221–230 of 303 posts
Had to think about it for a second, but the static had to have been simulated by a piece of code to pretend that the input had gone missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"These switch off above 25 MPH or so, so they don't contribute to freeway noise." Ugg. So they only contribute to the destruction of the street-level soundscape to the detriment of walkers, cyclists, sidewalk cafes, and birds.
They contribute to being heard by walkers and cyclist relying on their ears to know whether a car is coming, which is the legal point of adding these things (and why they can be disabled at high speed)
The only people not looking, relying in their ears and therefor constantly causing dangerous traffic situations over here are tourists. Those are the only ones blindly stepping into traffic because they don't hear the bicycles coming and therefor assume there is no traffic.
The need to have traffic go "vroom, vroom" in order to avoid accidents is just pathetic, and utterly unsustainable in a future where all traffic is likely to be silent by nature.
Imagine living a place that would be as nice an quiet as a village on a sunday if it wasn't for all those vehicles creating artificially amplified noise pollution. Ridiculous.
This reminds me of one particular TV set I was messing with recently. Pulling the HDMI cord on an input resulted in the screen showing static . Had to think about it for a second, but the static had to have been simulated by a piece of code to pretend that the input had gone missing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a former Los Angeles bike commuter, and a current walking-commuter (can't think of an elegant word for that). I very much appreciate knowing when a car is coming, but the constant roar on the every street means that conversations have to stop when a truck drives by, you can't hear people talking even when they're only 6 or 7 feet from you, and any sound quieter than an internal combustion engine is diminished. I…
>but maybe I should just try not to hit them instead There's one situation where drivers don't face penalties if they hit and injure/kill a pedestrian: if that pedestrian caused the accident and the driver had no way of preventing it. For example, if a pedestrian assumes there is no traffic and steps into the road without looking, just feet from an oncoming-but-silent car.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/why-drivers-get-aw...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you see any problem with the silence in terms of safety? There is a reason bicycles need to have a bell. Because these you also cannot hear when they approach you. Although, it would be funny seeing a Tesla with a nice little bell and the tacked on law that you have to use it to alarm others in front of you that you are approaching. That'll be a sight to behold.
You know, deaf people have managed to survive by looking around before they step onto the road. Anyone who thinks we need cars to make loud noises just so that everyone can feel safer, I will personally make sure to blare my horn as loudly as possible as I drive past their house at 2 am.
And what about blind people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you see any problem with the silence in terms of safety? There is a reason bicycles need to have a bell. Because these you also cannot hear when they approach you. Although, it would be funny seeing a Tesla with a nice little bell and the tacked on law that you have to use it to alarm others in front of you that you are approaching. That'll be a sight to behold.
You know, deaf people have managed to survive by looking around before they step onto the road. Anyone who thinks we need cars to make loud noises just so that everyone can feel safer, I will personally make sure to blare my horn as loudly as possible as I drive past their house at 2 am.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least some of the remaining 20% are blind, and only have engine noise to work on when trying to work out if its safe for them to cross the road or not. I doubt the simulated engine noise has to be very loud to alert those people to the presence of a vehicle, but it does seem unreasonable to ask them to just take their chances, or listen out for the sound of tires rolling along tarmac.
There are many other dangers not making noise. Bikes for example. Blind or not, no one should rely on noise to decide whether it is safe to cross a street. People got used to live with cars, it will be only a minuscule increment to get used to live with silent electric cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With a sane legal framework surrounding driving, the driver would need to be sure they were not going to hit you, rather than you needing to be sure you wouldn't be hit.
For a pedestrian hit by a car, legal liability is often not the main concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it this way. Enhancing the engine sound is like optimizing the acoustics of a concert hall - you're still listening to nothing but the sounds from the orkestra. Artifically playing a prerecorded engine sound, is like sitting in a room full of speakers and amplifiers. You still hear the orkestra, but only a prerecorded version. The result might be the same, but there are subtle differences.
I think that highlights the difference for me: you come to the orchestra to hear the music. People like the sound of a car revving because they associate it with engine power, but the revving itself isn't inherently desirable; can you imagine generations growing up without ever seeing a fuel-burning car, but still associating the loudness and deepness of a car's speaker's rumbling with its power? People like the revv…