suggestions that electric cars might need to have artificial noise generators to warn pedestrians and cyclists, who rely to a great extent on auditory cues, of their approach. See for example the article of 4 Dec 2008 obtained by searching for "noise vehicle" on
It has occurred to me to ask why not require vehicles to be silent while putting the onus on the drivers to avoid pedestrians and cyclists. The former, if universal, would bring an unimaginable improvement to the quality of life, and not only in cities, because these days many rural areas are as noisy. The latter -- strict liability -- would force motorists to lower their speeds by enough to make the streets safe for all.
All surface transport vehicles -- lorries, buses, trains and boats -- would be required to install electric engines. Trains and trolleybuses would run under wires as now, but could also take power to batteries while on the move and thereby run on unwired sections. Solar power from the deserts would be used to ensure that this power was emission-free. Low noise surfaces would be installed on major highways where motorists would be able to go fast. Aviation, where noise is probably inevitable, would be tightly constrained in favour of high speed trains and completely outlawed during the normal hours of sleep.
Private vehicles would be subject to a mileage tax in addition to an energy tax (which would be returned to the providers of renewable electricity).
There would be problems with people with limited vision, but given that Monderman stated that he thought people should be able to cross the road walking backwards (i.e. with no forward vision) I think these should be soluble. Are there any other problems which would make this vision unfeasible?
Simon Norton
Cambridge, UK
TheCityFix’s Top 10 Blogs from 2024
6 days ago
Posts
Simon's idea is not only a good idea, it is already supported in law. I have been making this argument with my friends in the blind community who want to put noise-makers on cars--they stand to gain so much more by shifting their focus toward demanding different driver education and an all-out commitment to traffic safety culture.
ReplyDeleteIn my work, I say "what if you were to drive so as to yield to pedestrians, at unmarked crosswalks, at night, when the pedestrian was clad in all black?" Folks, that is already required by law. To drive with this amount of attentiveness slows people down to the posted speed limit, and increases overall traffic safety. I drive this way, and it is not unreasonable to expect that others do as well.
David Levinger [david@mobilityeducation.org]
Mobility Education Foundation,
Seattle WA USA
To add to Simon's email: there is increasing evidence of the adverse health impacts of transport noise, especially through the WHO in Europe. (One pilot study estimated that the number of traffic noise related deaths in the UK was greater than the number of deaths directly attributable to crashes.
ReplyDelete(There's a summary of some of this reaseach on my blog - http://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/the-health-costs-of-noise/ - and an update here -- http://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/more-evidence-that-noise-kills/).
Since much of the World Streets agenda aligns with a noise reduction agenda, I wonder if we should be making more of this as an issue of emerging importance.
Best wishes
Andrew Curry, andrew.nextwave@googlemail.com
thenextwave, http://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com
United Kingdom
--- blog article content --
The health costs of noise
Despite some regulation, noise has been something of a Cinderella of environmental pollution, perhaps because it is often regarded as annoying rather than life threatening. A new (if preliminary) study from the World Health Organisation has quantified the health costs of noise in Europe. They are strikingly high.
According to a report in New Scientist (subscription required, news report here), the WHO found that “Thousands of people around the world may be dying prematurely or succumbing to disease through the effects of noise exposure”.
The Telegraph’s Roger Highfield summarised the science as follows:
“Though preliminary, the WHO’s findings suggest that long-term exposure to traffic noise may account for three per cent of deaths from ischaemic heart disease in Europe - typically strokes and heart attacks.
Given that 7 million people around Europe die each year from heart disease, that would put the toll from exposure to noise at around 210,000 deaths. In England, heart disease kills 110,000 people annually, so the deaths linked to noise could be around 3,300.”
In other words, almost as many people are killed by the indirect effects of traffic noise in the UK as die in vehicle collisions.
The trends on perceptions of noise are also revealing. The UK’s National Society for Clean Air (NSCA) showed that noise had a “major impact” for 45 per cent of respondents, compared with 35 per cent a year earlier, while noise complaints to councils have increase five-fold over 20 years.
Researchers believe that noise provokes a stress response, and it is this that is damaging to health. Our brain monitors noise even while we are asleep. Health effects start to be seen at around 50dB, which is the noise level of light traffic. As well as stress-related heart disease, exposure to noise also has significant effects on learning abilities, memory, and recall.
In this context it is worth noting recent research (opens summary in pdf) that found aviation noise to be a ’significant problem’ across London - a problem that will be increased by the planned third runway. (The study was commissioned by the airport opposition group HACAN, funded by the Greater London Authority, and carried out by an independent consultancy: news report here).
Of course, there is also a significant equity issue buried in this; typically people in poorer communities are more likely to be exposed to the indirect effects of noise. (Busier roads are more likely to go through them.) According to the British Association’s news digest, EU legisation due to take effect by the end of the year will require all cities of over 250,000 inhabitants to produce digitised sound maps that highlight noise pollution hotspots.
Measures such as using low-noise tyres and road surfaces, erecting anti-noise barriers and rerouting traffic to avoid schools and hospitals could be implented. Of course, reducing traffic (and aviation) volumes would also help. I expect to see noise equity issues tested in the courts sooner rather than later.
If I understand this correctly, Pascal, isn't there something a bit odd in principle about a need to require the generating of noise as a requirement for safety?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that like bike bells, to be heard AND identified against a variety of background noise(s), the "good" (?) noise must be both loud and disturbing in order to attract attention.
Examples include compulsory noise generators when trucks and buses are reversing, noise generators at traffic lights to assist people with poor vision, and emergency vehicles.
And the infernal interruptions of mobile phones ringing ...!!!
Certainly the volume could and can be automatically changed to vary as the vehicle moves from noisy to quieter areas but remain a certain level above background noise levels.
However the problem with noise as pollution is that it too is cumulative in the form of increasing background noise levels (and many places already exceed acceptable levels for healthy and stress free living) but worse, and somewhat unlike other forms of pollution, it is the noisy "spikes" that are a real nuisance ... yet these spikes would be necessary if noise is to be relied on to hear an approaching vehicle ... but the noise spikes are not selective as to who hears them.
Examples include low flying aircraft, and noisy IC engines eg on motorbikes and motor scooters.
A friend of ours drives a Prius and it sure is wonderfully quiet ... so having achieved that presumably desirable outcome, making it noiser seems odd to me.
I would far rather go with the "quiet growth" movement ... and a solution is already available ... frontal crash avoidance systems that "read" people ... walking or cycling.
It is worth imagining the effect THAT would have on some of our common interests ... and on the car design industry ...!
regards from Oz ...
Unfortunately CO2 means Europe is now too far away to visit ... bring back the 100 day sailing ship voyages from Europe to Oz ?
Michael Yeates
Brisbane Australia
I agree with the idea that, rather than make vehicles noisier so that the
ReplyDeletevulnerable can hear them and get out of their way, that we shift the onus
back where it once was, from the endangeree to the endangerer. It would not
just be quieter, it would be safer.
We are doing our first pedestrian plan here in Ottawa. And although the
authors mention in a somewhat positive way Monderman's shared/naked streets,
the whole report is based on the might-is-right school of safety, calling
for complete separation. They, too, give the example of the blind
pedestrians as a flaw in shared streets.
But, I said in my comments, that this misses the point: shared streets is
based on expecting those who represent the greatest potential harm to others
to slow down enough to avoid all possible contact, at least at a speed at
which injuries would occur.
I coined a short poem some time ago to explain the principle David mentions:
In every field,
The more you wield,
The more you yield,
Lest others shield.
In the same vein as John Adams' idea mentioned mentioned by Eric (requiring
a spike be mounted on the hub of every steering wheel), I propose that any
motorist who collides with a vulnerable road user, regardless of fault, be
banned from driving for the same time as the victim is unable to fully
resume the mode (walking or cycling) they were doing at the time of contact.
of course, a death would result in a permanent ban for the driver. The
choice to drive (and choose to be an endangerer) is a serious one.
Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa Canada